text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Our present world picture is based on two theories: the standard model of particle physics and general relativity, the theory of gravity. These two theories have scored astonishing successes. It is therefore quite striking when one learns that this picture of the laws of physics is inconsistent. The inconsistency comes from taking a part of theory, the standard model, as a quantum theory while the other, gravity, as a classical theory. At first sight it seems that all we need to do is to quantize general relativity. If one performs an expansion in terms of Feynman diagrams, the technique used in the standard model, then one finds infinities that cannot be absorbed in a renormalization of the Newton constant (and the cosmological constant). In fact as one goes to higher and higher orders in perturbation theory one would have to include more and more counterterms. In other words, the theory is not renormalizable. So the principle that is so crucial for constructing the Standard model fails. It is now more surprising that an inconsistent theory could agree so well with experiment!. What happens is that quantum gravity effects are usually very small due to the weakness of gravity relative to other forces. Since the effects of gravity are proportional to the mass, or the energy of the particle, they grow at high energies. At energies of the order of $`E10^{19}Gev`$ gravity would have a strength comparable with that of the other Standard Model interactions222 This is an energy scale where we should definitely see new physics, it is nevertheless possible that quantum gravity becomes relevant at much lower energies, $`E`$ 1-10 $`Tev`$ . . We should also remember that physics as we understand it now cannot explain the most important “experiment” that ever happened: the Big Bang. It is quite interesting that the Big-Bang theory links high energy physics and cosmology and in order to understand what happened in the beginning it seems that we need to understand quantum gravity. There are also esthetic reasons for wanting a theory beyond the Standard Model. We would like to explain the origin of the gauge group, the relations between the three couplings, the rest of the parameters of the standard model, why we have three generations, etc. It is very suggestive that if one extrapolates the running of the couplings they seem to meet at energies that are close to the energy where quantum gravity becomes important, suggesting that a grand unified field theory, based on a bigger gauge group would in any case lie close to the Planck scale. The present situation is analogous to the situation particle physics was in when we only had Fermi’s theory of weak interactions. It was a theory that agreed well with experiments performed at low energies but it was not a consistent theory. Renomalizability, or mathematical consistency, was a crucial clue for the discovery of the Standard Model.

The challenges we face can be separated, in degree of difficulty, in the following three:

I) Formulate an internally consistent theory of quantum gravity. By this we mean a theory which reduces at low energies, $`E10^{19}Gev`$, to general relativity but in which we can perform quantum calculations to any order we wish. This theory should solve some fundamental problems with quantum gravity such as explaining the origin of black hole entropy, etc. These are questions about gravity which do not involve directly the fact that we also have the particle physics that we see in nature.

II) Be capable of incorporating the Standard Model. So the theory should be such that at low energies it can contain chiral gauge fields, fermions, etc.

III) Explain the Big-Bang and the parameters of the Standard Model. We should understand the resolution of the initial singularity in cosmology and we should understand why we have the Standard Model. We should understand how the standard model parameters arise, which parameters are related, and which parameters (if any) arise as a “historical” accident.

We know have a theory, called string theory (or M-theory), which has been able already to provide a solution to the first two challenges. Unfortunately we do not know yet how to solve the third challenge. Maybe string theory is the solution and we just have to understand it better or maybe we have to modify it in some way. String theory is a theory under construction. We know several limits and aspects of the theory but we still do not know the fundamental axioms of the theory that would enable us to approach the third challenge.

String theory is based on the idea that fundamental objects are not point particles, as in particle theories, but one dimensional objects called strings. Let us first review how we construct a theory of interacting particles. We start with a set of free particles, for example electrons, photons, quarks, gluons. These particles can have different states; e.g. they could have the spin pointing up or down. Then we consider interactions. These are introduced by allowing particles to split into two other particles with some probability amplitude $`g`$. $`g`$ will be the interaction strength or coupling constant. For example and electron could emit a photon, etc. So in order to compute a scattering amplitude we have to sum over all paths of the particles and all ways in which they could emit other particles, etc. These sums are performed via Feynman diagrams. In figure 1(a,b) we see some examples of Feynman diagrams. String theory is constructed in a completely analogous way. We first start with free strings. Strings can be open or closed. Let us just consider a theory with only closed strings. The strings are “relativistic”, meaning that their tension is equal to their mass per unit length. So that if we had a stretched string an oscillation would propagate at the speed of light along it. The tension is a dimensionful quantity which we can parameterize in terms of a distance scale $`T=1/l_s^2`$. Strings can oscillate. These oscillations can be decomposed in normal modes. Since strings are quantum mechanical objects each normal mode will have a certain occupation number. The total energy of the oscillating string will be quantized. And the total mass of an oscillating string will be equal to the total energy contained in the oscillations. When we view this oscillating string from far away it looks like a pointlike object. These different oscillatory states of the string are analogous to the different polarization states of the particles, now that the mass of the string state itself depends on the “polarization” state. Some of these oscillatory states of the string will have zero energy and will thus be massless particles. There is one state with spin two which can be viewed as the graviton. The masses of the massive string states are of the order $`m1/l_s`$. String interactions are introduced by allowing strings that touch to recombine into one string. These are splitting and joining interactions as shown in figure 1 (c,d). The amplitude for this process defines the string coupling $`g`$. In order to compute any process in string theory we have to sum over all possible splitting and joining interactions. The simplest string theories are those that live in ten dimensions and are supersymmetric. The sum over string theory Feynman diagrams can be performed and yields finite results. At low energies, energies lower than the mass of the massive string states $`E1/l_s`$ the only excitation we will have are gravitons and other massless particles. The interactions of these particles are those of Einstein gravity plus some other massless fields. In this way string theory manages to quantize gravity. What we have described here amounts to a perturbative quantization of the theory, in the same way that the Feynman diagram expansion in particle physics is a perturbative quantization of the field theory. But there are non-perturbative aspects of the theory that are not captured by the perturbative theory. One example is soliton solutions, like magnetic monopoles of grand unified theories. These are collective excitations that are stable, typically for some topological reason. Their masses go as $`m1/g^2`$ and in the weak coupling approximation we can study them as solutions of the classical field theory action. In field theories we can also have extended solitons, like cosmic strings or domain walls. In string theory we also have solitons. These solitons are called D-branes. D-branes are solitons with different dimensionalities. They can be pointlike (D-0-brane), one dimensional (D-1-brane), two-dimensional (D-2-brane), etc. These solitons have a very precise description in string theory . Their excitations are described by open strings that end on them. At low energies some of the open string modes are massless, have spin one and give rise to gauge fields. When we put many branes together the open strings have two indices $`i,j`$ labeling the brane where they start and the brane where they end see figure 2. These two indices become the indices of non-abelian $`U(N)`$ gauge fields.

It might be surprising that we were discussing a ten dimensional theory while our world is “obviously” four dimensional. What we really see is that the world is four dimensional at long distances, we do not really know the dimensionality of the world at short enough distances. In string theory we assume that we are living in a world that has four large dimensions (the ones we see) and six very small dimensions, see figure 3. It is a familiar phenomenon in condensed matter that if an electron is confined to move on a very narrow layer then the electron will behave as if it was moving in only two dimensions. Similarly particles that move in a ten dimensional space with six small dimensions will behave at low energies as if they were moving only in four dimensions. What is the size of these extra dimensions? The traditional view is that they are all small, of the order of $`10^{33}cm`$. But recently it was realized that some dimensions could be as big as $`1mm`$ . In that case all the standard model fields would have to be confined to live on a D-brane that is extended along the four extended dimensions that we see but transverse to the large extra dimensions. Picking different manifolds or brane configurations we can have different particles at low energies. In both cases the Standard Model parameters would depend on the details of the internal manifold or brane configuration. Compactifications which preserve 8,4 or 2 supersymmetries at low energies are fairly well understood. The case where we preserve only one supersymmetry is not so well understood and we do not understand how supersymmetry can be broken, as it is in the real world, without generating a huge cosmological constant, of the order of the supersymmetry breaking scale. This seems to be the most important obstacle in understanding precisely how the Standard Model is embedded in string theory.

Recent progress in string theory was based on the idea of dualities. It is familiar that classical electromagnetism is invariant under the interchange of electric and magnetic fields $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{E}`$. This exchanges electric charges with magnetic charges. In field theories electric charges are carried by fundamental particles and magnetic charges by solitons. So this duality exchanges elementary particles with solitons. This can be achieved by changing the coupling constant as $`g1/g`$ so that solitons that were heavy become light, like elementary particles. In many string theories we have dualities of this type. When the coupling becomes strong in terms of some variables the theory has an equivalent description in terms of some dual variables that can be weakly coupled. In this fashion many string theories are connected. These dualities are hard to check since one has to solve the strongly coupled theory in order to show that it is the same as some dual weakly coupled theory. In supersymmetric cases there are several quantities that one can calculate which do not depend on the coupling. They can be calculated at weak coupling, extrapolated to strong coupling, and then compared with the corresponding result in the dual theory. For this reason dualities have been checked mostly in supersymmetric theories. Examples of quantities that are protected by supersymmetry and can be calculated are: 1) Low energy effective action, 2) The number and masses of various “protected” special states, these are typically some charged particles. These states could be elementary on one theory and solitons on the dual theory. Books on string theory include

## 2 Black hole entropy

Black holes are one of the most intriguing objects that general relativity predicts. In classical general relativity black holes have a horizon, which is a surface in spacetime such that if somebody crosses it he/she cannot come back out. This surface, however, does not look special at all for the observer who is falling in. Black holes became even more intriguing when Hawking showed that they emit thermal radiation due to quantum effects. So a black hole is more like a black body, which will emit thermal radiation. For a black hole in four dimensions the temperature is inversely proportional to its radius, $`T1/r1/(G_NM)10^4K(M_{sun}/M)`$. We see that for black holes that are produced for normal astrophysical processes, whose mass is always bigger than the mass of the sun, this temperature is too small to be detected, since it much lower that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The fact that they are thermal objects raises very interesting and very important theoretical puzzles, solving these puzzles is one of the challenges of a theory of quantum gravity. We are used to the fact that when we encounter a thermal object we can explain its temperature as arising from the motion of the internal constituents. So the question becomes, what are the internal constituents of the black hole that explain its temperature? This question is often phased in terms of explaining the microscopic origin of the entropy. The entropy can be defined through the first law of thermodynamics as $`dM=TdS`$. The entropy comes of to be $`S=A_H/(4G_N)`$. In other words, the entropy is proportional to the area of the horizon in Planck units. Any theory of quantum gravity, such as string theory, should explain this entropy. In string theory it is hard to calculate this entropy directly since strings describe small fluctuations around flat space while a black hole represents a large deviation from Minkowski space. Recently, when the dynamics of D-branes was understood, it became possible to calculate this entropy for some special cases . Consider a compactification of string theory down to four dimensions that preserves two supersymmetries. In such a theory we could consider charged black holes. In general charged black holes should satisfy a constraint on the mass that looks like $`MQ`$ in order to avoid naked singularities, i.e. singularities which are not covered by a horizon. In these theories with two supersymmetries this constraint coincides with the so called BPS bound. This is a bound coming from the supersymmetry algebra. The charge $`Q`$ appears in the right hand side of the supersymmetry algebra and the BPS bound comes from demanding unitarity of the representations. Furthermore, the states with $`M=Q`$ lie in a smaller representation of the supersymmetry algebra and the number of states in such representations does not depend on the coupling or other continuous parameters in the theory333Most precisely the number of states that cannot be combined into larger representations, such as the ones with $`M>Q`$, remains invariant.. Black holes with $`M=Q`$ are also special from the point of view of the gravity theory, they are called extremal black holes and for them the Hawking temperature vanishes. In these supersymmetric theories it is possible to change parameters so that the black hole configuration becomes a weakly coupled system of D-branes and strings whose entropy one can calculate fairly easily, see figure 4. The answer, of course, comes out to be the same as the area of the corresponding black hole solution. Since the number of BPS states does not change when we do this transformation this provides a derivation of black hole entropy for these special black holes in these supergravity theories. The entropy of more general black holes, including near extremal black holes ($`M>Q`$ but $`MQQ`$), can be computed using the AdS/CFT correspondence as it will be explained below. The entropy of general black holes in completely general string backgrounds cannot be calculated with the present techniques.

## 3 Conformal field theories and Anti-de-Sitter spacetimes

Although string theory was described above as a theory of quantum gravity, it originated as an attempt to describe hadrons. The string description explained some features of the hadron spectrum such as Regge trajectories, etc.. We now know that hadrons are described by QCD, but it is still quite hard to do computations at low energies due to strong coupling problems. In fact we expect confinement. Confinement is thought to arise from the fact that the color electric field lines form narrow bundles in going from a quark to an anti-quark, see figure 5. These fluxes look at low energies like strings and one might expect that at low energies a description in terms of string might be valid. It was shown by ’t Hooft  that the proper way to understand these strings is to take the limit of a large number of colors $`N\mathrm{}`$, keeping $`g_{YM}^2N`$ fixed. In this limit only planar Feynman diagrams survive. These planar Feynman diagrams seem to be giving a discretization of a string worldsheet. However it was not clear what kind of string theory that would be.

For the case of Yang Mills theory with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetries and a large number of colors $`N`$ it has been conjectured that these gauge strings are the same as the fundamental strings described above but moving in a particular curved spacetime: the product of five-dimensional Anti-de-Sitter space and a five-sphere . Five dimensional AdS has a boundary which is four dimensional. The field theory is defined on this four dimensional boundary. In figure 6 we can see the Penrose diagram of AdS.

The radius of curvature of this spacetime is proportional to $`(g_{YM}^2N)^{1/4}`$ and the string coupling is $`g_s=g_{YM}^2`$ which goes like $`1/N`$ for fixed $`g_{YM}^2N`$ as expected from ’t Hooft’s general argument. There have been a large number of checks for this correspondence. Many checks are possible due to the large number of supersymmetries. The simplest check is the observation that both theories have the same symmetries. $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang Mills theory is scale invariant, the coupling does not run, it is independent of the energy. Non supersymmetric Yang Mills is classically conformal invariant but quantum corrections introduce a length scale through the running of the coupling. In conformal theories the symmetry group includes translations, rotations, scale transformations and the so called special conformal transformations. All these form the group mathematically known as $`SO(2,4)`$. This group is the group of isometries of AdS. Similarly the Yang Mills theory has an $`SO(6)`$ global symmetry group, which is the same as the group of rotations of $`S^5`$. In fact when we consider string theory on $`AdS5\times S^5`$ we also have the same supersymmetries as the gauge theory. Other checks include the comparison of the spectrum of BPS particles, renormalization group flows that partially break supersymmetry, etc. Many extensions of this correspondence were suggested, for other theories with less or no supersymmetry and for theories that are not conformal invariant. For a detailed account of the checks and a more extensive list of references on this subject see . A puzzling aspect is that the bulk theory contains gravity while the field theory does not contain gravity. Gravity in the bulk is related to the stress tensor of the boundary theory in the following way. Correlation functions for the stress tensor in the field theory are equated with the amplitude for propagation of gravitons between prescribed points at the boundary. Correlation functions of operators in the field theory can be calculated, using the correspondence, as the amplitudes that particles propagate through the bulk between prescribed points at the boundary , see figure 7. Each operator corresponds to a particle, or more precisely a string mode, propagating in $`AdS`$. The mass of the particle in AdS is related to the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the field through

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2+\sqrt{4+(mR_{AdS})^2}$$

Similarly we can calculate the the quark antiquark potential by considering a string that goes between two points on the boundary see figure 8. In this picture we can see that the strings that move in the ten dimensional space are precisely the strings representing fluxes of color fields. We can thus say that strings made of gluons look very much like ordinary fundamental strings when $`g_{YM}^2N`$ is large. It is a general feature of dualities that some excitations that look fundamental in one picture are collective excitations in the dual theory. If we compute the quark-antiquark potential by computing the energy of the string in this curved background we find that it goes like $`V(L)1/L`$ where $`L`$ is the separation in the four dimensional theory. This potential is not confining and it should not be, since the field theory is conformal. It is possible to deform the field theory in such a way that one destroys conformal invariance and supersymmetry at low energies. The resulting theory is expected to be confining. Indeed one can find the corresponding supergravity solution and find that the geometry is deformed and now the quark-antiquark potential is indeed confining and the theory has a mass gap . Even though the theory is confining it is not pure Yang-Mills, it is a strongly coupled version of it. In order to find the large $`N`$ limit of pure Yang-Mills one needs to consider strings propagating in a curved spacetime whose curvature is of the order of the string scale. In this situation the gravity approximation would not be good enough. Treating strings is these small spaces is a challenging problem, which is being explored. What we have seen so far are applications of the correspondence to the study of large $`N`$, strongly coupled field theories. The correspondence can also be used to learn about gravity. It is harder to use it in this direction since the field theory is strongly coupled and therefore hard to solve. There are, however, some general statements that one could make. One of the most mysterious objects in a gravity theory is a black hole. One can consider a black hole in $`AdS`$. This black hole is, in principle, described by some thermal state in the boundary theory. If we have a big black hole, of the order of the size of the $`AdS`$ radius, its entropy will be inversely proportional to the Newton constant which is of order $`1/N^2`$. So the entropy will be of order $`N^2`$, which agrees with the number that we would naively expect in the field theory since we have $`N^2`$ gluons. In the case of $`AdS_3`$ it is possible to precisely calculate the entropy in the field theory and the result agrees with gravity precisely, see the review . An aspect of gravity that is manifest in via this correspondence is holography . Holography says that in a quantum theory of gravity we should be able to describe physics in some region of space by a theory with at most one degree of freedom per unit Planck area. Notice that the number of degrees of freedom would then increase with the area and not with the volume as we are normally used to. Of course, for all physical systems that we normally encounter the number of degrees of freedom is much smaller than the area, since the Planck length is so small. It is called “holography” because it would be analogous to a hologram which can store a three dimensional image in a two dimensional surface. In this case we represent the physics of the five dimensional Anti-de-Sitter spacetime with a theory that lives on its boundary. It is a concrete example of holography. Understanding it better might lead to more insights about quantum gravity.

## 4 Conclusions

We have learned that the laws of physics as we know them are not consistent, since we do not treat gravity using quantum mechanics. Formulating the correct theory of quantum gravity would enable us to understand the big bang and most probably the parameters of the standard model. String theory is enables us to study a whole class of phenomena that we expect in a theory of quantum gravity. The theory is not yet developed to the point of making definite experimental predictions, but is understood well enough to explain some quantum gravity phenomena like black hole entropy and evaporation, topology change, etc. Supersymmetric phases of string theory are fairly well explored. One of the main challenges is to find a supersymmetry breaking mechanism that does not generate a large cosmological constant. Many connections were found between different string theories and between string theory and field theory. It has been shown that string theory reduces, in certain circumstances, to ordinary four dimensional field theories and vice-versa. We hope that in the near future we will understand the theory better so as to make contact with experiment.

I am grateful to the organizers and participants for an interesting conference. This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40654 and the Sloan and Packard foundations.


format: text

text:
# An analytic model for the epoch of halo creation

## 1 Introduction

The hierarchical build-up of self-gravitating dark matter is thought to drive evolution in the observable universe. The formation of clumps of dark matter precipitates the formation of galaxies by providing a potential well into which gas can fall and subsequently cool. Violent mergers between equally sized halos and their associated galaxies are thought to be important for starbursts and quasar activation. In order to model and understand the observable universe it is therefore essential to understand the build-up of the dark structure.

The most widely used analytic model for the distribution of mass in isolated halos at any epoch comes from Press-Schechter (PS) theory \[Press & Schechter 1974\]. By smoothing the initial field of density fluctuations on different scales, information on the distribution of perturbation sizes can be obtained. Linking the time at which these perturbations collapse to the initial overdensities using the simplified spherical top-hat collapse model allows the distribution of mass in isolated halos at any epoch to be determined \[Press & Schechter 1974, Peacock & Heavens 1990, Bond et al. 1991\].

In Percival & Miller \[Percival & Miller 1999\] (hereafter paper I), we used the tenets of PS theory to model the related, but distinct problem of determining the distribution of times at which halos of a given mass are created. Here, ‘creation’ is defined as the epoch at which non-linear collapse is predicted. Two derivations were given, one of which directly used the trajectories invoked in PS theory \[Peacock & Heavens 1990, Bond et al. 1991\], and one of which used Bayes’ theorem to convert from the PS mass function to a time distribution. The second derivation required the prior for the creation time which was calculated by examining the trajectories model.

In this paper we extend the Bayesian link between the mass function and the creation time distribution to cover any mass function. This is important, not only because it is known that standard PS theory is wrong in detail (e.g. Sheth & Tormen 1999), but especially because the new extension applies to mass functions derived from more general density fields including non-Gaussian models (e.g. Matarrese, Verde & Jimenez 2000).

First, we adopt the assumption that all clumps monotonically increase in mass on the cosmological time scales of interest. This monotonic growth is an inevitable aspect of gravitational instability. Every epoch should now be thought of as a creation time for a given clump, and we need not make the distinction between the creation time distribution and the distribution of times at which a given halo exists.

In order to convert from a mass function to a distribution in time we require the prior for the creation time. This is the rate at which creation events occur, given no information about the halo mass. In this work we use the spherical top-hat collapse (STHC) model to provide a simple mechanism for determining the required rate. In Section 2 we derive the link between collapse time and the overdensity at an early epoch for the STHC model within any Friedmann cosmology. Having determined that this relation is independent of halo mass, this leads directly to an approximation to the prior for the creation time, described in Section 3. This is the second major assumption adopted in this paper: that the prior for the creation time is well approximated by this simple model for the break-away of structure from linear expansion. This means that following the two simple assumptions detailed above, we are able to convert any mass function to give the distribution of epochs at which halos of a given mass are created.

Simple models of cosmologically evolving phenomena often adopt an important mass range rather than a specific halo mass (e.g. paper I, Granato et al. 1999). In order to use the work presented here in these models, the joint distribution of halos in mass and creation time is required. Although calculating the required joint probability is formally impossible because the equations cannot be properly normalised, a formula with the correct shape can be determined and is presented in Section 5.

So far we have not made a distinction between the slow accretion of mass onto a halo and major mergers between halos. Such a distinction is important because only major mergers are thought to play a vital role in starbursts and quasar activation (see paper I). The time distribution calculated in this paper determines when halos existed (or were created by any mechanism assuming monotonic clump growth) which is not necessarily equal to the distribution of merger events. This is discussed in Section 6.

Finally, we compare the analytic link between the mass function and the creation rate to the results from three numerical simulations of structure formation in different cosmological models. An analytic fit to the mass function as described by Sheth & Tormen \[Sheth & Tormen 1999\] is adopted and is converted into a creation rate using the STHC model. This model is compared with and shown to be in good agreement with the numerical results.

## 2 The Spherical Top-Hat Collapse Model

In this Section we analyse the STHC model which is the simplest model for the way in which clumps of dark matter break free from linear growth and undergo non-linear collapse. We present the derivation of the link between the initial overdensity and the collapse time $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ in a form which clearly shows that this link is independent of the mass of the overdensity. The derivation also demonstrates a method for calculating this link within any Friedmann cosmology. Similar derivations have been previously discussed in a variety of subsets of this space: for an Einstein-de Sitter model, a derivation is given by Gunn & Gott \[Gunn & Gott 1972\], for an open $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0`$ model by Lacey & Cole \[Lacey & Cole 1993\], and for a flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V0`$ universe by Eke Cole & Frenk \[Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996\]. A summary of these results is given in Kitayama & Suto \[Kitayama & Suto 1996\]. A numerical prescription for the calculation of the overdensity in any cosmology has also been developed \[Somerville & Primack 1999\].

These derivations all use the same basic idea which is adopted in this work: the behaviour of two spheres of equal mass is compared within the cosmological framework. One of the spheres evolves with the background density $`\rho _b(t)`$, while the other is perturbed by a uniform excess density $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (t)`$. In subsequent analysis, a subscript ‘$`b`$’ denotes that a quantity relates to the sphere with background density, and ‘$`p`$’ to the perturbation.

Matter is assumed to be an ideal fluid with no pressure and the universe is modelled as spherically symmetric around the perturbation. As a consequence of Birkhoff’s theorem, the gravitational field of both the perturbation and the background is described by a Robertson-Walker (RW) metric with curvature constant $`K`$, and RW scale factor $`a(t)`$. The behaviour of such perturbations is governed by Friedmann’s equation which we will consider in the form:

$$\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2+K=\frac{2GM}{a}+(H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_V)a^2$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the mass inside the sphere. Note that in order to compare spheres with different behaviour, we do not normalise the scale factor $`a(t)`$ to equal the curvature scale (by dividing by $`\sqrt{|K|}`$) so $`K`$ is allowed to take any real value.

To calculate the behaviour of the overdensity at an early time, we note that a series solution for $`a(t)`$ in the limit $`t0`$ can be obtained for Equation 1. This is given by $`a=\alpha t^{2/3}+\beta t^{4/3}+O(t^{6/3})`$, where:

$$\alpha =\left(\frac{9GM}{2}\right)^{1/3},\beta =\frac{3K}{20}\left(\frac{6}{GM}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(2)
Using the fact that the spheres contain equal mass, the behaviour of $`\delta (t)\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (t)/\rho _b(t)`$ in the limit $`t0`$ is given by:

$`\underset{t0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho (t)}{\rho _b(t)}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_b(t)^3}{a_p(t)^3}}1\right)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\alpha }}(\beta _p\beta _b)t^{2/3}+O(t^{4/3}).`$
Defining:

$$ϵ=\frac{K}{(GMH_0)^{2/3}},$$
(4)
the present day normalisation of Equation 1 gives that for a sphere of uniform background density:

$$ϵ_b=(\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_V1)\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{2/3},$$
(5)
We can now combine Equations 23 & 5 to determine the behaviour of $`\delta (t)`$ in the limit $`t0`$ as a function of $`ϵ_p`$:

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\delta (t)=\frac{9}{20}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)^{1/3}$$

$$\times \left[(\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_V1)\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{2/3}ϵ_p\right](H_0t)^{2/3}$$

$$+O[(H_0t)^{4/3}]$$
(6)
If the field of perturbations is linearly extrapolated to present day and normalised here, the approximation of Carroll, Press & Turner \[Carroll, Press & Turner 1992\] for the ratio of the current linear amplitude to the Einstein-de Sitter model can be used to extrapolate the limiting behaviour of $`\delta `$ to this epoch. The extrapolated limit, $`\delta _{\mathrm{lim}}`$, is related to $`ϵ_p`$ by:

$$\delta _{\mathrm{lim}}\frac{3}{8}\left(4\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)^{2/3}\left[(\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_V1)\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}\right)^{2/3}ϵ_p\right]$$

$$\times \left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{4/7}\mathrm{\Omega }_V+\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)\left(1+\frac{1}{70}\mathrm{\Omega }_V\right)\right]^1.$$
(7)
A similar formula is possible if the field of fluctuations is normalised at any other epoch. Note that $`\delta _{\mathrm{lim}}(ϵ_p+\mathrm{constant})`$ and the time dependence of $`\delta _{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is given by that of $`ϵ_p`$.

For the perturbation, the radius of maximum expansion can be calculated from Equation 1: this radius corresponds to the first positive root of the equation $`2GM+H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_Va^3Ka=0`$ denoted by $`a_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This leads to a necessary and sufficient condition for the perturbation to collapse: that such a (finite) root exists. Because of the symmetry in Equation 1, this model predicts that the perturbation will collapse to a singularity at a time equal to twice the time required to reach maximal expansion:

$$H_0t_{\mathrm{coll}}=2_0^{a_{\mathrm{max}}^{}}\left(\frac{2}{a^{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_V(a^{})^2ϵ_p\right)^{1/2}𝑑a^{}$$
(8)
where we have changed from $`a`$ to $`a^{}=aH_0^{2/3}/(GM)^{1/3}`$, and $`a_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ is the first positive root of the equation:

$$2+\mathrm{\Omega }_V(a^{})^3ϵ_pa^{}=0.$$
(9)
Although collapse to a singularity does not occur in practice, the virialisation epoch is assumed to be similar to $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$.

For perturbations that collapse, $`\delta _{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is called the ‘critical’ density and is denoted $`\delta _c`$. Equation 7 then gives $`\delta _c(ϵ_p)`$. Equations 8 & 9 give $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}(ϵ_p)`$, and the combination of these three Equations gives the required link between $`\delta _c`$ and the collapse time. Note that these Equations are independent of the perturbation mass, and therefore so is the link between the initial overdensity and the collapse time.

In practice we wish to use these Equations to calculate $`\delta _c(z_{\mathrm{coll}},\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_V)`$ or $`d\delta _c(z_{\mathrm{coll}},\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_V)/dt`$ where $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ is the collapse redshift. Unfortunately this is not easy as Equations 8 & 9 cannot be inverted to give $`ϵ_p(t_{\mathrm{coll}})`$. The procedure adopted is as follows: the collapse time can be numerically determined from $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ using the Friedmann equation for the background cosmology. $`ϵ_p`$ can be determined numerically using Equations 8 & 9, and $`\delta _c`$ can be calculated using Equation 7. $`d\delta _c/dt`$ can be calculated numerically from $`\delta _c(t_{\mathrm{coll}})`$ and is discussed further in the next Section.

For the subset of cosmological models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0`$, the above procedure is simplified and analytic formula can be obtained for $`\delta _c`$. In this case, Equation 8 reduces to:

$$H_0t_{\mathrm{coll}}=2_0^{2/ϵ_p}\left(\frac{2}{a^{}}ϵ_p\right)^{1/2}𝑑a^{}.$$
(10)
Making the substitution $`\mathrm{tan}(\theta )=(2/a^{}ϵ_p)^{1/2}`$, this integral can be solved to give:

$$H_0t_{\mathrm{coll}}=\frac{2\pi }{ϵ_p^{3/2}}.$$
(11)
We now show that these Equations provide the result of Gunn & Gott \[Gunn & Gott 1972\] for an Einstein-de Sitter cosmology. In this case, substituting Equation 11 into Equation 7 gives that:

$$\delta _c(t_{\mathrm{coll}})=\frac{3}{20}\left(\frac{8\pi }{H_0t_{\mathrm{coll}}}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(12)
We can now change from collapse time to collapse redshift to give:

$`\delta _c(z_{\mathrm{coll}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{20}}(12\pi )^{2/3}(1+z_{\mathrm{coll}})`$ (13)
$``$ $`1.69(1+z_{\mathrm{coll}}),`$
which is the equation of Gunn & Gott \[Gunn & Gott 1972\].

## 3 From a mass function to a time distribution

In this Section we show how to convert from a mass function to the distribution of times at which isolated halos of a given mass exist. First, we make the assumption that the mass of any clump is a monotonically increasing function of time so that the mass will increase between any two epochs. This is true for Press-Schechter theory (see paper I). Note that this mass growth is not constrained to be continuous and the mass is allowed to undergo instantaneous finite increases, or ‘mass jumps’. Following this assumption, every epoch at which a halo exists should also be considered as a ‘creation’ epoch: every halo is a new isolated halo of some mass. The distribution of ‘creation events’ is therefore the same as the distribution of times at which the halos exist. Note that by definition this only applies to isolated halos which have not been subsumed into larger objects.

In this paper we have called this epoch the ‘creation’ time of a halo in order to avoid confusion with other authors definitions of the ‘formation’ time of a halo. Note that this semantic change was not adopted in paper I. The ‘formation’ time of a halo was defined by Lacey & Cole \[Lacey & Cole 1993\] as the latest time when the largest progenitor of a halo has a mass less than half that of the final halo. This definition makes sense if we are discussing a non-evolving quantity, say the existence of a galaxy halo, and wish to know when it was formed given that it exists at present day. However, suppose we do not know anything about the build-up of a halo before or after it has mass $`M`$ and only wish to know when it was likely to have existed. This Lacey & Cole definition of ‘formation’ cannot help us for we do not know the time and mass from which to determine progenitors: progenitors of what?

In order to calculate the probability density function (pdf) of the times at which halos exist, we consider the set of all possible times and all possible halo masses. This is the ‘sample space’ of our ‘experiment’. The experiment consists of choosing a particle, or small mass element, and an ‘event’ is given by any subset of the sample space: for instance that the particle is part of a halo of mass $`M_1<M<M_2`$ created at time $`t_1<t<t_2`$, or that the particle inhabits a halo of mass $`M`$, created at time $`t`$.

Denoting a generic pdf by the function $`f`$, the mass function is given by $`f(M|t)dM`$, the distribution of halo masses at a given epoch. This is equal to $`Mn(M)/\rho `$ where $`n(M)`$ is the number density of halos. The pdf we wish to determine is given by $`f(t|M)dt`$, the distribution of times at which halos of mass $`M`$ were created. Note that our assumption of monotonic mass growth means that $`t`$ is the same variable in $`f(M|t)dM`$ and $`f(t|M)dt`$. These pdfs are then related by the following formula, based on Bayes’ theorem:

$$f(t|M)dt=\frac{f(M|t)dMf(t)dt}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[f(M|t)dMf(t)\right]𝑑t},$$
(14)
where $`f(t)dt`$ is the normalised prior for time, or the distribution of creation events in time given no information about the mass of halo. In paper I we calculated the prior using the Brownian random walks invoked in PS theory with a sharp $`k`$-space filter. In order not to bias the distribution of up-crossings within this model, we assumed a uniform prior for $`\delta _c`$.

The reason the prior is uniform in $`\delta _c`$ follows from the STHC model. Within this model, it is the density $`\delta `$ associated with a particle that is important, and the barrier has to move from $`\delta `$ to $`\delta d\delta `$ for ‘halo creation’ to have occurred. Given that the mass of all clumps monotonically increases, all particles will be associated with creation events at any $`\delta _c`$. Following these two observations, any two equal width intervals in $`\delta _c`$ should contain equal ‘numbers’ of halo creation events.

The derivation presented in the previous Section showed that for the STHC model, the link between the critical overdensity and the collapse time is independent of the perturbation mass. Therefore, given no information about the mass contained within a perturbation, the pdf for the time at which the perturbation collapses should be assumed to be proportional to the time derivative of $`\delta _c(t)`$. This gives the rate at which the collapse threshold $`\delta _c(t)`$ crosses the initial overdensities. This can be calculated numerically from the following formula:

$$\frac{d\delta _c}{dt}\frac{dϵ_p}{dt}=$$

$$\left[\frac{d}{dϵ_p}\left(\underset{0}{\overset{a_{\mathrm{max}}^{}(ϵ_p)}{}}\left(\frac{2}{a^{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_V(a^{})^2ϵ_p\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑a^{}\right)\right]^1,$$
(15)
where $`a_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ is the first positive root of the equation $`2+\mathrm{\Omega }_V(a^{})^3ϵ_pa^{}=0`$. Note that for cosmologies with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0`$, the above equation can be analytically solved as for Equation 11, and the derivative $`d\delta /dt`$ is proportional to $`t^{5/3}`$.

Unfortunately, $`d\delta _c(t)/dt`$ cannot be normalised so that it integrates over all time to give unity. This means that we cannot simply take a multiple of $`d\delta _c(t)/dt`$ as the prior for the collapse time. However, we can still use Equation 14 by making use of a mathematical trick and placing an arbitrary upper limit on $`t`$, $`t_u`$, which can be removed later without affecting the result. This gives that:

$$f(t|M)dt=\underset{t_u\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\frac{f(M|t)dMf(t,t_u)dt}{_0^{t_u}\left[f(M|t)dMf(t,t_u)\right]𝑑t}\right]$$
(16)
The connection between the mass function and the creation rate of halos presented in this Section is consistent with that of paper I: the prior for time used is exactly the same. We have merely shown that adopting the STHC model for the rate at which structures are created allows any mass function to be converted to give the pdf of the time at which a halo of a given mass is created.

## 4 The relation with the multiplicity function

Changing variables from mass to a function of

$$\nu \frac{\delta _c}{\sigma _M}$$
(17)
alters the form of the standard PS mass function to one which is invariant with respect to time. Here $`\sigma _M`$ is the rms fluctuation of the initial density field smoothed with a top-hat filter on a scale related to mass $`M`$. Unless stated otherwise we change variables in the mass function from M to $`\mathrm{ln}\nu (M,t)`$. The normalised pdf $`f(\mathrm{ln}\nu |t)`$ is called the multiplicity function and is related to the mass function by:

$$f(M|t)=Af(\mathrm{ln}\nu |t)\frac{\mathrm{ln}\nu }{M}|_t,$$
(18)
where $`A`$ is a normalisation constant. Note that we have retained the condition on time in $`f(\mathrm{ln}\nu |t)`$, to emphasise that we are still concerned with the distribution of halos at a particular epoch. Although the multiplicity function has a form which is invariant with respect to time, it still gives the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ we would expect for halos given a particular time. This is not the same as the the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ we would obtain if we chose halos at random in both mass and time, or the distribution of $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ we would obtain if we chose halos only of a particular mass.

If the mass function can be written in a form which is independent of time as described above, then under the same change of variables, the creation rate becomes independent of halo mass. The resulting pdf $`f(\mathrm{ln}\nu |M)`$ is now only valid if we are examining the distribution of halos at fixed mass. Following the notation adopted above, this is given by:

$$f(t|M)=Af(\mathrm{ln}\nu |M)\frac{\mathrm{ln}\nu }{t}|_M.$$
(19)
## 5 The joint distribution of halos in mass and time

Because the mass of each halo is assumed to monotonically increase with time, within any interval of mass and time, an infinite number of ‘creation events’ occur. This means that the joint probability of the existence of a halo in both mass and time cannot be properly normalised.

Equation 16 gives the link between two pdfs, the mass function and the creation rate using a mathematical trick to cope with an un-normalised prior in time. The numerator of this equation is the joint distribution of halos in mass and time, $`f(M,t)dMdt=f(M|t)dMf(t)dt`$. The denominator is not a function of time: it only normalises the resulting formula so $`f(t|M)dt`$ integrates to unity. Following this argument, given a mass function, multiplying by $`d\delta _c(t)/dt`$ creates a function with both the correct mass and time behaviour. This joint distribution function (not a pdf) has the same mass dependence as $`f(M|t)`$ and the same time dependence as $`f(t|M)`$.

As an example we consider the fitting function of Sheth & Tormen \[Sheth & Tormen 1999\] to the multiplicity function determined from the results of N-body simulations for different cosmological parameters:

$$\frac{Mn(M)}{\rho }dM=f(M|t)dM=f(\mathrm{ln}\nu |t)d\mathrm{ln}\nu $$

$$=A\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(1+\frac{1}{\nu ^{2p}}\right)\nu ^{}e^{\nu ^2/2}d\mathrm{ln}\nu ,$$
(20)
where $`\nu ^{}=a^{1/2}\nu `$ and $`a`$ & $`p`$ are parameters. Note that Sheth & Tormen displayed this formula using a different notation to that adopted here, although parameters $`a`$ and $`p`$ are the same in both cases. $`A`$ is determined by requiring that the integral of $`f(\mathrm{ln}\nu |t)`$ over all $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ gives unity. Sheth & Tormen found best fit parameters $`a=0.707`$ and $`p=0.3`$ for their simulations and group finding algorithm. The standard PS multiplicity function has $`a=1`$, $`p=0`$ and $`A=1/2`$. Unless stated otherwise, by standard PS theory, we refer to the adoption of this multiplicity function combined with top-hat filtering (to calculate $`\sigma _M^2`$). In order to convert this function to provide a model of both the time and mass of halo creation events, all we need to do is to multiply by $`d\delta _c/dt`$.

For standard PS theory, writing $`\nu `$ explicitly in terms of $`\sigma _M^2`$ and $`\delta _c`$ we find that the joint distribution of the existence of a halo in mass and time reduces to:

$$f(M,t)dMdt=\frac{\delta _c}{(2\pi )^{1/2}\sigma _M^3}$$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma _M^2}\right)\left|\frac{d\sigma _M^2}{dM}\right|\left|\frac{d\delta _c}{dt}\right|dMdt,$$
(21)
Although not normalised, such a formula integrated over any two areas of the mass-time plane will provide the correct relative number densities.

Note that this is not the same formula as obtained by simply multiplying the mass function with the creation time distribution at fixed mass. This would be inconsistent within a Bayesian framework and would produce a joint density function which lacks the correct mass and time behaviour: the form of each conditional pdf is altered by the other. Care should therefore be taken when using the creation rate in models which also include the mass function.

## 6 The relation with merger events

So far, we have only been concerned with the epoch at which a halo is created. However, there is an important distinction between major mergers and the slow accretion of mass when applying the results in models of certain cosmological phenomena. For instance, only violent merger events are thought to be important for starbursts and quasar activation. In paper I, we showed that for standard PS theory with a sharp $`k`$-space filter, if mass jumps in a particular trajectory correspond to merger events, then the distribution of mergers is the same as that of the build-up of matter from all types of creation event. This is because the trajectories are Brownian random walks which have the special property that their form is independent of the initial point.

Given only the mass function and the assumptions outlined above it is not possible to determine how each clump increases in mass, only the distribution of times at which it reaches a certain mass. More information about the build-up of individual clumps is required before the distribution of major mergers can be determined. Such information is available in PS theory and follows from the argument that each trajectory gives the history of the halo masses in which a particular small mass element resides.

## 7 Description of the Numerical Simulations

A direct approach to modelling structure formation is to simulate the evolution of the mass density of the Universe using a distribution of softened particles. We have run three such simulations using the Hydra N-body, hydrodynamics code \[Couchman, Thomas & Pearce 1995\] with $`128^3`$ dark matter particles to model the build-up of halos for three different cosmological models, described in Table 1.

In order to determine the rate at which halos are created within these simulations, we output particle positions at a large number of times. For the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$CDM simulation, we output particle positions at 362 different epochs, separated by approximately equal intervals in time. For the OCDM simulation the number of outputs was 345 and for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM simulation, 499. The box size chosen was 100 $`h^1`$Mpc for all three simulations which gave a particle mass of $`2.6\times 10^{11}`$ $`M_{}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$CDM and $`7.9\times 10^{10}`$ $`M_{}`$ for the other two simulations. Groups of particles were found for each output using a standard friends-of-friends algorithm with linking length set to $`b=0.2`$ times the mean interparticle separation.

## 8 Fitting to the Mass Function

The multiplicity function averaged over all output times is presented from each of the simulations in Fig. 1. Here we have only considered groups containing over 45 particles in order to limit the number of false detections due to numerical effects. In compiling the data in this way, we have assumed that converting from mass to $`\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ does indeed convert the form of the mass function into one which is independent of epoch. This Figure has been produced in such a way as to be directly comparable with figure 2 of Sheth & Tormen \[Sheth & Tormen 1999\]. For comparison we also plot their best fit model and the predictions of standard PS theory.

We have also plotted the model of Sheth & Tormen \[Sheth & Tormen 1999\] (Equation 20) after allowing the parameters to vary to simultaneously fit the data from all three simulations. We find slightly different best fit parameters to those of Sheth & Tormen. Our best fit parameters are $`a=0.774,p=0.274`$, compared to standard PS theory $`a=1,p=0`$ and Sheth & Tormen $`a=0.707,p=0.3`$. Note that the difference between our best fit values and those of Sheth & Tormen could be explained by the different group finding algorithms used.

## 9 Comparison between the Analytic and Numerical Halo Creation Rates

Although we have argued that the monotonic increase in mass means that all epochs are ‘creation’ times for a given halo, we cannot simply compare the creation rate formulae with the distribution of halo numbers at different epochs: each halo should only be counted once. To determine the distribution of creation times of halos of mass $`M`$, we therefore sequentially analysed the FOF output from $`z=50`$ to present day. All halos of mass $`>M`$ were examined at each epoch to determine whether they were ‘new’. The definition of ‘new’ adopted was that at least half of the particles in a halo were not included in any halo of mass $`>M`$ at a previous output time. The number of these halos in the required mass range was taken to be the minimum number which could have been created between that output time and the previous one. In order not to miss creation events where a halo was created and subsumed into a larger halo all within the time interval between two outputs, we analysed the progenitors of all new halos with mass greater than the required range. Those with a progenitor distribution at the previous step which could sum to a halo of the required mass were recorded as a possible halo of the required mass. In this way we determined the minimum and maximum mass which could have been created in each time interval between output from the simulation.

In Fig. 2 we plot the creation rate for halos within two narrow mass ranges. In order to obtain the maximum number of creation events, we have used relative low numbers of particles in each group. Data are plotted for groups of between $`4550`$ and $`100110`$ particles. These distributions are compared with the three multiplicity functions plotted in Fig. 2, converted into creation rates by multiplying by $`d\delta /dt`$ for halos of mass equivalent to 45 or 100 particles. These curves have been normalised to the low redshift data.

All of the models reproduce the decrease in creation events to present day seen in the simulations. As output from the simulation occured after approximately equal intervals of time, the high redshift data suffers as the intervals contain relatively more creation events. This means that we cannot precisely follow the build-up of the clumps, and the difference between the maximum and minimum mass which could have been created in each bin is increased. This is particularly noticable in the OCDM simulation where halos are created at earlier times and we have fewer outputs from the simulation.

However, there is evidence that the solid line (calculated from the best fit to the mass function) also fits the creation rate data the best out of the three models plotted. As a rough guide to this, the root mean square value between the plotted data points and the model is 3.4 for this curve, compared to 6.7 for standard PS theory, and 5.0 for the best fit model of Sheth & Tormen \[Sheth & Tormen 1999\]. Note that the form of the creation rate is strongly dependent on the parameter $`a`$ in Equation 20, and only weakly dependent on parameter $`p`$. This is consistent with the importance of these parameters for the mass function: parameter $`a`$ controls the position of the high-mass cut-off, whereas parameter $`p`$ controls the low-mass tail of the distribution.

## 10 Conclusions

We have demonstrated a simple method for linking any mass function to the corresponding distribution of times at which isolated halos of a given mass are created. In order to provide this link we adopted the assumption that the time scales of interest are those over which the mass of every clump can be thought of as monotonically increasing. The prior for the collapse time was estimated using the STHC model which ties in directly with PS theory, although the method does not use any of PS theory beyond that of the STHC model. We have presented a new derivation of the link between the collapse time and initial overdensity for this model which explicitly shows that this link is independent of the halo mass and is applicable in any Friedmann cosmology. Multiplying the mass function by a function with no mass dependence and proportional to the time derivative of the critical overdensity then provides a joint density function with the correct behaviour for the creation of a halo in mass and time. Integrating over the resulting joint density function will give the correct relative number densities of halos within different mass and time intervals.

We have extended the analysis of N-body simulation results presented in paper I to cover three simulations of the build-up of dark matter within different cosmological models. Rather than using PS theory, we have demonstrated how a fit to the mass function may be converted to give a creation rate. Out of the three functions we have compared to the mass function data, the best fit model for these data when converted to a creation rate also fits the creation rate data the best. This gives us confidence that the formalism presented here is sound, and should give accurate results in more general situations, in particular non-Gaussian models.

## 11 Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the use of the Hydra N-body code \[Couchman, Thomas & Pearce 1995\] kindly provided by the Hydra consortium.


text:
# Extracting Energy from a Black Hole through Its Disk

## 1 Introduction

Extraction of energy from a black hole or an accretion disk through magnetic braking has been investigated by many people. As a rotating black hole is threaded by magnetic field lines which connect with remote astrophysical loads, energy and angular momentum are extracted from the black hole and transported to the remote loads via Poynting flux (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982; Phinney 1983). This is usually called the Blandford-Znajek mechanism and has been suggested to be a plausible process for powering jets in active galactic nuclei (Rees, Begelman, Blandford, & Phinney 1982; Begelman, Blandford, & Rees 1984) and gamma ray bursts (Paczyński 1993; Lee, Wijers, & Brown 1999). Similar process can happen to an accretion disk when some of magnetic field lines threading the disk are open and connect with remote astrophysical loads (Blandford 1976; Blandford & Znajek 1977; Macdonald & Thorne 1982; Livio, Ogilvie, & Pringle 1999; Li 1999).

In this paper we investigate the effects of magnetic field lines connecting a Kerr black hole with a disk surrounding it. This kind of magnetic field lines are expected to exist and have important effects (Macdonald & Thorne 1982; Blandford 1999, 2000; Gruzinov 1999). We find that, with the existence of such magnetic coupling between the black hole and the disk, energy and angular momentum are transfered between them. If the black hole rotates faster than the disk, energy and angular momentum are extracted from the black hole and transferred to the disk via Poynting flux. This is the case when $`a/M_H>0.36`$ for a thin Keplerian disk, where $`M_H`$ is the mass of the black hole and $`aM_H`$ is the angular momentum of the black hole. Throughout the paper we use the geometric units with $`G=c=1`$. The energy deposited into the disk by the black hole is eventually radiated to infinity by the disk. This provides a way for extracting energy from a black hole through its disk. If the disk has no accretion (or the accretion rate is very low), the power of the disk essentially comes from the rotational energy of the black hole. We will show that the magnetic coupling between the black hole and the disk has a higher efficiency in extracting energy from a Kerr black hole than the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.

## 2 Transfer of Energy and Angular Momentum between a Black Hole and Its Disk by Magnetic Coupling

Suppose a bunch of magnetic field lines connect a rotating black hole with a disk surrounding it. Due to the rotation of the black hole and the disk, electromotive forces are induced on both the black hole’s horizon and the disk (Macdonald & Thorne 1982; Li 1999)

$`_H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi },_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Omega }_D\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is the angular velocity of the black hole, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ is the angular velocity of the disk, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the magnetic flux connecting the black hole with the disk. The black hole and the disk form a closed electric circuit, the electric current flows through the magnetic field lines connecting them. Suppose the disk and the black hole rotates in the same direction, then $`_H`$ and $`_D`$ have opposite signs. This means that energy and angular momentum are transferred either from the black hole to the disk or from the disk to the black hole, the direction of transfer is determined by the sign of $`_H+_D`$. By the Ohm’s law, the current is $`I=(_H+_D)/Z_H=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_D)/(2\pi Z_H)`$, where $`Z_H`$ is the resistance of the black hole which is of several hundred Ohms (the disk is perfectly conducting so its resistance is zero). The power deposited into the disk by the black hole is

$`P_{HD}=I_D=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_D\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_D\right)}{Z_H}}.`$ (2)
The torque on the disk produced by the black hole is

$`T_{HD}={\displaystyle \frac{I}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_D\right)}{Z_H}}.`$ (3)
As expected, we have $`P_{BH}=T_{BH}\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$.

The signs of $`P_{HD}`$ and $`T_{HD}`$ are determined by the sign of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H>\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$, we have $`P_{HD}>0`$ and $`T_{HD}>0`$, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the black hole to the disk. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H<\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$, we have $`P_{HD}<0`$ and $`T_{HD}<0`$, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the disk to the black hole so the black hole is spun up. For a disk with non-rigid rotation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ varies with radius. For fixed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$, and $`Z_H`$, $`P_{HD}`$ peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=\mathrm{\Omega }_H/2`$. However for realistic cases which is most important is when the magnetic field lines touch the disk close to the inner boundary, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) can be taken to be the value at the inner boundary of the disk. According to Gruzinov (1999) the magnetic fields will be more unstable against screw instability if the foot-points of the field lines on the disk are far from the inner boundary of the disk.

For a thin Keplerian disk around a Kerr black hole in the equatorial plane, the angular velocity of the disk is (Novikov & Thorne 1973)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(r)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H}{r^3}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a\left(M_H/r^3\right)^{1/2}}},`$ (4)
where $`r`$ is the Boyer-Lindquist radius in Kerr spacetime. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D(r)`$ decreases with increasing $`r`$. The angular velocity of a Kerr black hole is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_H={\displaystyle \frac{a}{2M_Hr_H}},`$ (5)
where $`r_H=M_H+\sqrt{M_H^2a^2}`$ is the radius of the event horizon. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is constant on the horizon. The inner boundary of a Keplerian disk is usually assumed to be at the marginally stable orbit with radius (Novikov & Thorne 1973)

$`r_{ms}=M_H\left\{3+z_2\left[(3z_1)(3+z_1+2z_2)\right]^{1/2}\right\},`$ (6)
where

$`z_1=1+\left(1a^2/M_H^2\right)^{1/3}\left[\left(1+a/M_H\right)^{1/3}+\left(1a/M_H\right)^{1/3}\right],`$ (7)
and

$`z_2=\left(3a^2/M_H^2+z_1^2\right)^{1/2}.`$ (8)
Inserting Eq. (6) into Eq. (4), we obtain the angular velocity of the disk at its inner boundary: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}=\mathrm{\Omega }_D(r_{ms})`$. For the Schwarzschild case (i.e $`a=0`$) we have $`r_{ms}=6M_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}=6^{3/2}M_H^1\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

Assuming the magnetic field lines touch the disk close to the inner boundary, we have $`P_{HD}P_0f`$ where

$`P_0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }}{2\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}{Z_H}}`$ (9)
is the value of $`P_{HD}`$ for the Schwarzschild case, and

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}\right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}}`$ (10)
is a function of $`a/M_H`$ only. The variation of $`P_{HD}`$ with $`a/M_H`$ is shown in Fig. 4. We see that $`P_{HD}>0`$ when $`0.36<a/M_H<1`$, $`P_{HD}<0`$ when $`0a/M_H<0.36`$. $`P_{HD}=0`$ at $`a/M_H0.36`$ and $`a/M_H=1`$ since $`P_{HD}\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$ when $`a/M_H0.36`$ and $`a/M_H=1`$. For fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`M_H`$, and $`Z_H`$, $`P_{HD}`$ peaks at $`a/M_H0.981`$. $`T_{HD}`$ always has the same sign as $`P_{HD}`$ since $`P_{HD}=T_{HD}\mathrm{\Omega }_D`$ for a perfectly conducting disk.

## 3 Extracting Energy from a Black Hole through Its Disk

When $`a/M_H>0.36`$, energy and angular momentum are extracted from the black hole and transferred to the disk. So a fast rotating black hole can pump its rotational energy into a disk surrounding it through magnetic coupling between them. Once the energy gets into the disk, it can be radiated to infinity either in the form of Poynting flux associated with jets or winds, or in the form of thermal radiation associated with dissipative processes in the disk. If the disk is not accreting or its accretion rate is very low, then the disk’s power comes from the rotational energy of the black hole. This provides a way for indirectly extracting energy from a rotating black hole. Note, that the Blandford-Znajek mechanism is a way for directly extracting energy from a rotating black hole to the remote load.

It is possible that the Blandford-Znajek mechanism provides a very “clean” energy beam, while energy extracted from the disk is “dirty”, contaminated by matter from the disk corona (R. D. Blandford 1999a, private communication). However, we must keep in mind that there exists no quantitative model demonstrating how to generate clean energy with the Blandford-Znajek process.

Let us consider again our case, in which Kerr black hole loses its energy and angular momentum through the magnetic interaction with a thin Keplerian disk, with the magnetic field lines touching the disk close to the marginally stable orbit. The evolution of the mass and angular momentum of the black hole are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_H}{dt}}=2P_{HD},{\displaystyle \frac{dJ_H}{dt}}=2T_{HD},`$ (11)
where $`P_{HD}`$ and $`T_{HD}`$ are given by Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) respectively, the factors $`2`$ come from the fact that a disk has two faces. From Eq. (11) we obtain $`dJ_H/dM_H=1/\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$, where we have used $`P_{HD}T_{HD}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$. Define the spin of a Kerr black hole by $`sa/M_H=J_H/M_H^2`$, then we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{d\mathrm{ln}M_H}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}2s,`$ (12)
where $`\omega M_H\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$ is a function of $`s`$ only. Eq. (12) can be integrated

$`M_H(s)=M_{H,0}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{\omega ^12s}},`$ (13)
where $`M_{H,0}=M_H(s=s_0)`$. Consider a Kerr black hole with initial mass $`M_H`$ and the initial spin $`s=0.998`$, which is the maximum value of $`s`$ that an astrophysical black hole can have (Thorne 1974). As the black hole spins down to $`s=0.36`$, the total amount of energy extracted from the black hole by the disk can be calculated with Eq. (13): $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.15M_H`$. This amount of energy will eventually be transported to infinity by the disk. In a realistic case the magnetic field lines touch the disk not exactly at the marginally stable orbit, the averaged angular velocity of the disk will be somewhat smaller than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$, then the total amount of energy that can be extracted from the black hole should be somewhat smaller than $`0.15M_H`$.

For comparison let’s calculate the amount of energy that can be extracted from a Kerr black hole by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism in the optimal case i.e. when the impedance matching condition is satisfied (cf. Macdonald & Thorne 1982). To do so, we only need to replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ms}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H/2`$ in Eq. (13), since the power and torque of the black hole are related by $`P_H=T_H\mathrm{\Omega }_F`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_F`$ is the angular velocity of magnetic field lines, and in the optimal case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_F=\mathrm{\Omega }_H/2`$. Then we obtain that as the black hole spins down from $`s=0.998`$ to $`s=0`$ the total energy extracted from the black hole by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism is $`0.09M_H`$.

We find that the magnetic coupling between a black hole and a disk has a higher efficiency in extracting energy from the black hole than the Blandford-Znajek mechanism (see Fig. 4). This is because the energy extracted from the black hole by the magnetic coupling to the disk has a larger ratio of energy to angular momentum than is the case for the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.

## 4 Conclusions

When a black hole rotates faster than the disk, which is the case if $`a/M_H>0.36`$ for a Kerr black hole with a thin Keplerian disk, then the black hole exerts a torque at the inner edge of the disk. The torque transfers energy and angular momentum from the black hole to the disk. This is similar to the “propeller” mechanism in the case of a magnetized neutron star with a disk (Illarionov & Sunyaev 1975). The energy transfered to the disk is eventually radiated to infinity by the disk. This provides a mechanism for extracting energy from a black hole through its disk. For a Kerr black hole with the initial mass $`M_H`$ and spin $`a/M_H=0.998`$, the total amount of energy that can be extracted by a thin Keplerian disk is $`0.15M_H`$. Therefore, this is more efficient than the Blandford-Znajek mechanism which can extract only $`0.09M_H`$.

When the black hole rotates slower than the disk, i.e. $`0a/M_H<0.36`$, energy and angular momentum are transferred from the disk to the black hole, and the disk accretes onto the black hole.

I am very grateful to Bohdan Paczyński for encouraging and stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the NASA grant NAG5-7016.


text:
# References

UCRHEP-T271

February 2000

Neutrino Exotica in the Skew E6 Left-Right Model
Ernest Ma
Physics Department, Univeristy of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA

## Abstract

With the particle content of the 27 representation of E6, a skew left-right supersymmetric gauge model was proposed many years ago, with a variety of interesting phenomenological implications. The neutrino sector of this model offers a natural framework for obtaining small Majorana masses for $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$, with the added bonus of accommodating 2 light sterile neutrinos.

With the advent of superstring theory, it was recognized early on that the gauge symmetry E6 may be relevant for discussing low-energy particle physics phenomenology. There are two ideas: (1) the particle content of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) may be extended to include all particles contained in the fundamental 27 representation of E6; and (2) the standard-model gauge group may be extended as well. The most actively pursued such approach is to add an extra U(1).

A very different and unique alternative was proposed many years ago, which considers instead an unconventional $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ decomposition of the 27 representation of E6, resulting in a variety of interesting phenomenological implications. Among these are the natural absence of flavor-changing neutral currents at tree level despite the presence of $`SU(2)_R`$, the possibility of breaking $`SU(2)_R`$ at or below the TeV scale with only Higgs doublets and bidoublets without conflicting with present phenomenology, and the appearance of an effective two-doublet Higgs sector different from that of the MSSM, with the interesting (and currently very relevant) property that the tree-level upper bound of the lightest neutral Higgs-boson mass is raised from $`M_Z`$ in the MSSM to $`\sqrt{2}M_W`$ in this case.

Two possible deviations from the standard model have recently been observed. One is a new determination of the weak charge of atomic cesium. The other is a new analysis of the hadronic peak cross section at the $`Z`$ resonance. Based on these data, it has now been shown that the model of Ref. is in fact the most favored of all known gauge extensions of the standard model.

This paper deals with another aspect of this remarkable model, i.e. that of its neutrinos. In the original proposal, neutrino masses were assumed to be zero for simplicity. \[Recall that in 1986, neutrino oscillations were not clearly established.\] However, such is not an essential feature of this model. It is in fact more natural that $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$ acquire small Majorana masses through the usual sesaw mechanism, and that 2 light sterile neutrinos are accommodated in this model, resulting in a number of exotic phenomena which may be tested in future experiments.

The skew E6 left-right model is based on the observation that there are two ways of identifying the standard-model content of the 27 representation of E6. Written in its \[$`SO(10)`$, $`SU(5)`$\] decomposition, we have

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ $`=`$ $`(16,5^{})+(16,10)+(16,1)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`(10,5^{})+(10,5)+(1,1).`$
The usual assumption is that the standard-model particles are contained in the $`(16,5^{})`$ and $`(16,10)`$ multiplets. On the other hand, if we switch $`(16,5^{})`$ with $`(10,5^{})`$ and $`(16,1)`$ with $`(1,1)`$, the standard model remains the same. The difference between the 2 options only appears if the gauge group is extended. In particular, a very different and unique model emerges if the gauge group becomes $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$. In this scenario, the particle assignments are as follows.

$`(u,d)_L(3,2,1,1/6),d_L^c(3^{},1,1,1/3),`$ (2)
$`(h^c,u^c)_L(3^{},1,2,1/6),h_L(3,1,1,1/3),`$ (3)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu & E^c\\ e& \psi ^0\end{array}\right)_L(1,2,2,0),(e^c,S)_L(1,1,2,1/2),`$ (6)
$`(\xi ^0,E)_L(1,2,1,1/2),N_L(1,1,1,0),`$ (7)
where the convention is that all fields are considered left-handed.

The notion of $`R`$ parity is an important ingredient of this construction. The usual quarks and leptons, i.e. $`u`$, $`d`$, $`u^c`$, $`d^c`$, $`\nu `$, $`e`$, and $`e^c`$, with the addition of $`N`$, have $`R=+1`$ and their scalar supersymmetric partners have $`R=1`$ as in the MSSM. The other fermions, i.e. $`h`$, $`h^c`$, $`E`$, $`E^c`$, $`\psi ^0`$, $`\xi ^0`$, and $`S`$ have $`R=1`$ and their scalar supersymmetric partners have $`R=+1`$. Furthermore, all gauge bosons have $`R=+1`$ and gauge fermions have $`R=1`$, except $`W_R^\pm `$ which has $`R=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}_R^\pm `$ which has $`R=+1`$. This unusual feature is the origin of many desirable and interesting properties of this model which sets it apart from all other gauge extensions of the standard model.

Consider the $`R=+1`$ neutral fermion sector, i.e. the usual neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, and the 3 $`N`$’s. They are linked by the Yukawa terms $`\nu _iN_j\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k^0`$, where one linear combination of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k^0`$ may be identified with the usual Higgs scalar $`h_2^0`$ which acquires the vacuum expectation value $`v_2`$. Furthermore, since $`N_j`$ transforms trivially under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$, it is allowed to have a nonzero Majorana mass which is presumably large. \[In U(1) extensions of the MSSM within the context of E6, the requirement that $`N`$ transform trivially under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)`$ uniquely determines it to be a particular linear combination of $`U(1)_\psi `$ and $`U(1)_\chi `$ with mixing angle $`\alpha =\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{1/15}`$, where $`Q_\alpha =Q_\psi \mathrm{cos}\alpha Q_\chi \mathrm{sin}\alpha `$. This is referred to as $`U(1)_N`$ or $`U(1)_\nu `$. However, with two U(1) gauge factors, kinetic mixing must be considered, a complication which is absent in a left-right model.\] The resulting $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass matrix is

$$_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D\\ m_D^T& m_N\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where $`m_D`$ and $`m_N`$ are themselves $`3\times 3`$ matrices. Thus the usual neutrinos acquire small Majorana masses through the canonical seesaw mechanism without any problem. In other gauge extensions, this mechanism is often not available.

The $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ of this model breaks down to the standard-model $`U(1)_Y`$ through the vacuum expectation value $`v_3`$ of a linear combination of the $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$’s. Let us define that to be $`\stackrel{~}{S}_3`$. Because of the allowed Yukawa terms linking $`hh^c`$, $`EE^c`$, and $`\xi ^0\psi ^0`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_3`$, these exotic fermions have masses proportional to $`v_3`$. However, only 1 of the 3 $`S`$’s gets a mass at this stage, i.e. $`S_3`$, as it is linked to a particular linear combination of the two neutral gauge fermions corresponding to $`SU(2)_R`$ and $`U(1)`$ through $`\stackrel{~}{S}_3`$.

Electroweak symmetry breaking proceeds as in the MSSM, with $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_3`$ identified as $`h_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_3`$ as $`h_2^0`$, having vacuum expectation values $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ respectively. Now $`S_{1,2}`$ are no longer massless and if they are light, they could well be called sterile neutrinos.

Consider now the $`R=1`$ neutral fermion sector, i.e. $`\xi _i^0`$, $`\psi _i^0`$, $`S_i`$, and the 3 gauge fermions $`\stackrel{~}{W}_L^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}_R^0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ corresponding to $`SU(2)_L`$, $`SU(2)_R`$, and $`U(1)`$ respectively. They are linked by the

$$f_{ijk}(\xi _i^0e_je_k^cE_i\nu _je_k^c\xi _i^0\psi _j^0S_k+E_iE_j^cS_k)$$
(9)
terms of the superpotential as well as the gauge interaction terms together with the soft supersymmetry-breaking Majorana mass terms $`m_L`$, $`m_R`$, $`m_B`$ of the gauge fermions. The resulting $`12\times 12`$ mass matrix is

$$=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& m_{EE^c}& f_{i3j}v_2& m_1\\ m_{EE^c}^T& 0& m_{ee^c}& m_2\\ f_{j3i}v_2& m_{ee^c}^T& 0& m_3\\ m_1^T& m_2^T& m_3^T& \stackrel{~}{m}\end{array}\right],$$
(10)
where

$`m_1={\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ g_L& 0& g_B\end{array}\right),`$ $`m_2={\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ g_L& g_R& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (17)
$`m_3={\displaystyle \frac{v_3}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& g_R& g_B\end{array}\right),`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_L& 0& 0\\ 0& m_R& 0\\ 0& 0& m_B\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
The gauge couplings $`g_L`$, $`g_R`$, and $`g_B`$ are related to the electromagnetic coupling $`e`$ by

$$\frac{1}{e^2}=\frac{1}{g_L^2}+\frac{1}{g_R^2}+\frac{1}{g_B^2}.$$
(25)
Assuming that $`g_L=g_R`$, we then have

$$g_L^2=g_R^2=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W},g_B^2=\frac{e^2}{12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W},$$
(26)
where $`\theta _W`$ is the usual electroweak mixing angle.

It is clear from the above that the $`10\times 10`$ mass submatrix spanning $`\xi _i^0`$, $`\psi _i^0`$, $`S_3`$, and the 3 gauge fermions will have 8 eigenvalues of order $`v_3`$ and 2 eigenvalues of order $`m_{L,R,B}`$. The $`2\times 2`$ effective mass matrix spanning $`S_{1,2}`$ is then given by a generalized seesaw formula, i.e.

$$(_S)_{ij}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{2f_{k3i}v_2(m_{ee^c})_{lj}}{(m_{EE^c})_{kl}}.$$
(27)
If $`f_{k3i}`$ are small enough, say less than $`m_{ee^c}/v_2`$, then $`S_{1,2}`$ may indeed be light enough to be considered as sterile neutrinos. Note that under the standard $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge group, $`S(1,1,0)`$ is indeed a singlet.

We now have 5 light neutrinos, the usual ones $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ with $`R=+1`$, and the sterile ones $`S_{1,2}`$ with $`R=1`$. Since $`R`$ parity is still strictly conserved, they do not mix. Hence $`S_{1,2}`$ would not be a factor in considering the phenomenology of neutrino oscillations. However, as a discrete symmetry, $`R`$ parity may be broken by soft terms without affecting other essential properties of the unbroken theory. Remarkably, exactly such a soft term is allowed by the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$ gauge symmetry of this model, namely

$$m_{ij}^{}(\nu _i\psi _j^0e_iE_j^c).$$
(28)
Hence the $`3\times 2`$ matrix linking $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ with $`S_{1,2}`$ is given by

$$(_{\nu S})_{ij}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{m_{il}^{}f_{k3j}v_2}{(m_{EE^c})_{kl}},$$
(29)
and we have a general theoretical framework for considering 3 active and 2 sterile neutrinos. Of course, further assumptions would be necessary to obtain a desirable pattern to explain the present observations of neutrino oscillations.

Given that $`S_{1,2}`$ are light, the fact that they are connected to $`e_i^c`$ through $`W_R^\pm `$ means that there are many modifications to the phenomenology of lepton weak interactions. One possibility is that $`v_3`$ is very large, then all such deviations are negligible. On the other hand, the analysis of Ref. shows that it is possible to have $`v_3`$ of order 1 TeV or less. This would allow experiments in the near future to observe a number of exotic phenomena as discussed below.

Whereas the neutral gauge bosons of this model are flavor-diagonal in their couplings, the scalar bosons are not. Hence there will be some flavor-changing interactions, most of which are suppressed by Yukawa couplings. However, there is one important exception, i.e. those terms proportional to the top-quark mass. They appear in the superpotential as the following gauge-invariant combination:

$$u_iu_j^c\psi _k^0d_iu_j^cE_k^cu_ih_j^ce_k+d_ih_j^c\nu _k.$$
(30)
It was pointed out a long time ago that $`\stackrel{~}{h}^c`$ exchange would then contribute significantly to the rare decay $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$. As it happens, the first measurement of this branching fraction, i.e.

$$B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=4.2\begin{array}{c}+9.7\\ 3.5\end{array}\times 10^{10},$$
(31)
is in fact somewhat larger than the standard-model expectation, $`(0.82\pm 0.32)\times 10^{10}`$. If that is the correct interpretation, then using the results of Ref., another prediction of this model is

$$\frac{B(bs\nu \overline{\nu })}{B(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })}2.4\frac{|V_{tb}V_{us}|^2}{|V_{cb}V_{td}|^2},$$
(32)
which is of order $`10^5`$. Hence the branching fraction of $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ should be about $`10^5`$, which is several orders of magnitude above the standard-model expectation.

Whereas the 2 light sterile neutrinos $`S_{1,2}`$ do not have standard-model interactions, they do transform nontrivially under $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$. Hence they must interact with the new heavy gauge bosons $`W_R^\pm `$ and

$$Z^{}=\left(\frac{12x}{1x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}W_R^0+\left(\frac{x}{1x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}B,$$
(33)
where $`x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. Consequently, there are several essential features of this model involving $`S_{1,2}`$.

(A) The fundamental weak decay $`\mu ^{}e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ is now supplemented with $`\mu ^{}e^{}S_i\overline{S}_j`$ from $`W_R^\pm `$ exchange. The latter is constrained by present data through the limit

$$|g_{RR}^V|=\left(1U_{\mu 3}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1U_{e3}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(m_{W_L}^2/m_{W_R}^2)<0.033,$$
(34)
where $`S_e=U_{e1}S_1+U_{e2}S_2+U_{e3}S_3`$, etc. and the matrix $`U`$ has been assumed real for simplicity.

(B) The flavor-changing decay $`\mu eee`$ gets tree-level contributions from Eq. (7) through $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i^0`$ exchange. However, they may be very small because the $`f_{ijk}`$’s may be chosen arbitrarily to supress any such effect in this case. In contrast, there is an unavoidable one-loop contribution from the exchange of $`W_R^\pm `$ and $`S_i`$, which is the analog of the standard-model case of $`W_L^\pm `$ and $`\nu _i`$. Whereas the latter is totally negligible because it is proportional to neutrino mass-squared differences, the former is important because the mass of $`S_3`$ is comparable to $`m_{W_R}`$ but $`S_{1,2}`$ are essentially massless.

The largest exotic contribution to $`\mu eee`$ actually comes from the effective $`Z\mu \overline{e}`$ vertex. The reason is that in this model,

$$Z=(1x)^{\frac{1}{2}}W_L^0\left(\frac{x^2}{1x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}W_R^0\left(\frac{x2x^2}{1x}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}B,$$
(35)
hence a new vertex $`ZW_R^+W_R^{}`$ appears, in analogy to $`ZW_L^+W_L^{}`$ of the standard model. The calculation of the one-loop $`Z\mu \overline{e}`$ vertex is similar to that of $`Zd\overline{s}`$ in the standard model. The result is $`g_{Z\mu \overline{e}}Z^\lambda \overline{e}[\gamma _\lambda (1+\gamma _5)/2]\mu `$, with

$$g_{Z\mu \overline{e}}=\frac{e^3U_{\mu 3}U_{e3}}{16\pi ^2x^{\frac{1}{2}}(1x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\left[\frac{r_3}{1r_3}+\frac{r_3^2\mathrm{ln}r_3}{(1r_3)^2}\right],$$
(36)
where

$$r_3m_{S_3}^2/m_{W_R}^2=\left(\frac{1x}{12x}\right)\left(1+\frac{v_2^2}{v_3^2}\right)^1.$$
(37)
Hence this vertex is not suppressed at all, and its contribution to the $`\mu eee`$ decay amplitude is proportional to $`1/m_Z^2`$, so it is much larger than that of the box diagram from $`W_R^\pm `$ and $`S_i`$ exchange, which is proportional to $`1/m_{W_R}^2`$.

Connecting the $`Z\mu \overline{e}`$ vertex with the standard-model $`Ze\overline{e}`$ vertex, the decay branching fraction of $`\mu eee`$ is then given by

$$B(\mu eee)=2x(1x)(14x+12x^2)g_{Z\mu \overline{e}}^2/e^2.$$
(38)
Since the present experimental upper limit of this is $`1.0\times 10^{12}`$, the following constraint is obtained:

$$U_{\mu 3}U_{e3}<2.3\times 10^3,$$
(39)
where the $`v_2^2/v_3^2`$ term of Eq. (23) has been neglected.

(C) Because of Eq. (22), the rare decay $`Z\mu ^{}e^++e^{}\mu ^+`$ is also predicted. However, because of Eq. (25), its branching fraction is less than $`8.6\times 10^{13}`$ which is of course totally negligible. The analogous decays $`Z\tau ^{}e^++e^{}\tau ^+`$ and $`Z\tau ^{}\mu ^++\mu ^{}\tau ^+`$ are related to $`\tau eee`$, $`\tau e\mu \mu `$, $`\tau \mu ee`$, and $`\tau \mu \mu \mu `$, with upper limits of order $`10^5`$ and $`10^6`$ on their branching fractions respectively. All are predicted in this model to have branching fractions of order $`10^7`$ multiplied by $`U_{\tau 3}^2U_{e3}^2`$ or $`U_{\tau 3}^2U_{\mu 3}^2`$.

(D) The archetypal rare decay $`\mu e\gamma `$ is also predicted in this model, again through $`W_R^\pm `$ and $`S_i`$ exchange. The one-loop diagrams are analogous to the usual ones in the standard model, resulting in a decay branching fraction

$$B(\mu e\gamma )=\frac{3\alpha }{32\pi }\left(\frac{m_{W_L}}{m_{W_R}}\right)^4U_{\mu 3}^2U_{e3}^2F^2(r_3),$$
(40)
where the function $`F`$ is given by

$$F(r_3)=\frac{r_3(1+5r_3+2r_3^2)}{(1r_3)^3}+\frac{6r_3^3\mathrm{ln}r_3}{(1r_3)^4}.$$
(41)
Using the most recent experimental upper bound of $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ on $`B`$, we obtain

$$U_{\mu 3}U_{e3}(m_{W_L}^2/m_{W_R}^2)<3.8\times 10^4.$$
(42)
(E) If the lightest exotic quark, call it $`h_1`$, is lighter than $`W_R^\pm `$, then its decay is predominantly given by

$$h_1u_ie_jS_k.$$
(43)
Since $`S_{1,2}`$ are light and undetected, this mimics the ordinary semileptonic decay of a heavy quark, but without any nonleptonic component.

In conclusion, the skew E6 left-right model proposed many years ago, favored by recent atomic physics and $`Z`$ resonance data, has been shown to be a natural framework for 3 active and 2 sterile light neutrinos. The constraints from low-energy data, as given by Eqs. (20), (25), and (28), require at worst ($`U_{\mu 3}=U_{e3}`$) only that $`m_{W_R}>442`$ GeV, or equivalently $`m_{S_3}(=m_Z^{})>528`$ GeV. Hence the new physics of this model is accessible to experimental verification in the not-so-distant future.

This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.


text:
# Study of RPC gas mixtures for the ARGO-YBJ experiment

## 1 Introduction

The ARGO-YBJ experiment  is under way over the next few years at the Yangbajing High Altitude Cosmic Ray Laboratory (4300 m a.s.l., 606 $`g/cm^2`$), 90 km North to Lhasa (Tibet, P.R. China). The aim of the ARGO-YBJ experiment is the study of fundamental issues in Cosmic Ray and Astroparticle Physics including $`\gamma `$-ray astronomy, GRBs physics at 100 GeV threshold energy and the measurement of the $`\overline{p}/p`$ at TeV energies. The apparatus consists of a full coverage detector of dimension $`71\times 74`$ $`m^2`$ realized with a single layer of Resistive Plate Counters (RPCs). A guard ring partially (about 50 $`\%`$) instrumented with RPCs, surrounds the central detector, up to $`100\times 100`$ $`m^2`$; it improves the apparatus performance by enlarging the fiducial area for the detection of showers with the core outside the full coverage carpet.

A lead converter 0.5 cm thick will cover uniformly the RPC plane in order to increase the number of charged particles by conversion of shower photons and to reduce the time spread of the shower particles. The measurement technique, namely the timing on the shower front with a few tens of particles, requires RPC operation with 1 ns time resolution, low strip multiplicity for good energy estimation at low energies, high efficiency and low single counting rate to trigger efficiently at low multiplicity.

Keeping in mind all these needs and the low operating pressure (about 600 mbar) at Yangbajing we started to investigate different gas mixtures, at sea level, in order to optimize the detector performance. In fact previous studies have shown that the performance of the detector may be heavily affected by the reduced pressure . Three gas components were used: Argon, iso-Butane C4H10 and TetraFluoroEthane C2H2F4 that will be indicated in the following as Ar, i-But and TFE respectively.

The set-up used for this study consists of a small telescope of 4 RPCs $`50\times 50`$ $`cm^2`$ area with 16 pick-up strips 3 cm wide connected to the front-end electronics board . The front-end circuit contains 16 discriminators, with about 70 mV voltage threshold, and provides a FAST-OR signal with the same input-to-output delay (10 ns) for all the channels. The 4 RPCs were overlapped one on the other, 3 out of them were used to define a cosmic ray beam by means of a triple coincidence of their FAST-OR signals, the fourth one was used as test RPC. The three RPCs providing the trigger were operated with a gas mixture of $`60\%`$ Ar, $`37\%`$ i-But and $`3\%`$ TFE. At any trigger occurrence the time provided by the test RPC was read by means of a LECROY TDC of 0.25 ns time bin, operated in common START mode; the number of fired strips was read by means of a CAEN module C187. The single counting rate was read by a CAEN scaler C243.

## 2 RPC performance

The RPCs were operated in streamer mode, as foreseen for the experiment, at the ARGO laboratory of the Physics Department of the Naples University.

Many gas mixtures have been tested, including mixtures with a high percentage of Ar ($`40\%`$ \- $`60\%`$) which represent a reference point for the performance of the detector. The results are shown in Fig. 1 where in the first column a) are reported the three mixture with Ar kept at $`60\%`$; the numbers associated to each line like 60/30/10 refer respectively to Ar/i-But/TFE.

It can be seen that changing the relative percentage of the two quenching components, i-But and TFE, does not result in any strong or evident difference of the detector performance. In fact the operating voltage does not chance substantially, neither the efficiency; the time resolution stabilizes around 1 ns and the strip multiplicity ranges in 1.1 - 1.3 depending on the applied voltage. This is confirmed by the set of measurements done with Ar kept at $`40\%`$ (column b). Only the mixture 40/50/10 shows some difference, but it is likely that there was some uncontrolled change or problem during the data taking.

In order to check gas mixtures with i-But content around and below the flammability threshold ($`10\%`$) we have performed measurements with mixtures where the i-But fraction was kept at $`10\%`$ in one set and $`2\%`$ in another set. The results are reported in column a) and b) of Fig. 2.

Both samples of measurements show that the Ar percentage plays an important role in defining the operating voltage (about 800 V above the knee-voltage $`V_{knee}`$) and influences the strip multiplicity. The mean value of the strip multiplicity remains anyway below 1.3; also the single rate changes according to the Ar percentage and this can be understood as we work at fixed discrimination threshold. Efficiency and time resolution are not affected. This means that i-But, traditionally used to ”quench” the discharge by asbsorption of ultraviolet photons, can be substituted almost completely by TFE which is electronegative and captures electrons of the plasma.

A solution to the problem of low pressure is increasing the density of the gas mixture. An increase of TFE concentration at expenses of the Ar concentration should therefore increase the primary ionization thus compensating for the $`40\%`$ reduction caused by the lower gas target pressure (600 $`mbar`$) and reduces the afterpulse probability. We have tested two mixtures with high content of TFE, namely Ar/i-But/TFE : 15/10/75 and 15/5/80; the second one is a non flammable mixture. The experimental results ( Fig. 3) do not exhibit evident differences between them.

The reduction of the Argon concentration in favour of TFE results in a clear increase of the operating voltage as expected from the large quenching action of TFE. The efficiency, $`98\%`$, is comparable to the values obtained with the mixtures having low percentage of TFE; might even be higher but this, given the experimental fluctuations, cannot be stated with certainty. Moreover, the time resolution doesn’t show any worsening, the single rate keeps below 400 $`Hz/m^2`$ and also the strip multiplicity stays below 1.1. The mixture 15/10/75 has been already used successfully at Yangbajing in the ARGO test  .

## 3 Conclusions

We have studied the performance of RPCs with gas mixtures made of Ar, i-But and TFE. We checked mixtures with a high percentage of Ar, mixtures with low content of i-But, and finally mixtures with low and high percentage of TFE. For all of them, apart from those with a high percentage of TFE, we can summarize as follows: 1) the efficiency is $`95÷97\%`$; 2) the voltage where the efficiency plateau starts and the working voltage (tipically $`V_{knee}`$ \+ 800 V) depends strongly on the Ar fraction, showing an increase of about 500 V per every $`10\%`$ Ar reduction); 3) the single rate shows a plateau in the frequency range 400 $`Hz/m^2`$ \- 600 $`Hz/m^2`$; 4) the time resolution at working voltage is tipically $`1.0÷1.3`$ $`ns`$; 5) the mean value of the strip multiplicity at the working voltage is $`1.15÷1.25`$ depending on the Ar percentage.

The mixtures with higher TFE content result in sligthly better performance, giving $`98\%`$ efficiency, lower strip multiplicity and single rate. We couldn’t find any parameter able to discriminate the different mixtures. Preliminary measurements show that in mixtures with higher TFE fraction a smaller charge per track is developed. Tests are going on to investigate the analog read-out of the detector operated in streamer mode.