text:
# Effect of Cluster Formation on Isospin Asymmetry in the Liquid-Gas Phase Transition Region

## Abstract

Abstract: Nuclear matter within the liquid-gas phase transition region is investigated in a mean-field two-component Fermi-gas model. Following largely analytic considerations, it is shown that: (1) Due to density dependence of asymmetry energy, some of the neutron excess from the high-density phase could be expelled into the low-density region. (2) Formation of clusters in the gas phase tends to counteract this trend, making the gas phase more liquid-like and reducing the asymmetry in the gas phase. Flow of asymmetry between the spectator and midrapidity region in reactions is discussed and a possible inversion of the flow direction is indicated.

preprint: Effect of Cluster Formation on Isospin Asymmetry in the Liquid-Gas Phase Transition Region

One interesting possibility in heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energy is the occurrence of a liquid-gas phase transition. Many recent papers addressed this possibility from different perspectives . Following an elementary consideration, it is easy to envisage a first-order phase transition in infinite nuclear matter. Müller and Serot first pointed out the importance of isospin for the liquid-gas phase transition . The additional isospin degree of freedom relaxes the system and makes the transition of second-order. Isospin observables could generally be used to extract a variety of information from heavy-ion collision, see for example the review by Li et al. . Some recent data analyses tried to explore isospin observables and to relate them to a possible occurrence of the phase transition .

One focus of interest in connection with the phase transition is the midrapidity region in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions . In simulations of semiperipheral collisions, a formation of low-density neck region is observed that likely contributes to the midrapidity . The low-density region in contact with high-density regions (the projectile and target) opens up the possibility for a liquid-gas phase coexistence and phase conversion. In a dynamical simulation with the Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck equation, Sobotka et al.  observed neutron enrichment in the low-density neck region. However, a high $`n/p`$ ratio (much higher than in the composite system) was found when counting only free nucleons in the neck region, i.e. excluding nucleons in clusters. The paper argued that the symmetric clusters (deuterons and alphas) contributed much to the enrichment of neutron in the neck region. Specific results were purely numerical in nature.

In this paper we shall discuss the isospin asymmetry in the phase transition region in a heavy-ion collision and the effect of clusters on that asymmetry. We will first follow crude statistical arguments, and then construct a model illustrating the same ideas.

In the general discussion, let us first allow no cluster formation in an isospin-equilibrated heavy-ion reaction. For a given temperature and density, a large isospin asymmetry will increase the total energy, which is unfavorable. In a dense phase, the extra energy for maintaining the same asymmetry will be much larger than in a dilute phase. Thus, if a dilute phase is in isospin equilibrium with a dense phase, the asymmetry in the dilute phase will be larger. For the scenario of a neck region neighbored by a dense region in heavy ion collision, the $`n/p`$ ratio in the liquid phase is close to that of the whole system, while $`n/p`$ ratio in the gas phase could be much larger than in the composite system. Next, we consider letting the clusters be formed in the gas phase. Then the available phase space for liquid does not change while the phase space for the gas phase increases. The added phase space, which corresponds to clusters, has an $`n/p`$ mean value lower than the old phase space for gas. From a statistical equal-partition point of view, partition in the new liquid and gas phase space will drive the whole gas phase more symmetric. If the percentage of clusters is small, however, then there is essentially not much change in the phase space distribution, and asymmetry in the gas phase excluding clusters should not change much.

Now let us build a simple model and show how isospin equilibrates between the two phases. We may start with a two component non-interacting Fermi gas of neutrons and protons, and represent the interaction by an energy density consistent with the empirical nuclear equation of state (EOS). For simplicity we assume no temperature dependence for the interaction energy, and the Coulomb interaction is not considered here. The total free energy of the system is then a sum of the free energies of two non-interacting Fermi gases and of a density-dependent nuclear potential energy. For a single phase at temperature $`T=0`$ and density $`\rho `$, the free energy per nucleon may be written as:

$$f=/A=a_1\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^{2/3}+a_2\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)+a_3\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^{\sigma 1}+\left(a_4\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^{2/3}+a_5\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)\right)y^2$$
(1)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the normal density and $`y`$ is the asymmetry parameter, $`y=(NZ)/(N+Z)`$. For the moment, it is assumed that $`y1`$. The $`\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^{2/3}`$ terms come from the non-interacting Fermi gas. The terms $`a_2\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)+a_3\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)^{\sigma 1}`$ are associated with a simple parameterization of the nuclear EOS . As we are only concerned with the isospin asymmetry in the liquid-gas phase transition, details of the parameterization do not affect our later discussion (though the exact numerical results may change). Given that the interaction generally contributes to the asymmetry energy  , we adopt a simple parameterization in Eq. (1) for that contribution, of the form $`a_5\left(\rho /\rho _0\right)y^2`$. At $`T>0`$, the free energy could not be written in a simple analytic form, but we can still expand the free energy per nucleon about $`y=0`$. This expansion yields the net free energy of the form:

$$f=/A=f_0+f_y=f_0+Cy^2$$
(2)
where $`f_0`$ and $`C`$ are functions of both temperature and density. The second term on the r.h.s. of (2) is due to isospin asymmetry and may be called asymmetric free energy. Since our model is symmetric with respect to proton-neutron interchange, the expansion of the free energy contains no odd powers of $`y`$. In our numerical calculation, we use $`\rho _0=0.16fm^3`$, $`\sigma =2.1612`$, $`a_2=183.05MeV`$, $`a_3=144.95MeV`$, $`a_5=11.72MeV`$, and at $`T=0`$, $`a_1=22.10MeV`$, and $`a_4=12.28MeV`$ ($`a_4+a_525MeV`$ could be obtained from optical potential analysis  or from the mass formula ). Numerical analysis indicates that a quadratic form in $`y`$ is adequate up to almost $`y=1`$ (a similiar conclusion has been reached in ). Figure 1 shows the calculated the asymmetry coefficient $`C`$ as a function of density and temperature in the Fermi gas. The general trend is that $`C`$ increases with increasing density and temperature. Therefore, at a given temperature, a dense phase will need more extra energy for maintaining a given asymmetry than a dilute phase.

Now we can consider a system that has two phases of liquid and gas, respectively, in contact with each other. The total free energy will be a sum of the free energies for the two phases. Let us assume that the mechanical and thermal equilibrium has been achieved, and now we only consider the isospin equilibrium between the two phases. Keeping the total asymmetry of the system fixed, we need to vary the asymmetry in the liquid and gas phases to minimize total free energy. This yields the equilibrium condition:

$$C_ly_l=C_gy_g$$
(3)
Here $`C_l`$ and $`C_g`$ denote the asymmetric free energy coefficients in the liquid phase and in the gas phase. At a given temperature, the liquid phase is denser than the gas phase, and the coefficient $`C`$ is a monotonously increasing function of density, $`C_l>C_g`$. Thus, the asymmetry in the gas phase $`y_g`$ is always larger than that in the liquid phase $`y_l`$. To characterize the relative asymmetry of the two phases, we may define the isospin asymmetry amplification ratio:

$$R=C_l/C_g=y_g/y_l$$
(4)
Figure 2 displays $`R`$ vs. temperature for the phases in equilibrium. For our model calculation, the ratio $`R`$ stays always larger than $`1`$, which means that the gas phase will always have a higher neutron content than the liquid phase. Notably the amplification ratio is independent of the net isospin asymmetry of the whole system. The ratio $`R`$ decreases as temperature increases, so that a large $`n/p`$ ratio in the gas phase is easier reached at a low temperature.

In the case of a nonequilibrium process, Eq. (3) is still of a use due to a variational origin of the equation. If a local equilibrium assumption is met, i.e. statistical variables are still valid locally, then Eq. (3) tells us the direction of developement for the system. The gradient of asymmetry coefficient could result in a net flow of isospin asymmetry, which tries to restore the isospin equilibrium condition Eq. (3). The flow direction is to the steepest decrease of asymmetry coefficient $`C`$. If there is a gradient of density in a nonequilibrium system, hence a gradient of asymmetry coefficient (see Fig. 1), then there could be a flow of isospin asymmetry in the system, with the direction to the low density region.

We know that, if the nucleon density is not too low, the mean field description is quite good. But when the density is low, particle-particle correlations become important, and the validity of a mean field description worsens. One way to incorporate particle correlations is to allow for the formation of clusters in the system (as is done in the BUU calculations ). Since clusters are in practice only important for the gas phase, we will only allow clusters there and no clusters in the liquid phase at all. To further simplify the discussion, we shall adopt a droplet model for the clusters (as used by Goodman  and many others). We will assume that droplets have the same properties as the liquid phase, that is the same density and asymmetric coefficient; for the present discussion we shall ignore the surface energy term. Suppose the average size of droplets is $`A`$, and asymmetry in terms of average proton and neutron numbers in droplets is $`y_d`$. The density of nucleons in clusters may be represented as $`\rho _d=\alpha \rho `$ and of free nucleons as $`\rho _f=(1\alpha )\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the density of the gas phase. The asymmetric free energy of the new (free nucleons + droplets) gas phase is:

$$f_y=\left(1\alpha \right)C_fy_f^2+\alpha C_dy_d^2.$$
(5)
Here, the subscripts $`f`$ and $`d`$ refer to free nucleons and droplets, respectively. To get the isospin equilibrium condition, we can carry out a similar variation of asymmetry parameters in the liquid, free-nucleon gas, and in droplets, as before, obtaining:

$$y_d=y_l,\mathrm{and}y_f/y_l=C_l/C_f.$$
(6)
As the density of the gas phase is low, we may use the ideal gas EOS $`p=\rho T`$ for clusters in a calculation. And adding clusters will necessarily decrease $`\rho _f`$ in order to satisfy the mechanical equilibrium condition. However, in Fig. 1 we can see that $`C`$ decreases only slightly as density decreases. To first order, we can take $`C_fC_g`$, so that $`y_f`$ is nearly the same as the in old gas phase. Overall, the asymmetry of the new gas phase is:

$$y=\alpha y_d+\left(1\alpha \right)y_f.$$
(7)
This may be compared to the asymmetry for the old gas phase, $`y_gy_f`$ , which is much larger than $`y_d=y_l`$. It is clear that the more droplets are added to the gas phase, the more it looks like the liquid phase. The amplification ratio now is:

$$R=y/y_l=\alpha +\left(1\alpha \right)C_l/C_f\alpha +\left(1\alpha \right)R_0.$$
(8)
where $`R_0=C_l/C_g1`$. The case of $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to no cluster formation in the reaction, and the isospin amplification ratio reaches then the maximum $`R_0`$. The gas phase acquires then the largest possible net asymmetry at a given temperature. On the other hand, $`\alpha =1.0`$ corresponds to the gas phase with only clusters and the same net asymmetry as for the liquid phase.

Figure 3 shows the decrease of the amplification factor $`R`$ as a function of the cluster concentration $`\alpha `$. As we add more clusters, the low-density gas phase will need more energy for the same isospin asymmetry, comparable with that of the liquid phase. As a result, the density and asymmetry in clustered gas will both approach those in the liquid phase.

Short of simple tools to estimate typical relative numbers of free neutrons, free protons and clusters in the gas phase in a reaction, we may seek help from experiments. Different regions of velocity space are generally believed to reveal characteristics of different sources, such as the midrapidity particle source for the low-density neck region. Several intermediate-energy experiments pointed out to a neutron-rich midrapidity source in peripheral heavy-ion collisions . Sobotka et al.  measured neutron and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ emission from a midrapidity source formed in mid-central $`{}_{}{}^{129}Xe+^{120}Sn`$ collisions at 40MeV/nucleon. They compared their results with results of the INDRA collaboration for the same system  and gave a quantitative description of the midrapidity source. About half of the charged particles from this source are $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ and only $`10\%`$ are free protons. Similiar results have been obtained in other papers . The number of neutrons is approximately the same as the number of charged particles, or $`10`$ times the number of protons in this source . If we take the average cluster size in the midrapidity as about 5 , then the percentage of nucleons inside clusters will be $`\alpha 80\%`$. The $`N/Z`$ ratio for the midrapidity source is found to be higher than for the full system . Thus the midrapidity source has $`(N/Z)_{mid}1.65`$ or $`y_{mid}0.25`$ while the system has $`(N/Z)_{sys}1.39`$ or $`y_{sys}0.16`$. The asymmetry amplification ratio is then $`R1.5`$. For a mid-rapidity source formed in peripheral heavy-ion collision at similiar energy, a fully consistent comparision of different experiments is not easy. Neverthless, comparison of the peripheral data from  also suggests a high cluster concentration and a high $`n/p`$ ratio for free neutron and proton.

In our model calculation, Fig. 3 shows that for the cluster concentration $`\alpha `$ as high as $`80\%`$, the asymmetry amplification ratio R will decrease by more than a half when compared with the nonclustered gas phase. This large decrease of R will largely limit the isospin asymmetry in the gas phase when the asymmetry in the liquid phase is fixed. Sobotka et al.  extracted the temperature for the midrapidity source as $`67`$MeV. For this temperature and the cluster concentration $`\alpha 80\%`$, we can read off from Fig. 3 the corresponding equilibrium value as $`R(1.92.1)`$. This value is higher than the extracted $`R1.5`$ in the experiment, which means that the system only achieved a partial isospin equilibrium and the asymmetry amplification in the gas phase did not reach its full value.

While this kind of equilibrium consideration generally give some limits for the importance of cluster formation on isospin asymmetry in the liquid and gas phase transition region, the developement of isospin asymmetry in heavy-ion collision is essentially a nonequlibrium process which deserves more thorough investigations than can be comprised in this letter, possibly incorporating simulations. So we shall only give some general discussion of the possible isospin asymmetry developement in the system.

Because of the transient nature of heavy-ion collision, the development of isospin equilibrium could depend on two time scales. One time scale is for the separation of the midrapidity source from the remaining sources, and the other is for isospin equilibration. At high enough energy, the three sources separate quickly before isospin equilibration could set in between sources. The isospin asymmetry is then determined by the reaction geometry and the isospin content of the target and projectile. Isospin equilibration and cluster formation operate only as post-reorganization processes, changing only isospin asymmetry for free nucleon and clusters within individual sources. The large isospin asymmetry for free nucleons could be the result of clusterization in the low-density phase, with clusters taking over the role of the liquid phase, consistently with the arguments by Sobotka et al. . From our previous discussion, the R ratio in Fig. 2 sets an upper limit to the asymmetry of the free nucleons in the midrapidity source.

On the other hand, if the energy is low enough, partial isospin equilibrium will set in before different sources separate from each other, and the reaction scenario becomes more complex. As the two heavy ions collide against each other, initial compression of the participants produces a dense phase in the center, while two spectators remain less dense. As the asymmetry coefficient for the dense phase is larger than for the less dense phase (cf. Fig. 1) at the interfaces between the two spectator regions and participant region, there could be a local density gradient from the center out to the two spectators. From our arguments following Eq. (3), we know there could then appear an isospin asymmetry flow, and it would be out to the two spectators. As the compression stage ends, the center region begins to expand, and the density drops, the asymmetry coefficient also drops as a result. When the gradient of the asymmetry coefficient changes direction, the flow of isospin asymmetry changes direction too. Cluster formation in the center region counteracts the decrease of the asymmetry coefficient, and thus delays the change of flow direction. Further development of the system separates the three sources, and net isospin asymmetries for different sources do not change after the separation. But clusterization still plays a role changing the isospin asymmetry of free nucleons within individual sources. Since dynamical simulations suggest a much longer expansion time than the compression time, we could expect that the isospin asymmetry flow to the midrapidity region dominates. This could give rise to an enhanced asymmetry in the midrapidity region. The experiments also suggest a neutron-rich midrapidity source, which is consistent with the present picture.

In conclusion, we have investigated the isospin asymmetry in the nuclear liquid-gas phase-transition region. In the framework of the two-component Fermi-gas with a parameterized interaction, under the assumption of isospin equilibrium, we found that a neutron enrichment in the gas phase is due to the density-dependent part of the asymmetry energy. Meeting the isospin equilibrium condition, Eq. (3), drives extra neutrons out to the low-density phase. The formation of clusters, which have average asymmetry smaller than the gas phase, will make the gas phase more liquid-like, and counteract the neutron enrichment in the gas phase. The $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ clusters will be the most important due to their predominance in the neck region . Based on the isospin equilibrium requirement, isospin asymmetry flow was suggested if there exists a local density gradient in heavy-ion collisions. Since the midrapidity undergoes compression and expansion, we also suggested a possible change of the direction of the isospin asymmetry flow during the evolution of the system.

\***

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9605207.


format: text

text:
# Star Formation and Chemical Evolution of Lyman-Break Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The Lyman-break technique (e.g. Steidel, Pettini & Hamilton 1995) has now been proved very successful in finding large numbers of star forming galaxies at redshift $`z3`$ (e.g. Steidel et al. 1996, 1999b). The observed number density and clustering properties of Lyman-break galaxies (hereafter LBGs, Steidel et al. 1998; Giavalisco et al. 1998; Adelberger et al. 1998) are best explained by assuming that they are associated with the most massive haloes at $`z3`$ predicted in hierarchical models of structure formation (Mo & Fukugita 1996; Baugh, Cole & Frenk 1998; Mo, Mao & White 1998b; Coles, et al. 1998; Governato, et al. 1998; Jing 1998; Jing & Suto 1998; Katz, et al. 1998; Kauffmann, et al. 1998; Moscardini, et al. 1998; Peacock, et al. 1998; Wechsler, et al. 1998). This assumption provides a framework for predicting a variety of other observations for the LBG population. Steidel et al. (1999b and references therein) gave a good summary of recent studies on this population including the luminosity functions, luminosity densities, color distribution, star formation rates, clustering properties, and the differential evolution.

Assuming that LBGs form when gas in dark haloes settles into rotationally supported discs or, in the case where the angular momentum of the gas is small, settles at the self-gravitating radius, Mo, Mao & White (1998b) predict sizes, kinematics and star formation rates and halo masses for LBGs, and find that the model predictions are consistent with the current (rather limited) observational data; Steidel et al. (1999a) suggest that the total integrated UV luminosity densities of LBGs are quite similar between redshift 3 and 4 although the slope of their luminosity function might have a large change in the faint-end.

Furthermore, Steidel et al. (1999b) suggest that a “typical” LBG have a star formation rate of about $`65h_{50}^2\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and the star formation time scale be the order of 1Gyr based on their values of E(B-V) as pointed out by Pettini et al. (1997b) after adopting the reddening law of Calzetti (1997). Recently, Friaca & Terlevich (1999) use their chemodynamical model to propose that an early stage (the first Gyr) of intense star formation in the evolution of massive spheroids could be identified as LBGs.

However, Sawicki & Yee (1998) argued that LBGs could be very young stellar populations with the age less than 0.2Gyr based on the broadband optical and IR spectral energy distributions. This is also supported by the work of Ouchi & Yamada (1999) based on the expected sub-mm emission and dust properties. It is worthy of noting that the assumptions about the intrinsic LBG spectral shape and the reddening curve play important roles in these results.

In this paper, we study how star formation and chemical enrichment may have proceeded in the LBG population. As we will demonstrate in Section 2, the observed star formation rate at $`z3`$ requires a self-regulating process to keep the gas supply for a sufficiently long time. We will show (in Section 2) that such a process can be achieved by the balance between the energy feedback from star formation and gas cooling. Model predictions for the LBG population and further discussions about the results are presented in Section 3, a brief summary is given in Section 4.

As an illustration, we show theoretical results for a CDM model with cosmological density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. The power spectrum is assumed to be that given in Bardeen et al. (1986), with shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.2`$ and with normalization $`\sigma _8=1.0`$. We denote the mass fraction in baryons by $`f_\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$ is the cosmic baryonic density parameter. According to the cosmic nucleosynthesis, the currently favoured value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}0.019h^2`$ (Burles & Tytler 1998), where $`h`$ is the present Hubble constant in units of 100 $`\mathrm{kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, and so $`f_\mathrm{B}0.063h^2`$. Whenever a numerical value of $`h`$ is needed, we take $`h=0.7`$. At the same time, we define parameter $`t_{}`$ as the time scale for star formation in the LBG population throughout the paper.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 Galaxy Formation

In this paper, we use the galaxy formation scenario described in Mo, Mao & White (1998a, hereafter MMWa) to model the LBG population. In this scenario, central galaxies are assumed to form in dark matter haloes when collapse of protogalactic gas is halted either by its angular momentum, or by fragmentation as it becomes self-gravitating (see Mo, Mao & White 1998b, hereafter MMWb, for details). As described in MMWb, the observed properties of LBGs can be well reproduced if they are assumed to be the central galaxies formed in the most massive haloes with relatively small spins at $`z3`$. As in MMWb, we assume that gas in a dark halo initially settles into a disk with exponential surface density profile.

When the collapsing gas is arrested by its spin, the central gas surface density and the scale length of an exponential disk are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0380h\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^2\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{d}}{0.05}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda }{0.05}\right)^2\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)\left[\frac{H(z)}{H_0}\right],$$
(1)
and

$$R_\mathrm{d}8.8h^1\mathrm{kpc}\left(\frac{\lambda }{0.05}\right)\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)\left[\frac{H(z)}{H_0}\right]^1,$$
(2)
where $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ is the fraction of halo mass that settles into the disk, $`V_c`$ is the circular velocity of the halo, $`\lambda `$ is the dimensionless spin parameter, $`H(z)`$ is the Hubble constant at redshift $`z`$ and $`H_0`$ is its present value (see MMWa for details). Since $`H(z)`$ increases with $`z`$, for a given $`V_c`$ disks are less massive and smaller but have a higher surface density at higher redshift. When $`\lambda `$ is low and $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ is high, the collapsing gas will become self-gravitating and fragment to form stars before it settles into a rotationally supported disk. In this case, we will take an effective spin $`\lambda m_\mathrm{d}`$ in calculating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`R_\mathrm{d}`$.

We take the empirical law (Kennicutt 1998) of star formation rate (SFR) to model the star formation in high-redshift disks which is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}=a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}}{\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^2}\right)^b\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{pc}^2,$$
(3)
where

$$a=2.5\times 10^{10},b=1.4$$
(4)
respectively. Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ is the SFR per unit area and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the gas surface density. Note that this star formation law was derived by averaging the star formation rate and cold gas density over large areas on spiral disks and over starburst regions (Kennicutt 1998). We will apply this law differentially on a disk and also take into account the Toomre instability criterion of star formation (Toomre 1964; see also Binney & Tremaine 1987).

For a given cosmogonic model, the mass function for dark matter haloes at redshift $`z`$ can be estimated from the Press-Schechter formalism (Press & Schechter 1974):

$$\mathrm{d}N=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{\rho _0}{M}\frac{\delta _c(z)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(R)}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }(R)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}M}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\delta _c^2(z)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(R)}\right]\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{M},$$
(5)
where $`\delta _c(z)=\delta _c(0)(1+z)g(0)/g(z)`$ with $`g(z)`$ being the linear growth factor at $`z`$ and $`\delta _c(0)1.686`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(R)`$ is the linear $`rms`$ mass fluctuation in top-hat windows of radius $`R`$ which is related to the halo mass $`M`$ by $`M=(4\pi /3)\overline{\rho }_0R^3`$, with $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ being the mean mass density of the universe at $`z=0`$. The halo mass $`M`$ is related to halo circular velocity $`V_c`$ by $`M=V_c^3/[10GH(z)]`$. A detailed description of the PS formalism and the related cosmogonic issues can be found in the Appendix of MMWa.

From the Press-Schechter formalism and the $`\lambda `$-distribution which is a log-normal function with mean $`\overline{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }=\mathrm{ln}0.05`$ and dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }=0.5`$ (see equation  in MMWa), we can generate Monte Carlo samples of the halo distributions in the $`V_c`$-$`\lambda `$ plane at a given redshift and, using the star formation law outlined above, assign a star formation rate to each halo. As in MMWb, we select LBGs as the galaxies with the highest star formation rate, so that the comoving number density for LBGs is equal to the observed value, $`N_{\mathrm{LBG}}=2.4\times 10^3h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ for the assumed cosmology at $`z=3`$, as given in Adelberger et al. (1998). Here it is worth noting that the model selection of LBGs we adopted is without the dust extinction being considered. This implies that the contribution of the dust is assumed to be uniform. But in fact, it could be very different from galaxies to galaxies. So, our selection of LBGs may not have one-to-one correspondence with the observed LBGs (Baugh et al. 1999), but the selection should be correct on average.

### 2.2 Cooling-Regulated Star Formation

What regulates the amount of star-forming gas in a dark halo? In the standard hierarchical scenario of galaxy formation (e.g. White & Rees 1978; White & Frenk 1991, hereafter WF), gas in a dark matter halo is assumed to be shock heated to the virial temperature,

$$T=2.24\times 10^6\mathrm{K}\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2,$$
(6)
as the halo collapses and virializes. The hot gas then cools and settles into the halo centre to form stars. As suggested in WF, the amount of cold gas available for star formation in a dark halo is either limited by gas infall or by gas cooling, depending on the mass of the halo. For the massive haloes ($`V_c200\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$) we are interested here, gas cooling rate is smaller than gas-infall rate, and the supply of star-forming gas is limited by gas cooling (see WF for details). It is therefore likely that gas cooling is the main process that constantly regulates the SFR in LBGs.

To have a quantitative assessment, let us compare different rates involved in the problem. Using equations (1)-(4) we can write the SFR as

$`\dot{M}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi a\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^bR_\mathrm{d}^2}{b^2}}2.33\times 10^2h^{0.6}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{d}}{0.05}}\right)^{1.4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{0.05}}\right)^{0.8}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^{3.4}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{H(z)}{H_0}}\right]^{0.6}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1,`$ (7)
where $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ is the current gas content of the disk. The rate at which gas is consumed by star formation is therefore

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{SFR}}=(1R_\mathrm{r})\dot{M}_{},$$
(8)
where $`R_\mathrm{r}`$ is the returned fraction of stellar mass into the ISM; we take $`R_\mathrm{r}=0.3`$ for a Salpeter IMF (e.g. Madau et al. 1998). According to WF, the heating rate due to supernova explosions under the approximation of instantaneous recycling can be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}t}=ϵ_0\dot{M}_{}(700\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1)^2,$$
(9)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is an efficiency parameter which is still very uncertain. We take it to be $`0.02`$ as in WF. The rate at which gas is heated up (to the virial temperature) is therefore

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{heat}}=\frac{0.8}{V_c^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}t}$$
(10)
which is the same form as equation (9) of Kauffmann (1996; see also Somerville 1997). At $`z=3`$ and for the cosmology considered here, this rate can be written as

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{heat}}29.2h^{0.6}\left(\frac{m_d}{0.05}\right)^{1.4}\left(\frac{\lambda }{0.05}\right)^{0.8}\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^{1.4}\left[\frac{H(z)}{H_0}\right]^{0.6}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(11)
Comparing this equation with equations (7) and (8), we can find that the rate for gas consumption due to star formation is much larger than the rate of gas heating for LBG halos. Because LBGs are hosted by massive halos which have large circular velocities $`V_\mathrm{c}`$, the halos are cooling dominated which is confirmed during the detailed calculation below. Following WF we define a mass cooling rate by

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}=4\pi \rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r_{\mathrm{cool}})r_{\mathrm{cool}}^2\frac{\mathrm{d}r_{\mathrm{cool}}}{\mathrm{d}t},$$
(12)
where $`r_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ is the cooling radius and $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the density profile of the hot gas in the halo. For simplicity, we assume that $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)=f_\mathrm{B}V_c^2/(4\pi Gr^2)`$, and we define $`r_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ to be the radius at which the cooling time is equal to the age of the universe, which is similar to the time interval between major mergers of haloes (Lacey & Cole 1994). The density distribution of the halo mass here is assumed to be isothermal. However, it is the NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk & White, 1997) in MMWb. Because the difference of the resulted cooling rates between these two different choices of density profiles is small (Zhao et al, 1999), and the major goal here is to show whether or not the cooling-regulated star formation can be valid, the adoption of isothermal profile will not influence the final result very much.

Under this definition, gas within the cooling radius can cool effectively before the halo merges into a larger system where it may be heated up to the new virial temperature if it is not converted into stars. Using the cooling function given by Binney & Tremaine (1987) where cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{23}\mathrm{ergs}^1\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in the range of $`5\times 10^5\mathrm{K}T2\times 10^7\mathrm{K}`$ (and assuming gas with primordial composition), the mass cooling rate can then be written as

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}49.8h^{1/2}\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2\left(\frac{f_\mathrm{B}}{0.1}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(13)
If $`\dot{M}_{}`$ is smaller than $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, then cold gas will accumulate in the halo centre and lead to higher star formation rate. If, on the other hand, $`\dot{M}_{}>\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, the amount of cold gas will be reduced by star formation and supernova heating, leading to a lower star formation rate. We therefore assume that there is a rough balance among these three rates:

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{heat}}+\left(1R_\mathrm{r}\right)\dot{M}_{}.$$
(14)
It should be noted that the cooling-regulated star formation process is only a reasonable hypothesis, and the real situation must be much more complicated. For example, during a major merger of galactic haloes, the amount of gas that can cool must be much larger than that given by the cooling argument, and the star formation may be in a short burst (e.g. Mihos & Hernquist 1996). However, such bursts are not expected to dominate the observed LBG population, because of their brief lifetimes. Thus, star formation rates in the majority of LBGs are expected to be regulated by equation (14) on average. As shown in MMWb, to match the observed number density of LBGs, the median value of $`V_c`$ is about $`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the present cosmogony. The typical star formation rate is of the order $`100\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This is not very different from the observed star formation rates, albeit dust distinction in the observations may be difficult to quantify.

Figure 1 shows the value of $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ required by the balance condition equation (14) as a function of halo circular velocity, assuming that $`f_\mathrm{B}=0.1`$ and the left hand side exactly equals to the right hand ones in equation (14). Results are shown for two choices of spin parameters, $`\lambda =0.035`$ and 0.08, corresponding to the 50 and 90 percent points of the $`\lambda `$ distribution for the LBG population (MMWb). As one can see, for the majority of LBG hosts, gas cooling indeed regulates the values of $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ to the range from 0.02 to 0.04. So, we can reasonably choose $`m_\mathrm{d}=0.03`$ for the LBG population as MMWb did. Since the cooling time is approximately the age of the universe at $`z3`$, cooling regulation ensures that star formation at the predicted rate can last over a large portion of a Hubble time.

## 3 MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR THE LBG POPULATION

Since the cooling regulation discussed above gives specific predictions of how star formation may have proceeded in LBGs, here we use this model to predict the properties of the LBG population. The condition in equation (14) implies that the star formation rate in a disk is equal to the rate of gas infall (due to a balance between cooling and heating). Thus the evolution of the gas in the disk of an LBG host halo is described by the standard chemical evolution model with infall rate equal to star formation rate, i.e., the new infalling gas to the disk distributed radially in an exponential form with the scale length of $`R_\mathrm{d}/b0.7R_\mathrm{d}`$, and the reheated gas removed decreases with the increasing radius due to the decreasing SFR. Under the instantaneous recycling approximation (Tinsley 1980), the gas metallicity $`Z`$ is given by

$$Z=y(1e^\nu )+Z_i,\nu =\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}}1,$$
(15)
where $`Z_i`$ is the initial metallicity of the infalling gas, $`y`$ is the stellar chemical yield, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is the gas surface density (which is kept constant by gas infall) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total mass surface density, which increases as star formation proceeds:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\mathrm{d}t}=(1R_\mathrm{r})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}.$$
(16)
Here the enrichment of the halo hot gases is not taken into account because the amount of metals heated up to the halos by SNs is relatively smaller than that of primordial gases.

### 3.1 Individual Objects

Figure 2 shows the star formation rate as a function of halo circular velocity $`V_c`$ and spin parameter $`\lambda `$. As expected, the predicted SFR increases with $`V_c`$ but decreases with $`\lambda `$ . As we can see from the figure, if we define systems with $`\mathrm{SFR}40\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (which matches the SFRs for the observed LBG population) to be LBGs, the majority of their host haloes must have $`V_c200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ which are cooling dominated. This result is the same as that obtained by MMWb based on the observed number density and clustering of LBGs. Thus, the star formation rate based on cooling argument is also consistent with the observed number density and clustering. Because SFR is higher in a system with smaller $`\lambda `$, the LBG population are biased towards haloes with small spins, but given its relatively narrow distribution, this bias is not very strong.

The predicted metallicity gradients on individual disks are shown in Figure 3 for two different choices of star formation time scale $`t_{}`$ of 0.5Gyr and 1Gyr respectively, where we assume that $`y=Z_{}`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{i}=0`$ in order to make the predictions easily compare with observations. The metallicity gradients are negative in all cases. When radius is measured in disk scale length, the predicted metallicity depends weakly on $`V_c`$ but strongly on $`\lambda `$, and is higher for a longer star formation time. As one can see from equation (15), the largest metallicity in the model is $`Z=Z_i+y`$. This metallicity can be achieved in the inner part of compact disks (with small $`\lambda `$) when star formation time $`t_{}1`$ Gyr. The metallicity drops by a factor of $`2`$ from its central value at $`R3R_\mathrm{d}`$.

### 3.2 LBG Population

Since the distribution of haloes with respect to $`V_c`$ and $`\lambda `$ are known, we can generate Monte-Carlo samples of the halo distribution in the $`V_c`$-$`\lambda `$ plane at any given redshift. We can then use the galaxy formation model (MMWb) discussed above to transform the halo population into an LBG population based on LBGs with highest SFRs which is the same as that outlined in Sec. 2.

We define the typical metallicity of a galaxy as the one at its effective radius. Figure 4 shows the distribution of this metallicity for two choices of the star formation time, $`t_{}=0.5`$ Gyr and 1 Gyr. Just as the same reason as Figure 3 in last section, we have assumed that $`y=Z_{}`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{i}=0`$ in order to make the predictions easily compare with observations. The median values of $`(ZZ_i)/y`$ are 0.60 and 0.84 for $`t_{}=0.5`$ Gyr and 1 Gyr, respectively. The sharp truncation at $`(ZZ_i)/y=1`$ is due to the fact that this quantity has a maximum value of 1 in the present chemical evolution model. It can be inferred form Figure 3 that the range in $`(ZZ_i)/y`$ decreases with increasing star formation time. Thus, if gas infall lasts for a long enough time, the distribution in $`(ZZ_i)/y`$ will be very narrow near 1 and all LBGs will have metallicity $`Z=Z_i+y`$. According to the works of Tinsley (1980) and Maeder (1992), the stellar yield $`y`$ is the order of $`Z_{}`$ for the Salpeter IMF. If we adopt a stellar yield $`y0.5Z_{}`$ and $`Z_i=0.01Z_{}`$, and if LBGs are not short bursts (e.g. $`t_{}0.5`$ Gyr) then their metallicity will be $`Z0.2Z_{}`$ which is similar to that proposed by Pettini (1999).

The predicted distribution of effective radii for the LBG population is shown in Figure 5. The distribution is similar to that of MMWb. The predicted range is $`1.0R_{\mathrm{eff}}5.0h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ with a median value of 2.5 $`h^1`$kpc. Note that the effective radii in the cooling-regulated model are independent of the star formation time $`t_{}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{d}`$. The model prediction is in agreement with the observational results given by Pettini, et al. (1998), Lowenthal, et al. (1997) and Giavalisco et al. (1996) which are mentioned above.

The predicted SFR distribution of LBGs also resembles the prediction of MMWb except for a slight difference with MMWb, which is shown in Figure 6. The median values are 180$`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for the model and spans from 100 to 500$`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. To compare with observations, we have to take into account the effect of dust. If we apply an average factor of 3 in dust extinction, then the predictions closely match the values derived from infrared observations by Pettini, et al. (1998) although there might exist rare LBGs with very high SFR.

### 3.3 Contribution To The Soft X-ray and UV Background

Since the virial temperature of LBG haloes are quite high, in the range of $`10^610^7`$K, significant soft X-ray and hard UV photons may be emitted as the halo hot gas cools. It is therefore interesting to examine whether the LBG population can make substantial contribution to the soft X-ray and UV backgrounds.

The dominant cooling mechanism for hot gas with temperature $`10^6`$ K is the thermal bremsstrahlung. The bremsstrahlung emissivity is given by (e.g., Peebles 1993)

$$j_\nu =5.4\times 10^{39}n_e^2T^{1/2}e^{h\nu /kT}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{ster}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1,$$
(17)
where $`n_e`$ (in $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$) is the electron density and $`T`$ (in K) is the temperature given by equation (6). The total power emitted per unit volume is

$$J=1.42\times 10^{27}T^{1/2}n_e^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(18)
We write the total luminosity $`L_\mathrm{b}`$ in thermal bremsstrahlung as

$$L_\mathrm{b}=\beta \dot{M}_{\mathrm{cool}}V_c^2,$$
(19)
and we take $`\beta =2.5`$ here as WF so that $`L_\mathrm{b}`$ is equal to the initial thermal energy in the cooling gas. Note that the value of $`\beta `$ is quite uncertain because it depends on the detail density and temperature profiles of the hot gas. Substituting equation (13) into the above equation, we obtain the total soft X-ray luminosity for an LBG

$$L_{\mathrm{sx}}(V_c)4.1\times 10^{40}f_{\mathrm{soft}}\left(\frac{V_c}{250\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}}\right)^4\left(\frac{f_\mathrm{B}}{0.1}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(20)
where

$$f_{\mathrm{soft}}=\frac{1}{kT}_{0.5(1+z)}^{2(1+z)}e^{E/kT}𝑑E$$
(21)
is the fraction of total energy that falls into the ROSAT soft X-ray (0.5-2 keV) band. The contribution of the LBG population to the soft X-ray background is then

$$\rho _{\mathrm{sx}}=𝑑V_c𝑑V_{\mathrm{com}}\frac{n(z)L_{\mathrm{sx}}}{4\pi d_L^2}5.7\times 10^8\left(\frac{f_\mathrm{B}}{0.1}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(22)
where $`n(z)`$ is the comoving number density of LBG haloes as a function of redshift $`z`$, $`dV_{\mathrm{com}}`$ is the differential comoving volume from $`z`$ to $`z+dz`$ and $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance. The integrate for $`V_\mathrm{c}`$ is to sum up all selected LBGs with $`V_\mathrm{c}`$ based on their highest SFRs. We have integrated over redshift range from 3 to 4 where the number density of LBGs is nearly a constant (Steidel 1998a,b). This contribution should be compared with the value derived from the ROSAT observations (Hasinger et al. 1998) in the 0.5-2 keV band

$$\rho _{\mathrm{sx}}2.4\times 10^7\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(23)
As we can see, the soft X-ray contribution from LBGs could be a substantial fraction (about 20%) of the total soft X-ray background.

Similarly we can calculate the contribution of LBGs to the UV background at $`z=3`$. We evaluate the UV background at 4 Ryd (1Ryd=13.6 eV) using nearly identical procedures, we find that

$$i_{4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{d}}2.4\times 10^{24}\left(\frac{f_\mathrm{B}}{0.1}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{ergs}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1\mathrm{ster}^1,$$
(24)
which is much smaller than the UV background from AGNs, $`i_{4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{d}}10^{22}\mathrm{ergs}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1\mathrm{ster}^1`$ (e.g. Miralda-Escude & Ostriker 1990).

### 3.4 Contribution to the Total Metals

Based on the recent observational results of the cosmic star formation history, Pettini (1999) obtained a predicted total mass of metals produced at $`z=2.5`$. After combining results of all contributors observed, he argued that there seems to exist a very serious “missing metal” problem, i.e., the predicted result is much higher than observed ones. So, it is interesting to evaluate the total metals produced by LBGs in our model.

According to the method we select LBGs to be the galaxies with highest SFR and our chemical evolution model mentioned in Sec. 3.2, we can calculate the total metal density produced by the LBG population at $`z=3`$ based on their observed comoving number density which is $`N_{\mathrm{LBG}}=2.4\times 10^3h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ for the assumed cosmology (Adelberger et al. 1998). Defining that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Z}`$ is the metal density relative to the critical density, we get that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Z}`$ of LBGs are $`0.19\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\times y`$ and $`0.29\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\times y`$ for star formation time of 0.5Gyr and 1Gyr respectively, where $`y`$ is the stellar yield which is the same as above. Because the virial temperature of LBG halos are very high, a significant fraction of the metal should be in hot phase. Comparing our results with that estimated by Pettini (1999) which is $`0.08\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\times Z_{}`$ (the cosmogony has been taken into account), we find that there is no “missing metal” problem in our model.

### 3.5 LBGs and Damped Lyman-Alpha Systems

Damped Lyman-alpha systems (DLSs) are another population of objects that can be observed at similar redshift to LBGs. The DLSs are selected according to their high neutral HI column density ($`>10^{20.3}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), and are believed to be either high-redshift thick disk galaxies (Prochaska & Wolfe 1998) or merging protogalactic clumps (Haehnelt, Steimetz & Rauch 1998). In either case, to match the observed abundance of DLSs, most DLSs should have circular velocity between $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to $`200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, much smaller than the median circular velocity of LBGs ($`300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$). Based on the PS formalism (equation (5)) and disk galaxy formation scenario suggested by MMWa (equations (1) and (2)), we can estimate with the random inclination being taken into account, that the fraction of absorbing cross-sections contributed by LBGs amounts to only about 5% of the total absorption cross-section assumed LBGs with highest SFRs. This means that only a very small fraction of DLSs can be identified as LBGs.

The physical connection between LBGs and DLSs is still unclear, although the recent observation of Moller & Warren (1998) using $`HST`$ indicates that some DLSs could be associated with LBGs. In Figure 7, we show the predicted metallicity distribution for the subset of DLSs which can be observed as LBGs. aGain, we have assumed that $`y=Z_{}`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{i}=0`$ to let the predictions more easily compare to observations. As can be seen, the DLSs generally have lower metallicity than LBGs, because they are biased towards the outer region of the host galaxies, where the star formation activity is reduced. Notice, however, that the metallicity of these DLSs could still be higher than most DLSs at the same redshift, which typically have metallicity of $`0.1Z_{}`$ (Pettini, et al 1997a).

## 4 SUMMARY

In this paper, we have examined the star formation and chemical enrichment in Lyman break galaxies, assuming them to be the central galaxies of massive haloes at $`z3`$ and using simple chemical evolution models. We found that gas cooling in dark haloes provides a natural process which regulates the amount of star forming gas. The predicted star formation rates and effective radii are consistent with observations. The metallicity of the gas associated with an LBG is roughly equal to the chemical yield, or about the order of $`1Z_{}`$ for a Salpeter IMF. Because of the relatively long star-formation time, the colours of these galaxies should be redder than that of short starbursts. It is not clear whether this prediction is consistent with current (rather) limited observations, because the interpretation of the observational data depends strongly on the adopted dust reddening. Stringent constraint can be obtained when full spectral information of the LBG population is carefully analyzed.

The model predicts a marked radial metallicity gradient in an LBG, with the gas in the outer region having lower metallicity. As a result, the metallicities for the damped Lyman-alpha absorption systems expected from the LBG population are lower than those for the LBGs themselves, although high metallicity is expected for a small number of sightlines going through the central regions of an LBG. At the same time, our modeled contribution to the total metal is roughly consistent with that obtained from the observed cosmic star formation history, i.e., there might not exist so-called “missing metal” problem although there could be more than half of the metals to be in the hot phase. Finally, a prediction of our model is that LBG haloes are filled with hot gas. As a result, these galaxies may have a non-negligible contribution to the soft X-ray background. The contribution of LBGs to the ionizing UV background is found to be small.

There are two basic assumptions in our work. One is that the LBG population is one-to-one associated with the most massive halos which are generated from the PS formalism, as done by MMWb; another is that the timescale of star formation for LBG population is assumed to be the order of 1Gyr, which is suggested by Steidel et al. (1999a,b, 1995). However, Baugh et al. (1999) recently argue that the prediction of the clustering properties of LBGs based on this first simple assumption will be discrepancy with the results of more detailed semi-analytic models. Still, the second will lead to difficulty in reproducing the redshift evolution of bright galaxies (Kolatt et al. 1999). More detailed modelling done by Somerville (1997) suggest the collisional starbursts could be expected to be an important effect in understanding the LBGs. So, further observations are required to investigate the intrinsic properties of LBGs.

## Acknowledgments

This project is partly supported by the Chinese National Natural Foundation. I thank Dr. S. Mao, Dr. H. J. Mo and Prof. S. D. M. White for detailed discussions, and the useful help of anonymous referee.


text:
# Hidden Source of High-Energy Neutrinos in Collapsing Galactic Nucleus

## 1 Introduction: Hidden Sources

High energy (HE) neutrino radiation from astrophysical sources is accompanied by other types of radiation, most notably by the HE gamma-radiation. These HE gamma-radiation can be used to put upper limit on the neutrino flux emitted from a source. For example, if neutrinos are produced due to interaction of HE protons with low energy photons in extragalactic space or in the sources transparent for gamma-radiation, the upper limit on diffuse neutrino flux $`I_\nu (E)`$ can be derived from e-m cascade radiation. This radiation is produced due to collisions with photons of microwave radiation $`\gamma _{bb}`$, such as $`\gamma +\gamma _{bb}e^++e^{},e+\gamma _{bb}e^{}+\gamma ^{}`$ etc. These cascade processes transfer the energy density released in high energy photons $`\omega _\gamma `$ into energy density of the remnant cascade photons $`\omega _{cas}`$. These photons get into the observed energy range $`100`$ MeV$`10`$ GeV and their energy density is limited by recent EGRET observations  as $`\omega _{cas}210^6`$ eV/cm3. Introducing the energy density for neutrinos with individual energies higher than E, $`\omega _\nu (>E)`$, it is easy to obtain the following chain of inequalities (reading from left to write)

$$\omega _{cas}>\omega _\nu (>E)=\frac{4\pi }{c}\underset{E}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}EI_\nu (E)𝑑E>\frac{4\pi }{c}E\underset{E}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_\nu (E)𝑑E=\frac{4\pi }{c}EI_\nu (>E).$$
(1)
Now the upper limit on the integral HE neutrino flux can be written down as

$$I_\nu (>E)<\frac{4\pi }{c}\frac{\omega _{cas}}{E}=4.810^3E_{eV}^1\text{ cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{sr}^1.$$
(2)
However, there can be sources, where accompanying electromagnetic radiation, such as gamma and X-rays, are absorbed. They are called “hidden sources” . Several models of hidden sources were discussed in the literature.

* Young SN Shell  during time $`t_\nu 10^310^4`$ s are opaque for all radiation, but neutrinos.
* Thorne-Zytkow Star , the binary with a pulsar submerged into a red giant, can emit HE neutrinos while all kinds of e-m radiation are absorbed by the red giant component.
* Cocooned Massive Black Hole (MBH) in AGN  is an example of AGN as hidden source: e-m radiation is absorbed in a cocoon around the massive black hole.
* AGN with Standing Shock in the vicinity of a MBH  can produce large flux of HE neutrinos with relatively weak X-ray radiation.

In this paper we propose a new model of the hidden source which can operate in a galactic nucleus at pre-AGN phase, i.e. prior to MBH formation in it. The MBH in AGN is formed through the dynamical evolution of a central stellar cluster resulting in a secular contraction of the cluster and its final collapse . The first stage of this evolution is accompanied by collisions and destruction of normal stars in the evolving cluster, when virial velocities of constituent stars become high enough. The compact stars (neutron stars and black holes) survive this stage and their population continue to contract, being surrounded by the massive envelope composed of the gas from destroyed normal stars. Pre-AGN phase corresponds to a near collapsing central cluster of compact stars in the galactic nucleus. Repeating fireballs after continuous collisions of compact stars in this very dense cluster result in the formation of a rarefied cavity in the massive gas envelope. Particles accelerated in this cavity interact with the gas in the envelope and produce HE neutrinos. Accompanying gamma-radiation can be fully absorbed in the case of thick envelope (matter depth $`X_{env}10^4`$ g/cm2). The proposed source is short-lived (lifetime $`t_s10`$ years) and very powerful: neutrino luminosity exceeds the Eddington limit for e-m radiation.

## 2 The Model

We consider in the following the basic features of the formation of a short-lived extremely powerful hidden source of HE neutrinos in the process of dynamical evolution of the central stellar cluster in a typical galactic nucleus.

### 2.1 Dynamical Evolution of Galactic Nucleus

The dynamical evolution of dense central stellar clusters in the galactic nuclei is accompanied by a secular growth of the velocity dispersion of constituent stars $`v`$ or, equivalently, by the growth of the central gravitational potential. This process is terminated by the formation of the MBH when the velocity dispersion of stars grows up to the light speed (see for a review e.g.  and references therein). On its way to a MBH formation the dense galactic nuclei inevitably proceed through the stellar collision phase of evolution , when most normal stars in the cluster are disrupted in mutual collisions. The necessary condition for the collisional destruction of normal stars with mass $`m_{}`$ and radius $`r_{}`$ in the cluster of identical stars with a velocity dispersion $`v`$ is

$$v>v_p,$$
(3)
where

$$v_p=\left(\frac{2Gm_{}}{r_{}}\right)^{1/2}6.210^2\left(\frac{m_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{r_{}}{R_{}}\right)^{1/2}\text{ km s}^1.$$
(4)
is an escape (parabolic) velocity from the surface of a constituent normal star. The kinetic energy of colliding star is greater in general than its gravitational bound energy under the inequality (3). If $`v>v_p`$, the normal stars are eventually disrupted in mutual collisions or in collisions with the extremely compact stellar remnants, i.e. with neutron stars (NSs) or stellar mass black holes. Only these compact stellar remnants will survive through the stellar-destruction phase of evolution ($`v=v_p`$) and form the self-gravitating core. We shall refer for simplicity to this core as to the NS cluster. Meanwhile the remnants of disrupted normal stars form a gravitationally bound massive gas envelope in which the NS cluster is submerged. The virial radius of this envelope is

$$R_{env}=\frac{GM_{env}}{2v_p^2}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{M_{env}}{m_{}}r_{}0.56M_8\left(\frac{m_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^1\left(\frac{r_{}}{R_{}}\right)\text{ pc},$$
(5)
where $`M_{env}=10^8M_8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is a corresponding mass of the envelope. The gas from disrupted normal stars composes the major part of the progenitor central stellar cluster in the galactic nucleus. So the natural range for the total mass of the envelope is the same as the typical range for the mass of a central stellar cluster in the galactic nucleus, $`M_{env}=10^710^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The envelope radius $`R_{env}`$ is given by the virial radius of a central cluster in the galactic nucleus at the moment of evolution corresponding to normal stars destructions, i. e, $`v=v_p`$. The mean number density of gas in the envelope is

$$n_{env}=\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{1}{R_{env}^3}\frac{M_{env}}{m_p}5.410^9M_8^2\left(\frac{m_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^3\left(\frac{r_{}}{R_{}}\right)^3\text{ cm}^3,$$
(6)
where $`m_p`$ is a proton mass. A column density of the envelope is

$$X_{env}=m_pn_{env}R_{env}1.610^4M_8^1\left(\frac{m_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{r_{}}{R_{}}\right)^2\text{ g cm}^2.$$
(7)
Such an envelope completely absorbs electromagnetic radiation and HE particles outgoing from the interior, except neutrinos and gravitational waves. A column density becomes less for more massive envelopes.

We assume that energy release due to star collisions supports the gas in the cluster in (quasi-)dynamical equilibrium. It implies the equilibrium temperature $`T_{eq}`$ of the gas,

$$T_{eq}\frac{m_p}{6k}\frac{GM_{env}}{R_{env}}1.610^7\text{ K}.$$
(8)
The thermal velocity of gas particles at the equilibrium temperature is of order of an escape velocity from the surface of a normal star.

If $`TT_{eq}`$ the gas outflows from the cluster with the sound speed

$$v_s=\left(2\gamma \frac{kT}{m_p}\right)^{1/2}600\left(\frac{T}{T_{eq}}\right)^{1/2}\text{ km/s},$$
(9)
where $`\gamma `$ is adiabatic index ($`\gamma =5/3`$ for hydrogen).
If $`TT_{eq}`$ gas collapses to the core.

### 2.2 Dense Cluster of Stellar Remnants

As was discussed above, the dense NS cluster survives inside the massive envelope of the post-stellar-destruction galactic nucleus. The total mass of this cluster is $`110`$ % of the total mass of a progenitor galactic nucleus  and so of the massive envelope, i. e. $`M0.010.1M_{env}`$. We will use the term ‘evolved galactic nucleus’ for this cluster of NSs assuming that (i) $`v>v_p`$ and (ii) the (two-body) relaxation time in the cluster is much less than the age of the host galaxy. Under the last condition the cluster has enough time for an essential dynamical evolution. For example the relaxation time of stars inside a central parsec of the Milky Way galaxy is $`t_r10^710^8`$ years. A further dynamical evolution of the evolved cluster is terminated by the dynamical collapse to a MBH.

We consider in the following an evolved central cluster of NSs with identical masses $`m=1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$. This evolved cluster of NSs is sunk deep into the massive gas envelope remaining after the previous evolution epoch of a typical normal galactic nucleus. Let $`N=M/m=10^6N_6`$ is a total number of NSs stars in the cluster. The virial radius of this cluster is:

$$R=\frac{GNm}{2v^2}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2Nr_g1.010^{13}N_6(v/0.1c)^2\text{ cm},$$
(10)
where $`r_g=2Gm/c^2`$ is a gravitational radius of NS. For $`N10^6`$ and $`v0.1c`$ one has nearly collapsing cluster with the virial size of $`1`$ AU. The characteristic times are (i) the dynamical time $`t_{dyn}=R/v=(1/4)N(c/v)^3r_g/c0.95N_6(v/0.1c)^3`$ hour and (ii) the evolution (two-body relaxation) time of the NS cluster $`t_{rel}0.1(N/\mathrm{ln}N)t_{dyn}19N_6^2(v/0.1c)^3`$ years. In general $`t_{rel}t_{dyn}`$, if $`N1`$. This evolution time determines the duration of an active phase for the considered below hidden source, as $`t_st_{rel}10`$ years.

### 2.3 Fireballs in Cluster

The most important feature of our model is a secular growing rate of accidental NS collisions in the evolving cluster, accompanied by large energy release. The corresponding rate of NS collisions in the cluster (with the gravitational radiation losses taken into account) is

$`\dot{N}_c`$ $`=`$ $`9\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}\right)^{17/7}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{R}}=36\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}\right)^{31/7}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{r_g}}`$ (11)
$``$ $`4.410^3N_6^1(v/0.1c)^{31/7}\text{ yr}^1.`$
The time between two successive NS collisions is

$`t_c`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{N}_c^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{v}}\right)^{10/7}t_{dyn}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{36\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{v}}\right)^{31/7}N{\displaystyle \frac{r_g}{c}}`$ (12)
$``$ $`7.310^3N_6(v/0.1c)^{31/7}\text{ s}.`$
Note that a number of NS collisions, given by $`\dot{N_c}t_s`$, comprises only a small fraction, about $`1\%`$, of a total number of NSs in the cluster to the time of the onset of dynamical collapse of the whole cluster into a MBH.

Merging of two NSs in collision is similar to the process of a tight binary merging: the NSs are approaching to each other by spiralling down due to the gravitational waves radiation and then coalesce by producing an ultrarelativistic photon-lepton fireball , which we assume to be spherically symmetric.

The energy of one fireball is $`E_0=E_{52}10^{52}`$ ergs, and the total energy release in the form of fireballs during lifetime of the hidden source $`t_s10`$ yr is

$$E_{tot}\dot{N_c}E_0t_s410^{56}\text{ ergs},$$
(13)
where $`\dot{N_c}`$ is the NS collision rate.

The physics of fireballs is extensively elaborated especially in recent years for the modeling of cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) (for review see e. g.  and references therein). The newborn fireball expands with relativistic velocity, corresponding to the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f1`$. The relevant parameter of a fireball is the total baryonic mass

$$M_0=E_0/\eta c^25.610^6E_{52}\eta _3^1M_{},$$
(14)
where baryon-loading mass parameter $`\eta =10^3\eta _3`$. The maximum possible Lorentz factor of expanding fireball is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=\eta +1`$ during the matter-dominated phase of fireball expansion . During the initial phase of expansion, starting from the radius of the ‘inner engine’ $`R_010^610^7`$ cm, the fireball Lorentz factor increases as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }r`$, until it is saturated at the maximum value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=\eta 1`$ at the radius $`R_\eta =R_0\eta `$ (see e. g. ). Internal shocks will take place around $`R_{sh}=R_0\eta ^2`$, if the fireball is inhomogeneous and the velocity is not a monotonic function of radius, e.g. due to the considerable emission fluctuations of the inner engine . The fireball expands with the constant Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\eta `$ at $`R>R_\eta `$ until it sweeps up the mass $`M_0/\eta `$ of ambient gas and looses half of its initial momentum. At this moment ($`R=R_\gamma `$) the deceleration stage starts .

Interaction of the fireball with an ambient gas determines the length of its relativistic expansion. In our case the fireball propagates through the massive envelope with a mean gas number density $`n_{env}=\rho _{env}/m_p=n_910^9`$ cm-3 as it follows from Eq. (6). Fireball expands with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ up to the distance determined by the Sedov length

$$l_S=\left(\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{E_0}{\rho _{env}c^2}\right)^{1/3}1.210^{15}n_9^{1/3}E_{52}^{1/3}\text{ cm}.$$
(15)
Fireball becomes mildly relativistic at radius $`r=l_S`$ due to sweeping up the gas from the envelope with the mass $`M_0\eta `$. The radius $`r=l_S`$ is the end point of the ultrarelativistic fireball expansion phase. Far beyond the Sedov length radius ($`rl_S`$) there is the non-relativistic Newtonian shock driven by the decelerated fireball. Its radius $`R(t)`$ obeys the Sedov–Taylor self-similar solution , with $`R(t)=(E_0t^2/\rho _{env})^{1/5}`$. The corresponding shock expansion velocity is $`u=(2/5)[l_S/R(t)]^{3/2}cc`$.

### 2.4 Cavity and Shocks

We show here that relativistic fireballs from a dense central cluster of NSs produce the dynamically supported rarefied cavity deep inside the massive gaseous envelope.

The first fireball sweeps out the gas from the envelope producing the cavity with a radius $`l_S`$. This cavity expands due to the next fireballs, which propagate first in a rarefied cavity and then hit the boundary pushing it further.

Each fireball hitting the dense envelope is preceded by a shock. Propagating through the envelope, the shock sweeps up the gas ahead of it and gradually decelerates. The swept out gas forms a thin shell with a density profile given by Sedov self-similar solution. The next fireball hits this thin shell when it is decelerated down to the non-relativistic velocity. Moving in the envelope, the shell accumulates more gas, retaining the same density profile, and then it is hit by the next fireball again. After a number of collisions the shell becomes massive, and the successive hitting fireballs do not change its velocity appreciably. In this regime one can consider the propagation of massive non-relativistic thin shell with a shock (density discontinuity) ahead of it. The shock speed $`v_{sh}`$ is connected with a velocity $`v_g`$ of gas behind it as $`v_{sh}=(\gamma +1)v_g/2`$, where $`\gamma `$ is an adiabatic index. The density perturbation in the envelope propagates as a shock until $`v_{sh}`$ remains higher than sound speed $`v_s`$. In the considered case, the shock dissipates in the middle of the envelope. For the Sedov solution the shock velocity changes with distance $`r`$ as

$$v_{sh}(r)=\frac{2}{5}\alpha _S^1\left(\frac{E_{sh}}{\rho _{env}}\right)^{1/2}r^{3/2},$$
(16)
where $`\alpha _S`$ is the constant of self-similar Sedov solution; when radiative pressure dominates $`\alpha _S=0.894`$. The other quantities in Eq. (16) are $`E_{sh}=(1/2)E_{tot}=210^{56}`$ erg/s is the energy of the shock, which includes kinetic and thermal energy (the half of a total energy is transformed to particles accelerated in the cavity), and $`\rho _{env}`$ is a density of the envelope given by Eq. (6). From Eqs. (16) and (9) it follows that $`v_{sh}>v_s`$ holds at distance $`r<110^{18}\text{ cm}0.6R_{env}`$, i. e. that shock does not reach the outer surface of the envelope. In fact the latter conclusion follows already from energy conservation. The gravitational energy of the envelope $`V_0`$ is

$$V_0=\kappa \frac{GM_{env}^2}{R_{env}}>9.210^{56}\text{ ergs},$$
(17)
where $`\kappa `$ depends on a radial profile of the gas density in the envelope $`\rho (r)`$, and changes from 3/5 to 1. This energy is higher than a total injected energy $`E_{tot}410^{56}`$ ergs, and thus the system remains gravitationally bound. When a shock reaches the boundary of the envelope, the gas distribution changes there. It has the form of a thin shell with gravitational energy $`V_e=GM_{env}^2/2R_{env}`$. To provide the exit of the shock to the surface of the envelope, a total energy release must satisfy the relation $`E_{tot}>V_0V_e`$, where the minimum value of $`V_0V_e`$ is $`1.510^{56}`$ ergs for $`\kappa =3/5`$. Actually $`E_{tot}`$ must be higher because (i) part of the injected energy goes to heat, (ii) more realistic value of $`\kappa =1`$, and (iii) the shell has a non-zero velocity, when the shock disappears, with a gravitational braking taken into account. We conclude thus that for $`E_{tot}410^{56}`$ ergs, shock dissipates inside the envelope.

The cavity radius grows with time. For the stage, when a shell moves non-relativistically, the cavity radius calculated as a distance to the shell in the Sedov solution is

$$R_{cav}(t)=\left(\frac{E_{sh}}{\alpha _S\rho _{env}}\right)^{1/5}t^{2/5}.$$
(18)
At the end of a phase of the hidden source activity, $`t_s10`$ yr, the radius of the cavity reaches $`310^{17}`$ cm, remaining thus much less than $`R_{env}`$.

The cavity is filled by direct and reverse relativistic shocks from fireballs. Reverse shocks are produced by decelerated fireballs, most notably when they hit the boundary of the cavity. The expanding fireballs inside the cavity have a shape of thin shells  and are separated by distance

$$R_c=ct_c2.210^{14}N_6(v/0.1c)^{31/7}\text{ cm}.$$
(19)
The gas between two fireballs is swept up by the preceding one. A total number of fireballs existing in the cavity simultaneously is $`N_fR_{cav}/R_c1`$, and this number grows with time as $`t^{2/5}`$.

Shocks generated by repeating fireballs are ultrarelativistic inside the cavity and mildly relativistic in the envelope near the inner boundary. Collisions of multiple shocks in the cavity, as well as inside the fireballs, produce strongly turbulized medium favorable for generation of magnetic fields and particle acceleration.

## 3 High Energy Particles in Cavity

There are three regions where acceleration of particles take place.

(i) NS cluster, where fireballs collide, producing the turbulent medium with large magnetic field. This region has a small size of order of virial radius of the cluster $`R10^{13}`$ cm, and we neglect its contribution to production of accelerated particles.

(ii) The region at the boundary between the cavity and the envelope. During the active period of a hidden source, $`t_s10`$ yr, the fireballs hit this region, heating and turbulizing it. The large magnetic equipartition field is created here. This boundary region has density $`\rho \rho _{env}`$, the radius $`RR_{cav}`$ and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.1R_{cav}`$.

(iii) Most of the cavity volume is occupied by fireballs, separated by distance $`R_c`$. Due to collisions of internal shocks, the gas in a fireball is turbulized and equipartition magnetic field is generated .

In all three cases the Fermi II acceleration mechanism operates. For all three sites we assume existence of equipartition magnetic field, induced by turbulence and dynamo mechanism:

$$\frac{H^2}{8\pi }\frac{\rho u_t^2}{2},$$
(20)
where $`\rho `$ and $`u_t`$ are the gas density and velocity of turbulent motions in the gas, respectively. Since turbulence is caused by shocks, the shock spectrum of turbulence $`F_kk^2`$ is valid, where $`k`$ is a wave number. Assuming equipartition magnetic field on each scale $`l1/k,H_l^2kF_k`$, one obtains the distribution of magnetic fields over the scales as

$$H_l/H_0=(l/l_0)^{1/2},$$
(21)
where $`l_0`$ is a maximum scale with the coherent field $`H_0`$ there.

The maximum energy of accelerated particles is given by

$$E_{max}eH_0l_0$$
(22)
with an acceleration time

$$t_{acc}\frac{l_0}{c}\left(\frac{c}{v}\right)^2.$$
(23)
For the turbulent shell at the boundary between the cavity and envelope, assuming mildly relativistic turbulence $`u_tc`$ and $`\rho \rho _{env}`$, we obtain $`H_{eq}=410^3`$ G. The maximum acceleration energy is $`E_{max}=210^{21}`$ eV, if the coherent length of magnetic field $`l_0`$ is given by the Sedov length $`l_S`$, and the acceleration time is $`t_{acc}=410^4E_{52}^{1/3}n_9^{1/3}`$ s. The typical time of energy losses, determined by $`pp`$-collisions, is much longer than $`t_{acc}`$, and does not prevent acceleration to $`E_{max}`$ given above:

$$t_{pp}=\left(\frac{1}{E}\frac{dE}{dt}\right)^1=\frac{1}{f_p\sigma _{pp}n_{env}c}210^6n_9^1\text{ s},$$
(24)
where $`f_p0.5`$ is the fraction of energy lost by HE proton in one collision, $`\sigma _{pp}`$ is a cross-section of $`pp`$-interaction, and $`n_{env}`$ is the gas number density in the boundary turbulent shell.

The turbulence in the fireball is produced by collisions of internal shells, and a natural scale for coherence length $`l_0`$ is a width of the internal shell in the local frame $`\delta ^{}`$. The maximum energy in the laboratory frame $`E_{max}eH_{eq}^{}\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is the corresponding width in the laboratory frame. Since $`H^{}1/R`$ and $`\delta R`$, the maximum energy does not change with time, and can be estimated as in Ref. , $`E_{max}310^{20}`$ eV. Note that in our case a fireball propagates in the very low-density medium.

A gas left in the cavity by preceding fireball, as well as high energy particles escaping from it, are accelerated by the next fireball by a factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f^2`$ at each collision. This $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$-mechanism of acceleration works only in pre-hydrodynamic regime of fireball expansion, after reaching the hydrodynamic stage, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$-mechanism ceases .

We conclude, thus, that both efficiency and maximum acceleration energy are very high. We assume that a fireball transfers half of its energy to accelerated particles.

## 4 Neutrino Production and Detection

Particles accelerated in the cavity interact with the gas in the envelope producing high energy neutrino flux. We assume that about half of the total power of the source $`L_{tot}`$ is converted into energy of accelerated particles $`L_p710^{47}`$ erg/s. As estimated in Section 2.1, the column density of the envelope varies from $`X_{env}10^2`$ g/cm2 (for very heavy envelope) up to $`X_{env}10^4`$ g/cm2 (for the envelope with mass $`M10^8M_{}`$. Taking into account the magnetic field, one concludes that accelerated protons loose in the envelope a large fraction of their energy. The charged pions, produced in $`pp`$-collisions, with Lorentz factors up to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c1/(\sigma _{\pi N}n_{env}c\tau _\pi )410^{13}n_9^1`$ freely decay in the envelope (here $`\sigma _{\pi N}310^{26}`$ cm2 is $`\pi N`$-cross-section, $`\tau _\pi `$ is the lifetime of charged pion, and $`n_{env}=10^9n_9`$ cm-3 is the number density of gas in the envelope). We assume $`E^2`$ spectrum of accelerated protons

$$Q_p(E)=\frac{L_p}{\zeta E^2},$$
(25)
where $`\zeta =\mathrm{ln}(E_{max}/E_{min})2030`$. About half of its energy protons transfer to high energy neutrinos through decays of pions, $`L_\nu (2/3)(3/4)L_p`$, and thus the production rate of $`\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ neutrinos is

$$Q_{\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu }(>E)=\frac{L_p}{4\zeta E^2}.$$
(26)
Crossing the Earth, these neutrinos create deep underground the equilibrium flux of muons, which can be calculated as :

$$F_\mu (>E)=\frac{\sigma _0N_A}{b_\mu }Y_\mu (E_\mu )\frac{L_p}{4\xi E_\mu }\frac{1}{4\pi r^2},$$
(27)
where the normalization cross-section $`\sigma _0=110^{34}`$ cm2, $`N_A=610^{23}`$ is the Avogadro number, $`b_\mu =410^6`$ cm2/g is the rate of muon energy losses, $`Y_\mu (E)`$ is the integral muon moment of $`\nu _\mu N`$ interaction (see e. g. ). The most effective energy of muon detection is $`E_\mu 1`$ TeV . The rate of muon events in the underground detector with effective area $`S`$ at distance $`r`$ from the source is given by

$$\dot{N}(\nu _\mu )=F_\mu S70\left(\frac{L_p}{10^{48}\text{ erg s}^1}\right)\left(\frac{S}{1\text{ km}^2}\right)\left(\frac{r}{10^3\text{ Mpc}}\right)^2\text{yr}^1.$$
(28)
Thus, we expect about 10 muons per year from the source at distance $`10^3`$ Mpc.

## 5 Accompanying Radiation

We shall consider below HE gamma-ray radiation produced by accelerated particles and thermalized infrared radiation from the envelope. As far as HE gamma-ray radiation is concerned, there will be considered two cases: (i) thin envelope with $`X_{env}10^2`$ g/cm2 and (ii) thick envelope with $`X_{env}10^4`$ g/cm2. In the latter case HE gamma-ray radiation is absorbed.

### 5.1 Gamma-Ray Radiation

Apart from high energy neutrinos, the discussed source can emit HE gamma-radiation through $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ decays and synchrotron radiation of the electrons. In case of the thick envelope with $`X_{env}10^4`$ g/cm2 most of HE photons are absorbed in the envelope (characteristic length of absorption is the radiation length $`X_{rad}60`$ g/cm2). In the case of the thin envelope, $`X_{env}100`$ g/cm2, HE gamma-radiation emerges from the source. Production rate of the synchrotron photons can be readily calculated as

$$dQ_{syn}=\frac{dE_e}{E_\gamma }Q_e(>E_e),$$
(29)
where $`E_e`$ and $`E_\gamma `$ are the energies of electron and of emitted photon, respectively. Using $`Q_e(>E_e)=L_e/(\eta E_e)`$ and $`E_\gamma =k_{syn}(H)E_e^2`$, where $`k_{syn}`$ is the coefficient of the synchrotron production, one obtains

$$Q_{syn}(E_\gamma )=\frac{1}{12}\frac{L_p}{\eta E_\gamma ^2}.$$
(30)
Note, that the production rate given by Eq. (30) does not depend on magnetic field. Adding the contribution from $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ decays, one obtains

$$Q_\gamma (E_\gamma )=\frac{5}{12}\frac{L_p}{\eta E_\gamma ^2},$$
(31)
and the flux at $`E_\gamma 1`$ GeV at the distance to the source $`r=110^3`$ Mpc is

$`F_\gamma (>E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{L_p}{\xi E_\gamma }}`$ (32)
$``$ $`2.210^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_p}{10^{47}\text{ erg s}^1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{10^3\text{ Mpc}}}\right)^2\text{ cm}^2\text{ s}^1,`$
i. e. the source is detectable by EGRET.

### 5.2 Infrared and Optical Radiation

Hitting the envelope, fireballs dissipate part of its kinetic energy in the envelope in the form of low-energy e-m radiation. This radiation is thermalized in the optically thick envelope and then re-emitted in the form of black-body radiation from the surface of the envelope. It appears much more later than HE neutrino and gamma-radiation. The thermalized radiation diffuses through the envelope with a diffusion coefficient $`Dcl_{dif}`$, where a diffusion length is $`l_{dif}=1/(\sigma _Tn_{env})`$ and $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thompson cross-section. A mean time of the radiation diffusion through the envelope of radius $`R_{env}`$ is

$$t_d\frac{R_{env}^2}{D}110^4\text{ yr},$$
(33)
independently of the envelope mass. This diffusion time is to be compared with a duration of an active phase $`t_s10`$ years and with a time of flight $`R_{env}/c2`$ years.

Since the produced burst is very short, $`t_s10`$ yr, the arrival times of photons to the surface of the envelope have a distribution with a dispersion $`\sigma t_d`$. An average surface black body luminosity is then

$$\overline{L}_{bb}E_{tot}/t_d110^{45}\text{ erg/s},$$
(34)
with a peak luminosity being somewhat higher. The temperature of this radiation corresponds to IR range

$$T_{bb}=\left(\frac{\overline{L}_{bb}}{4\pi R_{env}^2\sigma _{SB}}\right)^{1/4}8.410^2\text{ K}.$$
(35)
Thus, in $`10^4`$ years after neutrino burst, the hidden source will be seen in the sky as a luminous IR source. Since we consider a model of production of high-luminosity AGN, the object is typically expected to be at high redshift $`z`$. Its visible magnitude is

$$m=2.5\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{L_{bb}H_0^2}{16\pi (z+1\sqrt{1+z})^2f_0}\right)$$
(36)
where $`H_0=100h`$ km/s Mpc is the Hubble constant and the flux $`f_0=2.4810^5`$ erg/cm2s. For $`L_{bb}=110^{45}`$ erg/s, $`z=3`$ and $`h=0.6`$, the visible magnitude of the IR source is $`m=22.7`$. Such a faint source is not easy identify in e.g. IRAS catalogue as a powerful source, because for redshift determination it is necessary to detect the optical lines from the host galaxy, which are very weak at assumed redshift $`z=3`$. The non-thermal optical radiation can be also produced due to HE proton-induced pion decays in the outer part of the envelope, but its luminosity is very small. Most probably such source will be classified as one of the numerous non-identified weak IR source.

### 5.3 Duration of activity and the number of sources

As was indicated in Section 2.2 the duration of the active phase $`t_s`$ is determined by relaxation time of the NS cluster: $`t_st_{rel}1020`$ yr. This stage appears only once during the lifetime of a galaxy, prior to the MBH formation. If to assume that a galactic nucleus turns after it into AGN, the total number of hidden sources in the Universe can be estimated as

$$N_{HS}\frac{4}{3}\pi (3ct_0)^3n_{AGN}t_s/t_{AGN},$$
(37)
where $`\frac{4}{3}\pi (3ct_0)^3`$ is the cosmological volume inside the horizon $`ct_0`$, $`n_{AGN}`$ is the number density of AGNs and $`t_{AGN}`$ is the AGN lifetime. The value $`t_s/t_{AGN}`$ gives a probability for AGN to be observed at the stage of the hidden source, if to include this short stage ($`t_s10`$ yr) in the much longer ($`t_{AGN}`$) AGN stage and consider (for the aim of estimate) the hidden source stage as the accidental one in the AGN history. The estimates for $`n_{AGN}`$ and $`t_{AGN}`$ taken for different populations of AGNs result in $`N_{HS}10100`$.

## 6 Conclusions

Dynamical evolution of the central stellar cluster in the galactic nucleus results in the stellar destruction of the constituent normal stars and in the production of massive gas envelope. The surviving subsystem of NSs submerges deep into this envelope. The fast repeating fireballs caused by NS collisions in the central stellar cluster produce the rarefied cavity inside the massive envelope. Colliding shocks generate the turbulence inside the fireballs and in the cavity, and particles are accelerated by Fermi II mechanism. These particles are then re-accelerated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$-mechanism in collisions with relativistic shocks and fireballs.

All high energy particles, except neutrinos, can be completely absorbed in the thick envelope. In this case the considered source is an example of a powerful hidden source of HE neutrinos.

Prediction of high energy gamma-ray flux depends on the thickness of envelope. In case of the thick envelope, $`X_{rad}10^4`$ g/cm2, HE gamma-radiation is absorbed. When an envelope is thin, $`X_{rad}10^2`$ g/cm2, gamma-ray radiation from $`\pi ^02\gamma `$ decays and from synchrotron radiation of the secondary electrons can be observed by EGRET and marginally by Whipple detector at $`E_\gamma 1`$ TeV.

In all cases the thickness of the envelope is much larger than the Thompson thickness ($`x_T3`$ g/cm2), and this condition provides the absorption and X-rays and low energy gamma-rays.

A hidden source is to be seen as a bright IR source but, due to slow diffusion through envelope, this radiation appears $`10^4`$ years after the phase of neutrino activity. During the period of neutrino activity the IR luminosity is the same as before it. A considered source is a precursor of most powerful AGN, and therefore most of these sources are expected to be at the same redshifts as AGNs. The luminosity $`L_{IR}10^{45}10^{46}`$ erg/s is not unusual for powerful IR sources from IRAS catalogue. The maximum observed luminosity exceeds $`110^{48}`$ erg/s , and there are many sources with luminosity $`10^{45}10^{46}`$ erg/s . Moreover, for most of the hidden sources the distance cannot be determined, and thus they fall into category of faint non-identified IR sources.

Later these hidden sources turn into usual powerful AGNs, and thus the number of hidden sources is restricted by the total number of these AGNs.

In our model the shock is fully absorbed in the envelope. Since the total energy release $`E_{tot}`$ is less than gravitational energy of the envelope $`E_{grav}GM_{env}^2/R_{env}`$, the system remains gravitationally bound, and in the end the envelope will collapse into black hole or accretion disc.

The expected duration of neutrino activity for a hidden source is $`10`$ yr, and the total number of hidden sources in the horizon volume ranges from a few up to $`100`$, within uncertainties of the estimates.

Underground neutrino detector with an effective area $`S1`$ km2 will observe $`10`$ muons per year with energies $`E_\mu 1`$ TeV from this hidden source.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Bohdan Hnatyk for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the INTAS through grant No. 99-1065. One of the authors (VID) is grateful to the staff of Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso for hospitality during his visit.