text:
# A Note on the Symmetric Powers of the Standard Representation of 𝑆_𝑛

## Abstract

In this paper, we prove that the dimension of the space spanned by the characters of the symmetric powers of the standard $`n`$-dimensional representation of $`S_n`$ is asymptotic to $`n^2/2`$. This is proved by using generating functions to obtain formulas for upper and lower bounds, both asymptotic to $`n^2/2`$, for this dimension. In particular, for $`n7`$, these characters do not span the full space of class functions on $`S_n`$.

## Notation

Let $`P(n)`$ denote the number of (unordered) partitions of $`n`$ into positive integers, and let $`\varphi `$ denote the Euler totient function. Let $`V`$ be the standard $`n`$-dimensional representation of $`S_n`$, so that $`V=e_1\mathrm{}e_n`$ with $`\sigma (e_i)=e_{\sigma i}`$ for $`\sigma S_n`$. Let $`S^NV`$ denote the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ symmetric power of $`V`$, and let $`\chi _N:S_n`$ denote its character. Finally, let $`D(n)`$ denote the dimension of the space of class functions on $`S_n`$ spanned by all the $`\chi _N`$, $`N0`$.

## 1. Preliminaries

Our aim in this paper is to investigate the numbers $`D(n)`$. It is a fundamental problem of invariant theory to decompose the character of the symmetric powers of an irreducible representation of a finite group (or more generally a reductive group). A special case with a nice theory is the reflection representation of a finite Coxeter group. This is essentially what we are looking at. (The defining representation of $`S_n`$ consists of the direct sum of the reflection representation and the trivial representation. This trivial summand has no significant effect on the theory.) In this context it seems natural to ask: what is the dimension of the space spanned by the symmetric powers? Moreover, decomposing the symmetric powers of the character of an irreducible representation of $`S_n`$ is an example of the operation of *inner plethysm* \[1, Exer. 7.74\], so we are also obtaining some new information related to this operation.

We begin with:

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)`$ be a partition of $`n`$ (which we denote by $`\lambda n`$), and suppose $`\sigma S_n`$ is a $`\lambda `$-cycle. Then $`\chi _N(\sigma )`$ is equal to the number of solutions $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ in nonnegative integers to the equation $`\lambda _1x_1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _kx_k=N`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose without loss of generality that $`\sigma =(\mathrm{1\; 2}\mathrm{}\lambda _1)(\lambda _1+1\mathrm{}\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\mathrm{}(\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{k1}+1\mathrm{}n)`$. Consider a basis vector $`e_1^{c_1}\mathrm{}e_n^{c_n}`$ of $`S^NV`$, so that $`c_1+\mathrm{}+c_n=N`$ with each $`c_i0`$. This vector is fixed by $`\sigma `$ if and only if $`c_1=\mathrm{}=c_{\lambda _1}`$, $`c_{\lambda _1+1}=\mathrm{}=c_{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}`$ and so on. Since $`\chi _N(\sigma )`$ equals the number of basis vectors fixed by $`\sigma `$, the lemma follows. ∎

It seems difficult to work directly with the $`\chi _N`$’s; fortunately, it is not too hard to restate the problem in more concrete terms. Given a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)`$ of $`n`$, define

(1)
$$f_\lambda (q)=\frac{1}{\left(1q^{\lambda _1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(1q^{\lambda _k}\right)}.$$

Next, define $`F_n[[q]]`$ to be the complex vector space spanned by all of these $`f_\lambda (q)`$’s. We have:

###### Proposition 1.2.

$`dimF_n=D(n)`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the table of the characters $`\chi _N`$; we are interested in the dimension of the row-span of this table. Since the dimension of the row-span of a matrix is equal to the dimension of its column-span, we can equally well study the dimension of the space spanned by the columns of the table. By the preceeding lemma, the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ entry of the column corresponding to the $`\lambda `$-cycles is equal to the number of nonnegative integer solutions to the equation $`\lambda _1x_1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _kx_k=N`$. Consequently, one easily verifies that $`f_\lambda (q)`$ is the generating function for the entries of the column corresponding to the $`\lambda `$-cycles. The dimension of the column-span of our table is therefore equal to $`dimF_n`$, and the proposition is proved.

## 2. Upper Bounds on $`D(n)`$

Our basic strategy for computing upper bounds for $`dimF_n`$ is to put all the generating functions $`f_\lambda (q)`$ over a common denominator; then the dimension of their span is bounded above by $`1`$ plus the degree of their numerators. For example, one can see without much difficulty that $`(1q)(1q^2)\mathrm{}(1q^n)`$ is the least common multiple of the denominators of the $`f_\lambda (q)`$’s. Putting all of the $`f_\lambda (q)`$’s over this common denominator, their numerators then have degree $`n(n+1)/2n`$, which proves

(2)
$$D(n)\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1.$$

By modifying this strategy carefully, it is possible to find a somewhat better bound. Observe that the denominator of each of our $`f_\lambda `$’s is (up to sign change) a product of cyclotomic polynomials. In fact, the power of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ cyclotomic polynomial $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(q)`$ dividing the denominator of $`f_\lambda (q)`$ is precisely equal to the number of $`\lambda _i`$’s which are divisible by $`j`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(q)`$ divides the denominator of $`f_\lambda (q)`$ at most $`\frac{n}{j}`$ times, and the partitions $`\lambda `$ for which this upper bound is achieved are precisely the $`P\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)`$ partitions of $`n`$ which contain $`\frac{n}{j}`$ copies of $`j`$. Let $`S_j`$ be the collection of $`f_\lambda `$’s corresponding to these $`P\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)`$ partitions. One sees immediately that the dimension of the space spanned by the functions in $`S_j`$ is just $`D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)`$: in fact, the functions in this space are exactly $`1/(1q^j)^{\frac{n}{j}}`$ times the functions in $`F_{nj\frac{n}{j}}`$.

Now the power of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(q)`$ in the least common multiple of the denominators of all of the $`f_\lambda (q)`$’s excluding those in $`S_j`$ is only $`\frac{n}{j}1`$, so the degree of this common denominator is only $`n(n+1)/2\varphi (j)`$. Therefore, as in the first paragraph of this section, the dimension of the space spanned by all of the $`f_\lambda `$’s except those in $`S_j`$ is at most $`n(n1)/2+1\varphi (j)`$; since the dimension spanned by the functions in $`S_j`$ is $`D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)`$, we have proved the upper bound

$$D(n)\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1\varphi (j)+D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right).$$

If it happens that $`D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)<\varphi (j)`$, then this upper bound is an improvement on our original upper bound. If we repeat this process, this time simultaneously excluding the sets $`S_j`$ for all of the $`j`$’s which gave us an improved upper bound in the above argument, we find that we have proved:

###### Proposition 2.1.

$$D(n)\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{max}(0,\varphi (j)D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)).$$

Finally, we obtain an upper bound for $`D(n)`$ which does not depend on other values of $`D()`$:

###### Corollary 2.2.

Recursively define $`U(0)=1`$ and

$$U(n)=\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{max}(0,\varphi (j)U\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)).$$

Then $`D(n)U(n)`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`n`$. Equality certainly holds for $`n=0`$. For larger $`n`$, the inductive hypothesis shows that $`D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)U\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right)`$ when $`j>0`$, and so

$`D(n)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}+1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{max}(0,\varphi (j)D\left(nj{\displaystyle \frac{n}{j}}\right))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}+1{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{max}(0,\varphi (j)U\left(nj{\displaystyle \frac{n}{j}}\right))`$
$`=`$ $`U(n).`$
Below is a table of values of $`D(n)`$ and $`U(n)`$ for $`n23`$, calculated in Maple, with $`P(n)`$ and our first estimate $`\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1`$ provided for contrast. Note that in the range $`1n23`$, we have $`D(n)=U(n)`$ except for $`n=19,20`$, when $`U(n)D(n)=1`$. Is it true, for instance, that

$$D(n)+\frac{n(n1)}{2}+1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{max}(0,\varphi (j)D\left(nj\frac{n}{j}\right))$$

is bounded as $`n\mathrm{}`$?

###### Example 1.

The first dimension where $`D(n)<P(n)`$ is $`n=7`$, and it is easy then to show that $`D(n)<P(n)`$ for all $`n7`$. The difference $`P(7)D(7)=2`$ arises from the following two relations:

$$\frac{4}{(1x^2)^2(1x)^3}=\frac{3}{(1x^3)(1x)^4}+\frac{1}{(1x^3)(1x^2)^2}$$

and

$$\frac{3}{(1x^3)(1x^2)(1x)^2}=\frac{2}{(1x^4)(1x)^3}+\frac{1}{(1x^4)(1x^3)}.$$

The first relation, for example, says that if $`\chi `$ is a linear combination of $`\chi _N`$’s, then

$$4\chi ((2,2)\text{-cycle})=3\chi (3\text{-cycle})+\chi ((3,2,2)\text{-cycle}).$$

Alternately, it tells us that for any $`N0`$, four times the number of nonnegative integral solutions to $`2x_1+2x_2+x_3+x_4+x_5=N`$ is equal to three times the number of such solutions to $`3x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4+x_5=N`$ plus the number of such solutions to $`3x_1+2x_2+2x_3=N`$.

## 3. Lower Bounds on $`D(n)`$

Let $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k)n`$. The rational function $`f_\lambda (q)`$ of equation (1) can be written as

$$f_\lambda (q)=p_\lambda (1,q,q^2,\mathrm{}),$$

where $`p_\lambda `$ denotes a power sum symmetric function. (See \[1, Ch. 7\] for the necessary background on symmetric functions.) Since the $`p_\lambda `$ for $`\lambda n`$ form a basis for the vector space (say over $``$) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ of all homogeneous symmetric functions of degree $`n`$ \[1, Cor. 7.7.2\], it follows that if $`\{u_\lambda \}_{\lambda n}`$ is any basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ then

$$D(n)=dim\mathrm{span}_{}\{u_\lambda (1,q,q^2,\mathrm{}):\lambda n\}.$$

In particular, let $`u_\lambda =e_\lambda `$, the elementary symmetric function indexed by $`\lambda `$. Define

$$d(\lambda )=\underset{i}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i}{2}\right).$$

According to \[1, Prop. 7.8.3\], we have

$$e_\lambda (1,q,q^2,\mathrm{})=\frac{q^{d(\lambda )}}{_i(1q)(1q^2)\mathrm{}(1q^{\lambda _i})}.$$

Since power series of different degrees (where the *degree* of a power series is the exponent of its first nonzero term) are linearly independent, we obtain from Proposition 1.2 the following result.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`E(n)`$ denote the number of distinct integers $`d(\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda `$ ranges over all partitions of $`n`$. Then $`D(n)E(n)`$.

Note. We could also use the basis $`s_\lambda `$ of Schur functions instead of $`e_\lambda `$, since by \[1, Cor. 7.21.3\] the degree of the power series $`s_\lambda (1,q,q^2,\mathrm{})`$ is $`d(\lambda ^{})`$, where $`\lambda ^{}`$ denotes the conjugate partition to $`\lambda `$.

Define $`G(n)+1`$ to be the least positive integer that cannot be written in the form $`_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i}{2}\right)`$, where $`\lambda n`$. Thus all integers $`1,2,\mathrm{},G(n)`$ can be so represented, so $`D(n)E(n)G(n)`$. We can obtain a relatively tractable lower bound for $`G(n)`$, as follows. For a positive integer $`m`$, write (uniquely)

(3)
$$m=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_2}{2}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_r}{2}\right),$$

where $`k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_r2`$ and $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}`$ are chosen successively as large as possible so that

$$m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_2}{2}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_i}{2}\right)0$$

for all $`1ir`$. For instance, $`26=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{7}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{2}\right)`$. Define $`\nu (m)=k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_r`$. Suppose that $`\nu (m)n`$ for all $`mN`$. Then if $`mN`$ we can write $`m=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1}{2}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_r}{2}\right)`$ so that $`k_1+\mathrm{}+k_rn`$. Hence if $`\lambda =(k_1,\mathrm{},k_r,1^{n{\scriptscriptstyle k_i}})`$ (where $`1^s`$ denotes $`s`$ parts equal to 1), then $`\lambda `$ is a partition of $`n`$ for which $`_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i}{2}\right)=m`$. It follows that if $`\nu (m)n`$ for all $`mN`$ then $`G(n)N`$. Hence if we define $`H(n)`$ to be the largest integer $`N`$ for which $`\nu (m)n`$ whenever $`mN`$, then we have established the string of inequalities

(4)
$$D(n)E(n)G(n)H(n).$$

Here is a table of values of these numbers for $`1n23`$. Note that $`D(n)`$ appears to be close to $`E(n+1)`$. We don’t have any theoretical explanation of this observation.

###### Proposition 3.2.

We have

(5)
$$\nu (m)\sqrt{2m}+3m^{1/4}$$

for all $`m405`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`m`$. It can be checked with a computer that equation (5) is true for $`405m50000`$. Now assume that $`M>50000`$ and that (5) holds for $`405m<M`$. Let $`p=p_M`$ be the unique positive integer satisfying

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{2}\right)M<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p+1}{2}\right).$$

Thus $`p`$ is just the integer $`k_1`$ of equation (3). Explicitly we have

$$p_M=\frac{1+\sqrt{8M+1}}{2}.$$

By the definition of $`\nu (M)`$ we have

$$\nu (M)=p_M+\nu \left(M\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p_M}{2}\right)\right).$$

It can be checked that the maximum value of $`\nu (m)`$ for $`m<405`$ is $`\nu (404)=42`$. Set $`q_M=(1+\sqrt{8M+1})/2`$. Since $`M\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p_M}{2}\right)p_Mq_M`$, by the induction hypothesis we have

$$\nu (M)q_M+\mathrm{max}(42,\sqrt{2q_M}+3q_M^{1/4}).$$

It is routine to check that when $`M>50000`$ the right hand side is less than $`\sqrt{2M}+3M^{1/4}`$, and the proof follows. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

There exists a constant $`c>0`$ such that

$$H(n)\frac{n^2}{2}cn^{3/2}$$

for all $`n1`$.

###### Proof.

From the definition of $`H(n)`$ and Proposition 3.2 (and the fact that the right-hand side of equation (5) is increasing), along with the inquality $`\nu (m)42=\sqrt{2405}+3405^{1/4}`$ for $`m404`$, it follows that

$$H\left(\sqrt{2m}+3m^{1/4}\right)m$$

for $`m>404`$. For $`n`$ sufficiently large, we can evidently choose $`m`$ such that $`n=\sqrt{2m}+3m^{1/4}`$, so $`H(n)m`$. Since $`\sqrt{2m}+3m^{1/4}+1>n`$, an application of the quadratic formula (again for $`n`$ sufficiently large) shows

$$m^{1/4}\frac{3+\sqrt{9+4\sqrt{2}(n1)}}{2\sqrt{2}},$$

from which the result follows without difficulty.

Since we have established both upper bounds (equation (2)) and lower bounds (equation (4) and Proposition 3.3) for $`D(n)`$ asymptotic to $`n^2/2`$, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.4.

There holds the asymptotic formula $`D(n)\frac{1}{2}n^2`$.


format: text

text:
# Realistic shell-model calculations for proton-rich N=50 isotones

## I Introduction

In recent years, we have studied a number of nuclei around doubly magic 100Sn, 132Sn, and 208Pb  within the framework of the shell model employing realistic effective interactions derived from the meson-theoretic Bonn-A nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) potential . We have focused attention on nuclei with few valence particles or holes, since they provide the best testing ground for the basic ingredients of shell-model calculations, especially as regards the matrix elements of the two-body effective interaction. The main motivation for carrying out this extensive program of calculations was to try to assess the role of realistic effective interactions in the shell-model approach to the description of nuclear structure properties. The results of our calculations have so far turned out to be in remarkably good agreement with experiment for all the nuclei considered, providing evidence that realistic effective interactions are able to describe with quantitative accuracy the spectroscopic properties of complex nuclei. In this connection, it is worth noting that these results are considerably better than those obtained in earlier works for the light $`s`$-$`d`$ nuclei .

While in the 132Sn and 208Pb regions we have studied nuclei with both valence particles and holes, around $`A=100`$ we have only considered the light Sn isotopes, namely we have not gone below the 50-82 shell. The study of nuclei lacking few nucleons with respect to 100Sn, which is the heaviest $`N=Z`$ doubly magic nucleus, is of course of great relevance from the shell-model point of view. Nuclei of this kind, however, lie well away from the valley of stability and experimental information on their spectroscopic properties is still very scanty. In this context, the proton-rich $`N=50`$ isotones are of special interest. In fact, while the development of radioactive ion beams opens up the prospect of spectroscopic studies of a number of 100Sn neighbors, use of large multidetector $`\gamma `$-ray arrays is already providing new experimental data for these singly magic nuclei. In particular, four excited states in 98Cd, two proton holes from 100Sn, have been recently identified in an in-beam spectroscopy experiment .

On the above grounds, we found it very interesting to include in our program of calculations the proton-rich $`N=50`$ isotones 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd (some preliminary results have already been presented in Ref. ). Actually, the motivation for the present study is twofold. On the one hand, these nuclei with two, three, and four holes in the $`Z=2850`$ shell offer the opportunity to test our realistic effective interaction for nuclei below 100Sn. On the other hand, the success achieved by our previous calculations on medium- and heavy-mass nuclei encourages us to make predictions which may stimulate, and be helpful to, future experiments.

The $`N=50`$ isotones have long been the subject of theoretical interest. In most of the shell-model calculations performed in the last two decades  (earlier references can be found in Ref. ), however, attention has been focused on the lighter isotones up to mass 95  or 96. In this context, we may mention the extensive study of the $`N=50`$ isotones from 82Ge up to 96Pd performed some ten years ago by Ji and Wildenthal . In that work 78Ni was considered as a closed core and an empirical effective Hamiltonian was obtained by fitting the two-body matrix elements and the single-particle energies to approximately 170 experimental data. Actually, the low-energy spectra of 98Cd and 97Ag have been predicted only in the work of Ref. , where the protons were assumed to fill solely the $`0g_{9/2}`$ and $`1p_{1/2}`$ levels.

In all previous calculations empirical two-body matrix elements have been used, an exception being the work of Ref. , where the effective interaction was derived from the Sussex interaction . To our knowledge, the present calculations are the first ones where the two-body effective interaction has been derived from a modern free nucleon-nucleon potential.

Before closing this section we should remark that, at variance with our previous calculations in the 132Sn and 208Pb regions, we had to face here the problem of choosing a set of single proton-hole energies without much guidance from experiment. In fact, while no spectroscopic data are yet available for the single-hole valence nucleus 99In, only little relevant information is provided by the observed spectra of 98Cd and 97Ag. We will come back to this important point later.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we give an outline of our calculations and describe in detail how we have determined the single-hole energies. Our results are presented and compared with the experimental data in Sec. III, where we also comment on the results of Ref. . Section IV presents a summary of our conclusions.

## II Outline of calculations

Our effective interaction $`V_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$ was derived from the Bonn-A free nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) potential using a $`G`$-matrix formalism, including renormalizations from both core polarization and folded diagrams. Since we have assumed 100Sn as a closed core, protons are treated as valence holes, which implies the derivation of a hole-hole effective interaction. We have chosen the Pauli exclusion operator $`Q_2`$ in the $`G`$-matrix equation,

$$G(\omega )=V+VQ_2\frac{1}{\omega Q_2TQ_2}Q_2G(\omega ),$$
(1)
as specified  by ($`n_1,n_2,n_3`$) = (11, 21, 55) for both neutron and proton orbits. Here $`V`$ represents the $`NN`$ potential, $`T`$ denotes the two-nucleon kinetic energy, and $`\omega `$ is the so-called starting energy. We employ a matrix inversion method to calculate the above $`G`$ matrix in an essentially exact way . For the harmonic oscillator parameter $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ we adopt the value 8.5 MeV, as given by the expression $`\mathrm{}\omega =45A^{1/3}25A^{2/3}`$ for $`A=100`$. Using the above $`G`$ matrix we then calculate the so-called $`\widehat{Q}`$ box, which is composed of irreducible valence-linked diagrams up to second order in $`G`$. These are just the seven one- and two-body diagrams considered in Ref. .

Since we are dealing with external hole lines, the calculation of the $`\widehat{Q}`$-box diagrams is somewhat different from that usual for particles. For example, the familiar core-polarization diagram $`G_{3p1h}`$ becomes

$`ab;J|G_{3h1p}|cd;J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{j_a+j_b+j_c+j_d}}{\widehat{J}}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^{}}{}}\widehat{J^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{p}h}{}}(1)^{j_pj_h+J^{}}X\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_cj_dJ& & \\ j_aj_bJ& & \\ J^{}J^{}0& & \end{array}\right)`$ (6)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega (ϵ_pϵ_hϵ_bϵ_c)}}\text{ }c\text{ }h|G(\omega _1)J^{}J^{}|ap\text{ }p\text{ }d|G(\omega _2)J^{}J^{}|hb,`$
where $`\widehat{x}=(2x+1)^{1/2}`$ and the off-shell energy variables are: $`\omega _1=\omega +ϵ_h+ϵ_a+ϵ_b+ϵ_c`$ and $`\omega _2=\omega +ϵ_h+ϵ_b+ϵ_c+ϵ_d`$. The $`ϵ`$’s are the unperturbed single-particle energies. $`X`$ is the standard normalized 9-$`j`$ symbol. The cross-coupled $`G`$-matrix elements, on the right side of Eq. (2), are related to the usual direct-coupled ones by a simple transformation, as in Ref..

The effective interaction, which is energy independent, can be schematically written in operator form as:

$$V_{\mathrm{e}ff}=\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}^{^{}}\widehat{Q}+\widehat{Q}^{^{}}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}^{^{}}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}\widehat{Q}\mathrm{},$$
(7)
where the integral sign represents a generalized folding operation . $`\widehat{Q}^{^{}}`$ is obtained from $`\widehat{Q}`$ by removing terms of first order in the reaction matrix $`G`$. After the $`\widehat{Q}`$ box is calculated, $`V_{\mathrm{e}ff}`$ is then obtained by summing up the folded-diagram series of Eq. (3) to all orders using the Lee-Suzuki iteration method .

As regards the electromagnetic observables, these have been calculated by making use of effective operators  which take into account core-polarization effects. More precisely, by using a diagrammatic description as in Ref. , we have only included first-order diagrams in $`G`$. This implies that folded-diagram renormalizations are not needed .

Let us now come to the single-hole (SH) energies. As already mentioned in the Introduction, no spectroscopic information on 99In is available. To obtain information on the location of the SH levels we have therefore resorted to an analysis of the spectra of the lighter $`N=50`$ isotones. Of course, most relevant to this analysis are those states which are predominantly of one-hole nature. Actually, 91Nb is the first isotone where a state of this kind has been unambiguously identified for each of the four SH levels. More precisely, no states with a firm $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ or $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ assignment are reported for the heavier isotones, while at least one $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ and one $`\frac{9}{2}^+`$ state have been identified up to 95Rh. In 97Ag there is only one $`\frac{9}{2}^+`$ state, which is the ground state.

¿From the above it is clear that, if one wants to determine the SH energies by reproducing the observed one-hole states, calculations up to nine valence holes have to be carried out. It is to be expected, however, that a set of SH energies determined in this way may not be the most appropriate for calculations where few valence holes are considered. In fact, as is well known, significant changes in the nuclear mean field may occur when moving away from closed shells. In addition, an effective two-hole interaction derived by considering 100Sn as a closed core may not be quite adequate for systems with several valence holes as, in these cases, many-body correlations are likely to come into play.

In this situation, we have tried to determine the SH energies $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}`$, $`ϵ_{p_{3/2}}`$, and $`ϵ_{f_{5/2}}`$ relative to the $`g_{9/2}`$ level, which has long been recognized to be the lowest-lying one, from an analysis of the spectra of the 100Sn neighbors 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd, with two to four proton holes in the $`N=2850`$ shell. We have found that (i) the energies of all the excited levels in 98Cd and 97Ag, which have an experimental counterpart, are quite insensitive to the position of the $`p_{3/2}`$ and $`f_{5/2}`$ orbits; (ii) the ground-state energies of all three nuclei, as well as the seniority-two states $`J^\pi =2^+,4^+,6^+,`$ and $`8^+`$ in 96Pd, depend practically only on the sum of the energies of these two levels, $`ϵ=ϵ_{p_{3/2}}+ϵ_{f_{5/2}}`$. It turns out that all the considered experimental spectra are well described overall by fixing $`ϵ`$ at 5.2 MeV. More precisely, only the $`2^+`$ states in the two even isotones and the $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ and the $`10^+`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd show a rather large discrepancy. To eliminate this discrepancy a much larger value of $`ϵ`$ should be used, namely about 10 MeV. This value, however, would produce a significant downshift of all other levels. In addition, as we shall see in the following, it would be at variance with an empirical analysis of the one-hole states in $`N=50`$ isotones. It may also be mentioned that the energies of the $`2^+`$ states, as well as those of the $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ and $`10^+`$ states, are all strongly dependent on the two-body matrix element $`g_{9/2}^2J^\pi =2^+|V_{\mathrm{eff}}|g_{9/2}^2J^\pi =2^+`$. In this context, we should recall that also for the light Sn isotopes our calculations with the Bonn-A potential produced $`2^+`$ excitation energies somewhat higher than the observed values .

As for the $`p_{1/2}`$ level, two states are sensitive to its position. They are the $`\frac{17}{2}^{}`$ and $`5^{}`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd, respectively. We find that their experimental energies are very well reproduced by our calculations for $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}=0.7`$ MeV. We have verified that this choice is rather independent of the value of $`ϵ`$. For instance, increasing $`ϵ`$ by about 2 MeV brings $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}`$ up to only 0.9 MeV.

¿From the above findings it appears that the SH energies $`ϵ_{p_{3/2}}`$ and $`ϵ_{f_{5/2}}`$ cannot be determined individually from the experimental data for 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd presently available. To obtain an estimate for these two $`ϵ`$’s, we have made a linear extrapolation of the energies of the $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ one-hole states observed in 89Y, 91Nb, and 93Tc. Actually, states of this kind have been unambiguously identified only in 89Y and 91Nb. In particular , in the latter nucleus two $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ states have been observed which exhaust almost all the $`p_{3/2}`$ strength. In our extrapolation, however, we have also included the experimental data relative to 93Tc, according to the indications of Ref. . In this work the level at 2.1 MeV is identified as an $`l=3`$, $`J=\frac{5}{2}`$ state while plausible arguments are given favoring the $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ assignment to the two states observed at 1.5 and 1.8 MeV. The above procedure yields the values of about 2 and 3 MeV for the $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ SH energies in 99In. Owing to the uncertainty inherent in such a derivation, these values should be taken only as a reasonable estimate. In support of this procedure, however, speaks the fact that for the $`p_{1/2}`$ level it yields $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}=0.8`$ MeV.

On the above grounds, we have adopted for the SH energies the following values (in MeV): $`ϵ_{g_{9/2}}=0.0`$, $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}=0.7`$, $`ϵ_{p_{3/2}}=2.1`$, and $`ϵ_{f_{5/2}}=3.1`$. It should be pointed out that these values are quite different from those adopted by other authors. In particular, the SH energies determined in Ref.  are higher than ours, the difference ranging from more than 1 MeV for $`ϵ_{p_{1/2}}`$ and $`ϵ_{p_{3/2}}`$ to 3.2 MeV for $`ϵ_{f_{5/2}}`$.

## III Results and Comparison with experiment

We present here the results of our calculations for 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd. They have been obtained by using the OXBASH shell-model code . The experimental  and theoretical spectra are compared in Figs. 1, 2, and 3, where we report all the experimental levels, except the $`13^+`$ and $`15^+`$ states observed at 6.7 and 7.0 MeV in 96Pd, which cannot be constructed in our model space. In the calculated spectra only those yrast states which are candidates for the observed levels are reported. A complete list of excitation energies up to 5, 3, and 4 MeV is given in Tables I-III for 98Cd 97Ag, and 96Pd, respectively.

¿From Figs. 1-3 we see that our results are in very good agreement with experiment. A measure of the quality of the agreement is given by the rms deviation $`\sigma `$We define $`\sigma =\{(1/N_d)_i[E_{exp}(i)E_{calc}(i)]^2\}^{1/2}`$, where $`N_d`$ is the number of data., whose values are 107, 108, and 122 keV for 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd, respectively. As was already discussed in Sec. II, the main point of disagreement is the position of the $`2^+`$ state in both the even isotones, as well as that of the $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ and $`10^+`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd. In fact, the discrepancy between theory and experiment for the energies of these four states goes from 140 to 263 keV while it is less than 100 keV for all other states.

As regards the structure of the states having an experimental counterpart, we find that the positive-parity states in all three nuclei are dominated by the $`g_{9/2}^n`$ configuration, while the negative parity ones are practically of pure $`g_{9/2}^{(n1)}p_{1/2}^1`$ character. In 98Cd and 97Ag only the ground states receive a significant contribution from configurations other than the dominant one, the percentage being about 20% in both nuclei. As for 96Pd, the wave functions of the ground state and the first four excited states are even less pure. In fact, the percentage of the $`g_{9/2}^4`$ configuration reaches at most 81% for the $`4_1^+`$, $`6_1^+`$, and $`8_1^+`$ states, being only 64% for the ground state. Note that in these states, as well as in the ground states of 98Cd and 97Ag, a significant percentage of the $`g_{9/2}^{(n2)}p_{3/2}^2`$ and $`g_{9/2}^{(n2)}f_{5/2}^2`$ is present. In particular, in the ground state of 96Pd the percentage of each of these two these configurations is 9%.

¿From Figs. 1-3 we see that rather little experimental information is presently available for 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd. Much richer spectra, however, are predicted by the theory. It is therefore interesting to discuss in some detail our predictions, in the hope that they may verified in a not too distant future. As regards 98Cd, it may be seen from Table I that, just above the first four excited states having an experimental counterpart, we find three states with $`J^\pi =4^{},5^{}`$, and $`0^+`$, the first two being the members of the doublet $`g_{9/2}^1p_{1/2}^1`$ and the third one arising from the configuration $`p_{1/2}^2`$. The position of the $`5^{}`$ state is quite consistent with the experimental information available for the two lighter even isotones. In fact, in 96Pd and 94Ru a $`5^{}`$ state has been observed at 2.65 and 2.62 MeV, respectively. Between 3.8 and 5 MeV we find all the members of the $`g_{9/2}^1p_{3/2}^1`$ multiplet and the $`7^{}`$ state arising from the $`g_{9/2}^1f_{5/2}^1`$ configuration. In this energy interval is also located the $`2^+`$ state of the $`p_{1/2}^1p_{3/2}^1`$ configuration.

In Table II all the excitation energies up to 3 MeV are reported for 97Ag. Below this energy we find all the states arising from the configurations $`g_{9/2}^3`$, $`g_{9/2}^2p_{1/2}^1`$, and $`g_{9/2}^1p_{1/2}^2`$ as well as the two seniority-one states of the $`g_{9/2}^2p_{3/2}^1`$ and $`g_{9/2}^2f_{5/2}^1`$ configurations. In particular, we predict as first excited state a seniority-one $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ state at about 0.5 MeV. This prediction is in agreement with the experimental findings for the lighter isotones . Furthermore, it should be mentioned that our first $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ state is essentially a pure seniority-three $`g_{9/2}^2p_{1/2}^1`$ state while almost all the $`l=3`$ one-hole strength is concentrated in the second one at 2.6 MeV. On the other hand, we find that the $`p_{3/2}`$ strength is almost equally distributed between the first and second $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ states.

As for 96Pd, only 2 out of the 25 states which we predict up to 4 MeV (see Table III) arise from configurations other than $`g_{9/2}^4`$ and $`g_{9/2}^3p_{1/2}^1`$. They are the $`J^\pi =0_2^+`$ and $`3_1^{}`$ states with a $`g_{9/2}^2p_{1/2}^2`$ and $`g_{9/2}^3p_{3/2}^1`$ dominant component, respectively.

¿From the above discussion it is evident that some of our predictions are closely related to the values adopted for $`ϵ_{p_{3/2}}`$ and $`ϵ_{f_{5/2}}`$. For instance, as shown before, we find that the wave functions of several states in the three considered isotones contain non negligible components outside the ($`g_{9/2}`$,$`p_{1/2}`$) space. This indicates that a two-level model space would not be adequate even for the description of the heavier $`N=50`$ isotones. We also predict the absence of a pronounced gap above the $`0_2^+`$ state in the spectrum of 98Cd as well as rather low-lying one-hole $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ states in 97Ag. This makes it clear that, in absence of a spectroscopic study of 99In, the discovery of new selected levels in 98Cd and 97Ag represents the best source of information on the SH spectrum.

To conclude this discussion, a further comment is in order. As it occurs for the $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ state in 97Ag and the $`2^+`$ and $`10^+`$ states in 96Pd, we expect that the calculated excitation energies of all other states in these two nuclei arising from the $`2^+`$ state of 98Cd may be somewhat overestimated (200-300 keV). This is the case, for instance, of the $`(\frac{5}{2}^+)_1`$, $`(\frac{7}{2}^+)_1`$, $`(\frac{9}{2}^+)_2`$, and $`(\frac{11}{2}^+)_1`$ states in 97Ag.

Let us now come to the electromagnetic observables. The effective operators needed for the calculation have been derived as described in Sec. II. Experimental information on electromagnetic properties in proton-rich $`N=50`$ isotones is very scanty. The measured $`E2`$ transition rates  are compared with the calculated values in Table IV, where we also report our predicted $`B(E2)`$ values for all the states having an experimental counterpart. As regards the $`B(E2;8^+6^+)`$ in 98Cd, the two different measured values result from the experiments of Refs.  and , where this nucleus was produced by a fusion-evaporation reaction and by fragmentation of a 106Cd beam, respectively. While there are some doubts about both these values , the one in Ref. , which corresponds to a proton effective charge fairly larger than e, is consistent with that measured for 96Pd. From Table IV we see that the agreement between experiment and theory for the $`B(E2;8^+6^+)`$ and $`B(E2;6^+4^+)`$ in 96Pd is quite satisfactory, the calculated values being only slightly smaller than the observed ones. As for 98Cd, the calculated $`B(E2;8^+6^+)`$ value agrees with the result of Ref.  within the error bars. It is worth noting that our results do not differ significantly from those obtained using an effective proton charge $`e_p^{\mathrm{eff}}=1.35e`$.

As regards the magnetic observables, only the magnetic moment of the $`8^+`$ state in 96Pd is known. The measured value is $`10.97\pm 0.06`$ nm , to be compared with the calculated one 10.54 nm.

We have already mentioned in the Introduction that several calculations have been performed to study the shell-model structure of the $`N=50`$ isotones. We only comment here on the calculation of Ref.  where, assuming 100Sn as a closed core, the two-hole effective interaction was derived by using the Sussex matrix elements in a perturbation scheme up to second order without folded-diagram renormalization. As pointed out in Sec. II, the adopted SH energies, as determined from a least-squares fit to the energies of the $`N=50`$, $`37Z44`$ nuclei, are much higher than ours. In that work, however, attention was focused on nuclei with $`Z=3446`$ and no results were given for 98Cd and 97Ag, for which experimental information has become available only in more recent times. We have therefore found it interesting to perform calculations for these two nuclei using the effective interaction and the SH energies of Ref. . We have also calculated a more complete spectrum of 96Pd than that given in . Hereafter we shall refer to these calculations as Sussex (SUX) calculations.

The $`\sigma `$ value relative to the SUX calculations for 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd turns out to be 84, 353, and 218 keV, respectively. More explicitly, the experimental position of the positive-parity states is well reproduced. In particular, the calculated energies of the $`2^+`$ states in both even isotopes, as well as those of the $`\frac{13}{2}^+`$ and $`10^+`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd, come closer to the experimental values than those obtained from our calculations. For all other positive-parity states the agreement with experiment obtained from SUX and our calculations is comparable. On the other hand, the $`\frac{17}{2}^{}`$ and $`5^{}`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd lie 704 and 560 keV above the experimental ones, respectively, and the excitation energies of the first $`5^{}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states in 98Cd and 97Ag are predicted to be about 3.5 and 1.4 MeV, which are not consistent with the experimental information available for the lighter isotones. Furthermore, for 97Ag the $`p_{3/2}`$ and $`f_{5/2}`$ strengths are concentrated in the second $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and the second $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ states, which are predicted to lie at about 3 and 4 MeV, respectively. These values are more than 1 MeV higher than ours which come quite close to those obtained by extrapolating the energies of these states from the lighter isotones. ¿From the above we feel that the values of the SH energies adopted in Ref.  are overestimated. As regards the $`p_{1/2}`$ level, this conclusion is strongly supported by the fact that, as mentioned above, the calculated energies of the $`\frac{17}{2}^{}`$ and $`5^{}`$ states in 97Ag and 96Pd, which are substantially dependent on the position of this level, are largely overestimated. On the other hand, we have verified that decreasing the values of SH energies is not sufficient to improve the agreement between theory and experiment on the whole. In fact, while this produces a lowering of the negative-parity states it moves the positive-parity states up to too high an energy. This latter effect, however, might be compensated by taking into account folded-diagram renormalization, which produces in general a compression of the spectra. In this context, we may mention that the authors of Ref.  say that the folded-diagram renormalization would have worked against the outcome of their calculations. Our preceding remarks indicate that this conclusion could have been turned round had they made a different choice of the SH energies.

## IV Summary and conclusions

In this paper, we have performed a shell-model study of the $`N=50`$ isotones 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd employing a two-hole effective interaction derived from the Bonn-A nucleon-nucleon potential by means of a $`G`$-matrix folded-diagram approach. We have shown that all the experimental data available for these nuclei are well reproduced by our calculations. In addition, some of our predictions, namely the existence of a $`5^{}`$ state in 98Cd and a $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ state in 97Ag at 2.7 and 0.5 MeV, respectively, are strongly supported by the experimental information existing for the lighter isotones.

This work is framed in the context of an extensive program of calculations aimed at assessing just how accurate a description of nuclear structure properties can be provided by an effective interaction derived from the $`NN`$ potential. The quality of the results presented here turns out to be comparable to that obtained in the 132Sn and 208Pb regions where, however, there is a substantially larger body of experimental data with which to compare the calculated spectroscopic properties. In particular, we emphasize that the experimental information existing for the $`N=50`$ isotones provides only little guidance to the choice of the SH energies, which renders it a difficult task. In this situation, our choice has been based on an analysis of the spectra of 98Cd, 97Ag, and 96Pd and on the values of the experimental $`\frac{3}{2}^{}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}^{}`$ single-hole energies in 89Y, 91Nb, and 93Tc. We feel, however, that the unavoidable uncertainty in the adopted SH energies should not be so severe as to make our findings questionable.

In conclusion, we are confident that the present work may be of stimulus and help towards new experimental studies of the proton-rich $`N=50`$ isotones.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Italian Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST) and by the U.S. Grant No. DE-FG02-88ER40388. NI thanks the European Social Fund for financial support.


text:
# The Variation of Gas Mass Distribution in Galaxy Clusters: Effects of Preheating and Shocks

## 1 Introduction

Correlations among physical quantities of clusters of galaxies are very useful tools for studying the formation of clusters and cosmological parameters. Recently, we have found that clusters at low redshifts ($`z0.1`$) form a plane (the fundamental plane) in the three dimensional space represented by their core structures, that is, the central gas density $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$, core radius $`r_c`$, and X-ray temperature $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ (Fujita and Takahara, 1999a, Paper I). On the other hand, a simple theoretical model of cluster formation predicts that clusters should be characterized by the virial density $`\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (or the collapse redshift $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$) and the virial mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (Fujita and Takahara 1999b, Paper II). Thus, assuming the similarity of the dark matter distributions, clusters should form a plane in the three dimensional space of the dark matter density in the core $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$, the core radius of dark matter distribution $`r_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$, and the virial temperature $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ 111In Paper I, we used the terms ’ virial density’, ’virial radius’, and ’ virial mass’ to denote the dark matter density in the core, the core radius of dark matter distribution, and the core mass, respectively. This is because we assumed that the dark matter density in the core is proportional to the average dark matter density over the whole cluster (Paper II). To avoid possible confusions, here we use the term ’ dark matter’, and the term ’ virial’ will be used to represent spatially averaged quantities of gravitational matter (mostly dark matter) within the virialized region.. However, the relations between the two planes are not simple; for example, it is found that $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ is not proportional to $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$. In Paper I, we found that the ratio $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}/\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ is not constant but obeys the relation of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}/\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}^{0.1}M_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}^{0.4}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ is the core mass. This raises the question how the segregation between gas and dark matter occurs.

In the hierarchical structure formation, dark halos are expected to obey scaling relations. In fact, numerical simulations suggest that the density distribution in dark halos take a universal form as claimed by Navarro et al. (1996, 1997). On a cluster scale, it can be approximated by $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}(r)r^2`$ for $`r1`$ Mpc, where detailed X-ray observations have been done (Makino et al., 1998). On the contrary, observations show that the slope of the density profile of the hot diffuse intracluster gas has a range of value. Radial surface brightness profiles of X-ray emission are often fitted with the conventional $`\beta `$ model as

$$I(R)=\frac{I_0}{(1+R^2/r_c^2)^{3\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}1/2}},$$
(1)
where $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the slope parameter (Cavaliere and Fusco-Femiano, 1978). If the intracluster gas is isothermal, equation (1) corresponds to the gas density profile of

$$\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}}{(1+r^2/r_c^2)^{3\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}/2}}.$$
(2)
Observations show that the slope parameter takes a range $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}0.41`$ (Jones and Forman, 1984, 1999). This means that for $`r>>r_\mathrm{c}`$, the density profiles range from $`r^{1.2}`$ to $`r^3`$, which are more diverse than those of dark matter. Moreover, observations show that the clusters with large $`r_c`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ tend to have large $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ (e.g. Neumann and Arnaud 1999; Horner et al. 1999; Jones and Forman 1999). Since the average gas fraction of clusters within radii much larger than $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ should be universal and the dark matter distribution of clusters is also universal, the variation of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is expected to correlate with that of the gas fraction in the core region. In other words, the gas fraction at the core is not the same as that of the whole cluster and is not proportional to the dark matter density. This fact must be taken care of when we discuss cosmological parameters using observational X-ray data. Since the emissivity of X-ray gas is proportional to $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}^2`$, most of the X-ray emission of a cluster comes form the central region where $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is large. Although in Papers I and II, we did not take account of the effects of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, we did find the gas mass fraction in the core region is diverse by analyzing the X-ray emission. In this paper, we reanalyze the data taking account of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and discuss the relation between core and global gas mass fractions. We will also show that major conclusions on the fundamental relations are not changed.

The variation of gas mass fraction itself has been investigated by several authors (e.g. Ettori and Fabian, 1999; Arnaud and Evrard, 1999). Ettori and Fabian (1999) argue that it is partially explained if the dark matter has a significant baryonic component. Another possible explanation of the diverse gas distributions is that intracluster gas had already been heated before the collapse into the cluster; the energetic winds generated by supernovae are one possible mechanism to increase gas entropy (e.g. Dekel and Silk, 1986; Mihara and Takahara, 1994). In fact, Ponman et al. (1999) find that the entropy of the intracluster gas near the center of clusters is higher than can be explained by gravitational collapse alone. In order to estimate the effect of the preheating on intracluster gas, we must take account of shocks forming when the gas collapses into the cluster; they supply additional entropy to the gas. Cavaliere et al. (1997, 1998, 1999) have investigated both the effects and predicted the relation between X-ray luminosities and temperatures ($`L_\mathrm{X}T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ relation). They predicted that the gas distributions of poor clusters are flatter than those of rich clusters, which results in a steeper slope of $`L_\mathrm{X}T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ relation for poor clusters. This is generally consistent with the observations. It is an interesting issue to investigate whether this scenario provides a natural explanation for the observed dispersion of gas mass fraction in the cluster core and whether it reproduces the X-ray fundamental plane we found in Paper I in our general theoretical scenario.

In order to clarify what determines the gas distribution, we construct as a simple model as possible. Although many authors have studied the preheating of clusters (Kaiser 1991; Evrard and Henry 1991; Metzler and Evrard 1994; Balogh et al. 1999; Kay and Bower 1999; Wu et al. 1999; Valageas and Silk 1999), this is the first time to consider the influence of the preheating and shocks on the fundamental plane and two-parameter family nature of clusters paying attention to the difference between the collapse redshift $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and the observed redshift $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ of clusters explicitly. In §2, we explain the model of dark matter potential and shock heating of intracluster gas. In §3, we use the model to predict $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}r_\mathrm{c}`$ relations, and the fundamental plane and band of clusters. The predictions are compared with observations.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 Dark Matter Potential

In order to predict the relations among parameters describing a dark matter potential, we use a spherical collapse model (Tomita, 1969; Gunn and Gott, 1972). Although the details are described in Paper II, we summarize them here for convenience.

The virial density of a cluster $`\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ at the time of the cluster collapse ($`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$) is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ times the critical density of a universe at $`z=z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$. It is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(z_{\mathrm{coll}})=\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _{\mathrm{crit},0}E(z_{\mathrm{coll}})^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_c\rho _{\mathrm{crit},0}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z_{\mathrm{coll}})^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }(z_{\mathrm{coll}})},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ is the cosmological density parameter, and $`E(z)^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3/\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$, where we do not take account of the cosmological constant. The index 0 refers to the values at $`z=0`$. Note that the redshift-dependent Hubble constant can be written as $`H(z)=100hE(z)\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We adopt $`h=0.5`$ for numerical values. In practice, we use the fitting formula of Bryan and Norman (1998) for the virial density:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=18\pi ^2+60x32x^2,$$
(4)
where $`x=\mathrm{\Omega }(z_{\mathrm{coll}})1`$.

It is convenient to relate the collapse time in the spherical model with the density contrast calculated by the linear theory. We define the critical density contrast $`\delta _c`$ that is the value, extrapolated to the present time ($`t=t_0`$) using linear theory, of the overdensity which collapses at $`t=t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ in the exact spherical model. It is given by

$`\delta _c(t_{\mathrm{coll}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}D(t_0)\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_\mathrm{\Omega }}{t_{\mathrm{coll}}}}\right)^{2/3}\right](\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(12\pi )^{2/3}}{20}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{t_{\mathrm{coll}}}}\right)^{2/3}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1)`$ (6)
(Lacey and Cole, 1993), where $`D(t)`$ is the linear growth factor given by equation (A13) of Lacey and Cole (1993) and $`t_\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi H_0^1\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{3/2}`$.

For a power-law initial fluctuation spectrum $`P(k)k^n`$, the rms amplitude of the linear mass fluctuations in a sphere containing an average mass $`M`$ at a given time is $`\delta M^{(n+3)/6}`$. Thus, the virial mass of clusters which collapse at $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ is related to that at $`t_0`$ as

$$M_{\mathrm{vir}}(t_{\mathrm{coll}})=M_{\mathrm{vir},0}\left[\frac{\delta _c(t_{\mathrm{coll}})}{\delta _c(t_0)}\right]^{6/(n+3)}.$$
(7)
Here, $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}(=M_{\mathrm{vir}}[t_0])`$ is regarded as a variable because actual amplitude of initial fluctuations has a distribution. We relate $`t=t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ to the collapse or formation redshift $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$, which depends on cosmological parameters. Thus, $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ is a function of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ as well as $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$. This means that for a given mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, the amplitude of initial fluctuations takes a range of value, and spheres containing a mass of $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ collapse at a range of redshift. In the following, the slope of the spectrum is fixed at $`n=1`$. It is typical of the scenario of standard cold dark matter for a cluster mass range, and is consistent with observations as shown in Paper II.

The virial radius and temperature of a cluster are then calculated by

$$r_{\mathrm{vir}}=\left(\frac{3M_{\mathrm{vir}}}{4\pi \rho _{\mathrm{vir}}}\right)^{1/3},$$
(8)
$$T_{\mathrm{vir}}=\gamma \frac{\mu m_\mathrm{H}}{3k_\mathrm{B}}\frac{GM_{\mathrm{vir}}}{r_{\mathrm{vir}}},$$
(9)
where $`\mu (=0.6)`$ is the mean molecular weight, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the hydrogen mass, $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, and $`\gamma `$ is a fudge factor which typically ranges between 1 and 1.5. In Paper II, we adopted the value $`\gamma =1`$. Note that the value of $`\gamma `$ is applied only to dark matter, but not to gas, because we do not assume $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}=T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ here. We emphasize that $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are the virial mass, density, and radius at the time of the cluster collapse, respectively.

### 2.2 Shocks and Hydrostatic Equilibrium

To study the effect of preheating, we here adopt a very simple model as a first step. When a cluster collapses, we expect that a shock wave forms and the infalling gas is heated. In order to derive the postshock temperature, we use a shock model of Cavaliere et al. (1998). For a given preshock temperature $`T_1`$, the postshock temperature $`T_2`$ can be calculated from the Rankine-Hugoniot relations. Assuming that the shock is strong and that the shock front forms in the vicinity of $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, it is approximately given by

$$k_\mathrm{B}T_2=\frac{\varphi (r_{\mathrm{vir}})}{3}+\frac{3}{2}k_\mathrm{B}T_1$$
(10)
(Cavaliere et al., 1998), where $`\varphi (r)`$ is the potential at $`r`$. According to the virial theorem and the continuity when $`T_1`$ approaches zero, we should take $`\varphi (r_{\mathrm{vir}})/3=k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. For $`r<r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, we assume that the gas is isothermal and hydrostatic, and that the matter accretion after the cluster collapse does not much change the structure of the central region of the cluster significantly, as confirmed by numerical simulations (e.g. Takizawa and Mineshige 1998). It is to be noted that even if the density profile of dark matter is represented by the universal profile (Navarro et al., 1996, 1997), it is not inconsistent with the isothermal $`\beta `$ model of gas represented by equation (2) (Makino et al. 1998; Eke et al. 1998) within the present observational scopes. On these assumptions, the gas temperature in the inner region of a cluster is $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}=T_2`$, and the mass within $`r`$ of the cluster center $`M_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ is related to the density profile of intracluster gas, $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$, by

$$M_{\mathrm{DM}}(r)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{\mu m_\mathrm{H}G}r\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}}{d\mathrm{ln}r}.$$
(11)
Since $`M_{\mathrm{DM}}(r_{\mathrm{vir}})=M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, equations (9) and (11) yield

$$T_{\mathrm{vir}}=\frac{\gamma }{3}T_{\mathrm{gas}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}}{d\mathrm{ln}r}|_{r=r_{\mathrm{vir}}}.$$
(12)
Defining $`\beta =T_{\mathrm{vir}}/T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, the gas density profile is thus given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)r^{3\beta /\gamma },$$
(13)
as long as ($`d\mathrm{ln}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}/d\mathrm{ln}r`$) is nearly constant.

Equation (10) shows that in this model $`\beta `$ is a function of only $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ when $`T_1`$ is regarded as an external parameter, that is,

$$\beta =\frac{T_{\mathrm{vir}}}{T_{\mathrm{vir}}+(3/2)T_1}.$$
(14)
Since $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}=T_{\mathrm{gas}}\beta `$, equation (14) is written as

$$\beta =\frac{T_{\mathrm{gas}}(3/2)T_1}{T_{\mathrm{gas}}}.$$
(15)
Thus, the $`\beta T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ relation can be used to determine $`T_1`$ by comparing with the observation. Since both $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are the two-parameter families of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$ (equations , , and ), equation (14) shows that $`\beta `$ can be represented by $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ as $`\beta =\beta (r_{\mathrm{vir}},M_{\mathrm{vir},0})`$, if $`T_1`$ is specified. Recent numerical simulations suggest that the structure of central region of clusters is related to $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ (Navarro et al., 1997), and in particular $`r_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ is proportional to $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (Salvador-Solé et al., 1998; Makino et al., 1998). Therefore, if we assume that $`r_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}=r_\mathrm{c}`$ and that $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{c}`$ is constant as in Paper II, $`T_1`$ can also be determined by comparing the theoretical prediction of the $`\beta r_\mathrm{c}`$ relation with the observation. Since a spherical collapse model predicts $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}(z_{\mathrm{coll}}=0)4`$ Mpc and observations show that $`r_\mathrm{c}(z_{\mathrm{coll}}=0)0.5`$ Mpc (Figure 1b in Paper II), we adopt $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_\mathrm{c}=8`$ from now on. Thus, we obtain $`\beta =\beta (8r_\mathrm{c}[z_{\mathrm{coll}},M_{\mathrm{vir},0}],M_{\mathrm{vir},0})`$.

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 $`\beta T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`\beta r_\mathrm{c}`$ Relations

Using the model constructed in §2.2, we predict relations between $`\beta `$ and $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, and between $`\beta `$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}`$.

If $`T_1`$ is mainly determined by the energetic winds generated in the forming galaxies or quasars before the formation of clusters, $`T_1`$ should be constant if subsequent adiabatic heating or cooling is neglected. However, if, besides the winds, the gravitational energy released in the subclusters, which later merged into the observed clusters, contributes to $`T_1`$, we expect that $`T_1`$ has a distribution produced by different merging histories. In order to determine the distribution in detail, we must calculate the merging histories by Monte Carlo realizations as Cavaliere et al. (1997, 1998) did. In this study, however, we consider the scatter by investigating a range of $`T_1`$ for simplicity. We show in Figure 1 the $`\beta T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ relation for $`T_1=0.5`$, 1, and 2 keV. The observational data are overlaid. Since equation (2) is approximated to be $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)r^{3\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}}`$ for $`r>>r_c`$, the relation

$$\beta =\gamma \beta _{\mathrm{obs}}$$
(16)
is obtained by comparing the relation (13). Thus, in the following figures, the observed values of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ are converted by relation (16). In Figure 1 we assumed $`\gamma =1`$. As the data, we use only relatively hot ($`T_{\mathrm{gas}}3`$ keV) and low redshift ($`z0.1`$) clusters obtained by Mohr et al. (1999) and Peres et al. (1998). Instead of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, Peres et al. (1998) present velocity dispersions corresponding to gravitational potential well, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{deproj}}`$, derived with the deprojection method, ignoring velocity dispersion anisotropies and gradients . Thus, for the data we assume that $`k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{vir}}=\mu m_\mathrm{H}\sigma _{\mathrm{deproj}}^2`$ and define $`\beta `$ as $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}/T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$. Figure 1 shows that the observational data are consistent with $`0.5T_12`$ keV but it seems that a single value of $`T_1`$ does not represent the range of data. The preheating ($`T_1>0`$) is expected to reduce $`\beta `$ of the clusters with small $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ (Figure 1). At first glance, no correlations between $`\beta `$ and $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ are recognized observationally in this temperature range. However, some reports on the existence of a weak correlation have been made when clusters with lower $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ are included (e.g. Horner et al. 1999). Thus, our prediction is not inconsistent with the observations.

As discussed in §2.2, the $`\beta r_\mathrm{c}`$ relation is represented by two parameters $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$, for a given value of $`T_1`$. The results are shown in Figure 2 for $`\gamma =1`$. Figure 2a and 2b are for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ and 0.2, respectively. For comparison, we also present observational data (Mohr et al., 1999; Peres et al., 1998). As was in Paper I, for the data of Mohr et al. (1999) we use here only the component of surface brightness reflecting the global structure of clusters, although the central component (so-called cooling flow component) may also have formed in the scenario of hierarchical clustering (Fujita and Takahara, 2000).

The mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$ corresponds to the mass of clusters collapsed at $`z0`$ and takes a range of value due to the dispersion of initial density fluctuation of the universe. Since observations and numerical simulations show $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Evrard et al., 1996), the observational data are expected to lie between the two lines of $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}=5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (arc BC) and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}=5\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (arc AD) for fixed $`T_1`$ in Figure 2. Note that the distribution of $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$ degenerates on the lines in Figure 1. In Figure 2, the positions along the arcs AD and BC indicate the formation redshifts of the clusters. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, most of the observed clusters should have collapsed at $`z0`$ because clusters continue growing even at $`z=0`$ (Peebles, 1980). Thus, the cluster data are expected to be distributed along the part of the lines close to the point of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}=0`$ (segment AB). In fact, calculations done by Lacey and Cole (1993), and Kitayama and Suto (1996) show that if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, most of present day clusters ($`M_{\mathrm{vir}}10^{1415}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$) should have formed in the range of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}0.5`$ (parallelogram ABCD in Figure 2a). In contrast, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$, the growth rate of clusters decreases and cluster formation gradually ceases at $`z1/\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$ (Peebles, 1980). Thus, in Figure 2b, cluster data are expected to be distributed between the points of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}=0`$ (segment AB) and $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}=1/\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$ (segment CD) and should have a two-dimensional distribution (parallelogram ABCD). Thus, compared with the observations, the models in Figure 2 show that $`T_11`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1`$ are preferred. The latter result is quite consistent with that of Paper II, where we found that the $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}r_\mathrm{c}`$ relation suggests $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1`$. Since $`\beta `$ is related to $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ by equation (15), the $`\beta r_\mathrm{c}`$ relation is equivalent to the $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}r_\mathrm{c}`$ relation for a fixed value of $`T_1`$. Note that in Figure 2 predicted regions corresponding to different $`T_1`$ overlap each other; this implies that the position of a cluster in Figure 2 does not uniquely correspond to $`T_1`$ in contrast to Figure 1. For a given $`\beta `$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, larger $`T_1`$ corresponds to larger $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$ or larger amplitude of the initial fluctuation.

The dispersion of $`T_1`$ appears to be caused by gravitational heating in subclusters that are to merge to the cluster ($`T_{\mathrm{gas}}3`$ keV) at the time of the cluster formation. In fact, Figure 2b shows that observed clusters are situated close to the line of $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}=5\times 10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (arc AD) when $`T_12`$ keV, while they are situated close to the line of $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}=5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (arc BC) when $`0.5<T_1<1`$ keV. Moreover, Figure 1 suggests that clusters with large $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ favor large $`T_1`$. These may reflect that clusters with larger (smaller) $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$ or $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ tend to have more (less) massive progenitors with larger (smaller) $`T_1`$, although these are only loose tendencies, and we need more samples and more improved models to obtain a definite conclusion.

Note that gravitational heating in subclusters itself is a self-similar process and does not modify self-similar scaling relations such as the luminosity-temperature relation (e.g. Eke et al., 1998). Thus, an additional entropy other than expected from purely gravitational assembly of a cluster must be injected into the gas. Valageas and Silk (1999) investigate the entropy evolution of intergalactic medium (IGM) and find that clusters with $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}0.5`$ keV are affected by the additional entropy when it is generated by quasar heating. This is because the additional entropy is comparable to the entropy generated by gravitational collapse of the clusters. In other words, the adiabatic compression of the gas from the preheated IGM alone can heat the gas up to $`T_{\mathrm{ad},\mathrm{cl}}0.5`$ keV. Therefore, in addition to the gravitational processes in subclusters, the preheating may significantly contribute to $`T_1`$, and the lower bound of which is given by $`T_{\mathrm{ad},\mathrm{cl}}`$. If $`T_{\mathrm{ad},\mathrm{cl}}0.5`$ keV, this is consistent with our result (Figures 1 and 2). Valageas and Silk (1999) also investigate the case when only supernova heating is taken into account and quasar heating is ignored. The result is $`T_{\mathrm{ad},\mathrm{cl}}<0.1`$ keV. In this case, and effects of the preheating is small and we expect that $`\beta `$ does not much depend on $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, although $`\beta `$ would have a scatter owing to the difference of merging history. This is inconsistent with the observations. The insufficient power of the supernova heating is also suggested by Wu et al. (1999) (but see Loewenstein, 1999). Another possible source of heating is that due to shocks forming at higher redshift on the largest scales, such as filaments and sheets. Cen and Ostriker (1999) indicate that most of baryons at low redshift should have a temperature in the range of $`10^510^7`$ K. The relatively large value of $`T_1`$ may reflect this temperature.

We also investigate the case of $`\gamma =1.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$, which are presented in Figure 3. In this case, the model of $`T_1=0.5`$ keV is preferred especially for the data obtained by Mohr et al. (1999). This means that $`\gamma `$ and $`T_1`$ are correlated and they cannot be determined independently. However, the model of $`\gamma >1.2`$ is inappropriate because $`\beta =\gamma \beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ exceeds unity for some observational data while relation (14) or (15) limits $`\beta `$ to less than one. If a cluster is not isothermal, the temperature in the central region $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ should be larger than $`T_2`$ (Cavaliere et al., 1998). In this case, the discrepancy between the model and the observations is more significant. Thus, it seems to be difficult to construct a model that predicts $`\beta >1`$.

### 3.2 The Fundamental Band and Plane

It is interesting to investigate whether the gas distribution in clusters derived above is consistent with the observations of central gas fraction, and the fundamental band and plane we found in Paper I. The shapes of the band and plane are also related to the origin of the observed relation of $`L_\mathrm{X}T_{\mathrm{gas}}^3`$ (Paper I). We did not explore the origin of the variation of the central gas mass fraction in previous papers, where $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ was regarded as constant. Below, we will show that this is related to the variation of $`\beta `$.

From relation (13), the gas density at the cluster core is approximately given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}=\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r_{\mathrm{vir}})(r_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_c)^{3\beta /\gamma },$$
(17)
where $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`\beta (T_{\mathrm{vir}},T_1)`$ are functions of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$2), and $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)`$ is the gas density at radius $`r`$ from the cluster center. We assume that the profile of dark matter is isothermal ($`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}r^2`$) at least for $`r_\mathrm{c}rr_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}=64\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Moreover, we assume that the average gas fraction within radius $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ is $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(r_{\mathrm{vir}})=0.25`$ regardless of $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$. The value of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is nearly the largest gas mass fraction of observed clusters (e.g. David et al. 1995; Ettori and Fabian 1999). On these assumptions, the central gas density and the gas fraction at the cluster core are respectively given by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\gamma }}\right)f_{\mathrm{gas}}\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}(z_{\mathrm{coll}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{vir}}}{r_\mathrm{c}}}\right)^{3\beta /\gamma }`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`0.25\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\gamma }}\right)\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}(z_{\mathrm{coll}})\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}^{3\beta /\gamma }`$
and

$$f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)=0.25\left(1\frac{\beta }{\gamma }\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}^{3(\beta /\gamma )2},$$
(19)
where $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}/\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ is the gas fraction at the cluster center. The above equations are valid when $`\beta <\gamma `$. Note that in Paper II, we derive the central gas density according to the relation $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$, in which $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$ is differently determined by the observations222In Papers I and II, we assumed that $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}=T_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and did not take account of the variation of $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ when we derive $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$ from observations of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$, $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$.. In contrast, in equation (18), we derive $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ assuming that $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(r_{\mathrm{vir}})=constant`$.

The above model values (equation  or ) can be obtained from observational data. Using equations (8), (9), and (16) we obtain

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vir}}=\frac{9k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{4\pi G\mu m_\mathrm{H}}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}}{(8r_\mathrm{c})^2},$$
(20)
where we used the relations of $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}=\beta T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}=r_{\mathrm{vir}}/8`$. Thus, using equation (16), the right hand of equation (18) should be written as

$$\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}0.25\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}(1\beta _{\mathrm{obs}})\frac{9k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{gas}}}{4\pi G\mu m_\mathrm{H}}\frac{8^{3\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}}}{(8r_\mathrm{c})^2}.$$
(21)
Hence, $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ can be derived from the observable quantities $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Figure 4 displays a plot of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ based on the data obtained by Mohr et al. (1999). Note that Peres et al. (1998) do not present $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$. We do not show the uncertainties of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ to avoid complexity. Here we use only $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ corresponding to the global cluster component as we did in Paper I.

Figure 4 shows that $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ well agrees with $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ although $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ is slightly smaller than $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ for clusters with large $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$. Thus, we conclude that the variation of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$ is due to that of the slope parameter of the gas distribution $`\beta `$ within $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. One possible reason for the slight disagreement between $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ is an uncertainty of the value of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(r_{\mathrm{vir}})`$. Another is the influence of central excess emission of clusters. When the distance to a cluster is relatively large, the center and global surface brightness components may not be distinguished even if the two components exist. In this case, the cluster may be considered that it has only a global component. However, when the central emission is strong, the fitting of the surface brightness profile by one component may be affected by the central emission and may give a smaller core radius than the real. This may make $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ large for the clusters. In fact, clusters with $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}>3\times 10^{26}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ are regarded by Mohr et al. (1999) as having only one (global) component of surface brightness. Note that core radii derived by Peres et al. (1998) may be less affected by the central emission because they take account of cooling flows and the gravitation of central cluster galaxies, which are responsible for the central emission, for all clusters they investigate (Figures 2 and 5b).

We present the theoretically predicted relations among $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ in Figure 5. Although these relations are presented in Paper II using the observed relation between $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$, here we plot them by directly using $`\beta `$. For lines in Figure 5, we use the relation $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}=T_{\mathrm{vir}}/\beta `$. For comparison, we plot the observational data in the catalogue of Mohr et al. (1999) and Peres et al. (1998). For the data, we use the relation $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}=8r_\mathrm{c}`$. Figure 5 shows that our model can well reproduce the band distribution of observational data in the ($`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0},r_\mathrm{c},T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$)-space. Moreover, our model can explain the planar distribution of the observational data. In Paper I, we find that the observational data satisfy the relation of the fundamental plane, $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{0.47}r_\mathrm{c}^{0.65}T_{\mathrm{gas}}^{0.60}constant`$. For $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}10^{15}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}2`$, our model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$ and $`T_1=1`$ keV predicts the plane of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{0.32}r_\mathrm{c}^{0.64}T_{\mathrm{gas}}^{0.70}constant`$, which is approximately consistent with the observation. Note that the index of $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ is somewhat smaller than the observed value considering the uncertainty ($`0.1`$), which may be related to the slight disagreement between $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}^{\mathrm{model}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas},0}`$ (Figure 4). The plane is represented by the two parameters, $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{vir},0}`$, as discussed in §2. Since the cross section of the fundamental plane corresponds to the observed $`L_\mathrm{X}T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ relation, and the fundamental plane corresponds to the observed dependence of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(0)`$ on $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{DM},\mathrm{c}}`$ (Paper I), our model can also reproduce these relations. These results strengthen our interpretation that the difference of gas distribution among clusters is caused by heating of the gas before the cluster collapse and by shock heating at the time of the cluster collapse (equation  or ).

## 4 Conclusions

We have investigated the influence of heating before cluster collapse and shocks during cluster formation on the gas distribution in the central region of clusters of galaxies. We assumed that the core structure has not much changed since the formation of a cluster. Using a spherical collapse model of a dark halo and a simple shock model, we predict the relations among the slope of gas distribution $`\beta `$, the gas temperature $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, and the core radius $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ of clusters. By comparing them with observations of relatively hot ($`3`$ keV) and low redshift clusters, we find that the temperature of the preheated gas collapsed into the clusters is about $`0.52`$ keV. Since the temperature is higher than that predicted by a preheating model of supernovae, it may reflect the heating by quasars or gravitational heating on the largest scales at high redshift. Moreover, gravitational heating in subclusters assembled when the clusters formed also seems to affect the temperature of the preheated gas and produce the dispersion in the preheating temperature. Assuming that the global gas mass fraction of clusters are constant, we predict that the gas mass fraction in the core region of clusters should vary correlating with $`\beta `$ through a simple law, which is shown to be consistent with the observations. Thus, we conclude that the variation of the gas mass fraction in the cluster core is due to the shock heating of preheated gas. Furthermore, we have confirmed that the observed fundamental plane and band of clusters are reproduced by the model even when the effects of preheating are taken into account. Thus, major conclusions about the cluster formation and cosmology obtained in our previous papers are not changed.

We thank for A. C. Edge, C. S. Frenk, and T. Kodama for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.


text:
# Predictions on the number of variable stars for the GAIA space mission and for surveys as the ground-based International Liquid Mirror Telescope

## 1. The total number of variable stars

A first estimate of the total number of variable stars observable by GAIA was done by Eyer (1999). The star population used came from the star-count model of Figueras et al. (1999) and the variability detection threshold was derived from the Hipparcos survey results. With the new qualifications of the GAIA mission, about 1 billion stars (up to mag G$`<`$20) are expected to be observed, with about 18 million variable stars, including about 5 million ”classic” periodic variables.
Very different star counts are obtained according to the extinction laws used (Figueras, private communication). Since the quality of the GAIA photometry in the crowded fields is still uncertain, we cannot discuss here the number of variables in dense clusters and galaxies.
About 2 to 3 millions eclipsing binaries will be observed, but their detection probability will be studied in detail in the future. About 300 000 stars with rotation induced variability can be expected as well.

## 2. The methods

For a specific interval of V-I, we computed the proportion of variables in the Hipparcos survey and we applied that rate to the number of stars obtained from the Figueras model (method A). Surface densities were calculated, either from the Hipparcos parallaxes or from the specific properties of the stars. We integrated and removed the stars behind the bulge (method B). We extrapolated the GCVS data (Kholopov et al., 1998) assuming detection completeness up to a certain magnitude and a magnitude limit for the population beyond which no more stars are present (method C). We also analysed the detection rates of the microlensing surveys (when available) and scanned the literature.

## 3. Pulsating variables

Method A and C estimate the number of $`\beta `$ Cephei stars to be about 3000. 15 000 SPB variables will be detected according to Method A. Applying method A and C gave about the same estimate for $`\delta `$ Scuti stars: 60 000. However, it will be very difficult to analyse the very reddened low amplitude variables. With method B even higher numbers as 240 000 $`\delta `$ Scuti stars show up.
With a total number of RR Lyrae as given by Suntzeff et al. (1991) we arrive at 70 000 observable RR Lyrae (method B). Using the OGLE and MACHO detection rates, we expect 15 000 to 40 000 RR Lyrae in the bulge.
All galactic Cepheids are within the observational range of GAIA, if not too obscured by interstellar extinction. Results of recent deep surveys confirm the early estimates of a total of 2000 to 8000 Cepheids. With the help of the Fernie database (1995), we obtained (Method B) a density of 15-20 Cepheids/$`\text{kpc}^2`$, leading to an estimate of 5 200–6 900 observable stars.
Early estimates gave in total 200 000 Mira and related long period variables in the Galaxy. With 500 Miras/$`\text{kpc}^2`$, 140 000 to 170 000 Miras will be observable. Method B gave us a density of 250-350 Semi-Regular variables/$`\text{kpc}^2`$ or a total of 100 000 observable SR stars.
We plan to calculate and analyse all categories of variables stars in more detail to arrive at reliable estimates of all observable variable stars in the Galaxy.

## 4. Variable stars in deep surveys

An example: The International Liquid MirrorTelescope (ILMT).
(see `http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/telins/lmt/index_e.html`)
An international group of institutions are actively interested in developing a 4-m class liquid mirror telescope. If the view of the ILMT includes fields near the galactic center and all stars from R magnitude 17 up to 20 can be measured with high precision ($``$ 0.01 mag), the project will yield a unique time series of about 2 million stars with a total of 500 measurements of each star during 5 years. About 10 000 new variable stars can be expected, including 6 000 faint eclipsing binaries, 200 RR Lyrae and 300 long periodic variables.

## References

Eyer, L. 1999, Balt. Ast., 8, 321

Fernie, J.D., Beattie, B., Evans, N.R., & Seager, S. 1995, IBVS 4148

Figueras, F. et al., 1999, Balt. Ast., 8, 291

GAIA: `http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/GAIA/`

HIPPARCOS: Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues, ESA SP-1200

Kholopov, P.N., et al. 1998, GCVS, 4th Edition

Suntzeff, N.B., Kinman, T.D., & Kraft, R.P. 1991, ApJ, 367, 528