text:
# Spin-Charge Separation is the Key to the High 𝑇_𝑐 cuprates

The most striking fact about the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates is that in none of the relevant regions of the phase diagram is there any evidence of the usual effects of phonon or impurity scattering. This is strong evidence that these states are in a “quantum protectorate”, to borrow Laughlin’s term. (Two striking experimental facts which demonstrate this are the absence of phonon self-energy in ARPES measurements, demonstrated recently by Johnson in BISCO, and the scattering-independent $`T_c`$ in YBCO, even though the superconductivity is $`d`$-wave.) A quantum protectorate is a state in which the many-body correlations are so strong that the dynamics can no longer be described in terms of individual particles, and therefore perturbations which scatter individual particles are not effective.

The Mott-Hubbard antiferromagnetic phase is manifestly spin-charge separated (there is a charge gap, but no spin gap), and I propose this property extends throughout the phase diagram in different guises, and is the reason for the quantum protectorate. Quasiparticles are never the exact, long-lived elementary excitations ($`Z0`$ throughout) so that scattering of electrons does not necessarily disturb the excitations, especially the spinons, the Fermion-like elementary magnetic excitations with spin 1/2 and charge 0.

I want to emphasize that this protectorate effect is completely incompatible with any perturbative theory starting from a Fermi liquid approach, as for example the spin-fluctuation theory. The experimental situation presents us with a clean dichotomy, which cannot be repaired by “summing all the diagrams”.

I propose that as we dope the antiferromagnetic state, two things happen. First, there is a first-order phase transition in the charge sector where the Mott-Hubbard gap closes, which sometimes leads to mesoscopic inhomogeneity (the stripe phenomenon). Second, and independently, we pass a critical point in the spin sector where antiferromagnetism vanishes and becomes a soft mode of the $`d`$-wave (or flux-phase-like) RVB.

T. Hsu, in his thesis, long ago showed that antiferromagnetism could be treated as an unstable mode of the “flux phase” i.e., the $`d`$-wave RVB. Hence when the latter becomes stable antiferromagnetism becomes a stable soft mode, which is seen as the notorious neutron resonance of Keimer.

This RVB, which was postulated independently by Affleck-Marston-Kotliar and by Laughlin, is the spin gap phase, stable below a crossover $`T^{}`$ which is a rapidly decreasing function of doping. It is correct to think of this phase as analogous to the Mott insulator: where the Mott phase has a charge gap and no spin gap, this one has a spin gap–for most momenta–and no charge gap.

What is the phase $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{above}}`$ $`T^{}`$? This is not a conventional Fermi liquid, but the original “extended $`s`$-wave” RVB I proposed in 1987, equivalent to the “tomographic Luttinger liquid” I derived for moderate densities in 1989. If there is an antiferromagnetic superexchange $`J`$ this phase has a Cooper instability at $`T^{}`$ where the $`d`$-wave spin gap is favored.

Why does $`T^{}`$ decrease so rapidly with doping? The Cooper instability occurs at

$$kT^{}p_Fv_s\mathrm{exp}\frac{(p_Fv_s)}{J_{eff}}$$

where $`v_s`$ is the spinon velocity. When $`x1`$, the spinon and holon velocities become equal, and equal to $`t/p_F`$, while as $`x0`$, $`v_s=J/p_F`$, so we linearly interpolate

$$p_Fv_sJ+x(tJ).$$

As for the interaction term, the antiferromagnetic interaction will tend to be compensated by a ferromagnetic double exchange term roughly proportional to $`x`$, which comes from loop (non-repeating) paths of the holes. For rough purposes, I estimate

$$J_{eff}(x)=Jtx.$$

This is adequate to account for the vanishing of $`T^{}`$ at around $`x.3`$. This Cooper instability is not a true phase transition. Both the $`s`$-wave state and the $`s+id`$ retain the full symmetry of the Hamiltonian,

$$[SU(2)]_{spin}\times [U(1)]_{charge}\times [\mathrm{Lattice}\mathrm{Symmetry}].$$

It is the conventional Fermi liquid which has an anomalous extra symmetry $`Z_2`$ mixing spin and charge: the Fermi liquid is itself a quantum critical point.

The RVB (spin gap) phase is not superconducting. The motivation which drives superconductivity and converts the spin gap into a superconducting gap is frustrated kinetic energy. The opening up of a gap in the spectrum at the Fermi level means that the distribution $`n(k)`$ cannot approach its optimal step-function form (or step-function-like, in the case of a Luttinger liquid). This effect may be quantified by using the Ferrell-Glover-Tinkham sum rule.

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\sigma (\omega )𝑑\omega =e^2<K.E.>$$

It was observed by Orenstein et al, very early, that in the underdoped (spin-gapped) cuprates a gap in the optical conductivity opens up. The magnitude of $`\sigma (\omega )𝑑\omega `$ is proportional to $`x`$ (as noted by Sawatsky) so the relevant loss of kinetic energy is $`x`$. (P.A. Lee has estimated a similar effect quantitatively.) One may think of this effect as setting an upper limit to the transition temperature $`T_C<T_{KE}x.`$ But if the spin gap $`T^{}`$ is smaller than this upper limit, essentially no spin gap can open without a charge gap as well, so $`T_c`$ follows $`T^{}`$ down at high doping.

The above is far from a quantitative theory of $`T_c`$. In particular, I believe there is still a role for the interlayer kinetic energy in the bilayer and multilayer cases. But contrary to my “Dogma V” there is a one-layer mechanism for superconductivity which seems to be quite effective in some cases. But in all cases the relevant mechanism is the recovery of frustrated kinetic energy. Note that in the charge channel this is not a d-wave but an s-wave condensation, hence not strongly affected by ordinary scattering.

To summarize: The two-dimensional electron gas in the cuprates is dominated by the short-range repulsive interaction which remains relevant and causes spin-charge separation. A spin gap develops in the metallic phase below a crossover temperature T\*, at the Cooper instability caused by the antiferromagnetic superexchange. The extra kinetic energy required to open the spin gap is relaxed at a lower temperature Tc by making the charge fluctuations coherent, and this is the immediate cause of superconductivity.


format: text

text:
# Can gravitational waves be detected in quasar microlensing?

## 1 Introduction

The $`\mathrm{Q0957}+561\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B}`$ system was the first recognized multiple image gravitational lens (Walsh, Carswell, and Weymann 1979) and the first to have a measured time delay (Schild and Cholfin 1986). Once the time delay between the two images was measured, the brightness histories of the two images could be compared and $`\mathrm{Q0957}`$ was the first to show evidence for a microlensing event (Vanderriest et al. 1989; Schild & Smith 1991; Pelt et al. 1998). The long brightness records accumulated to measure the time delay and microlensing at optical (Schild and Thomson, 1997 and earlier references therein) and radio (Haarsma et al., 1997) wavelengths have been analyzed by Thomson and Schild (1997) to look for other artifacts in the time series data.

A number of such artifacts were found, including evidence for multipaths, coherency in the radio and optical, weak sinusoidal behavior on timescales of weeks, and a puzzling frequency offset between the coherent brightness fluctuation in the A and B images. Since the A and B images are of the same quasar, lack of frequency coherence of the two images shifted by the measured time delay suggests that some process related to the microlensing has probably altered the frequency.

The possibility that the frequency offset might be caused by binary microlensing objects was illustrated in Schild and Thomson (1993). A more intriguing possibility has also been suggested (Schild and Thomson 1997): the frequency offset might constitute the detection of gravitational waves radiated by a binary black hole at the nucleus of the lens galaxy. The purpose of this paper is to explore this possibility more carefully.

The possibility that a massive binary black hole might reside at the center of the lens galaxy is reinforced by what is known about the monster. It is a very luminous elliptical galaxy near the center of a cluster, suggesting it is probably a starpile type galaxy, resulting from a long history of mergers of smaller galaxies. The lens galaxy is a known radio source (Greenfield et al. 1980) so it is presumed to contain at least one black hole at the center. If the galaxy is a starpile type, then it would have accumulated one or more massive black holes from galactic mergers. Dynamical friction with the constituent stars in the merged galaxy would cause the massive black holes to settle into the central density cusp over the course of time. If one were to look for binary black holes, this is the place one would start the search. The nearest analogue to the lens galaxy would be M87, near the center of a subgroup of the Virgo cluster. Evidence for massive black hole binaries has been found in other astrophysical systems; for example a binary black hole has been inferred to exist in quasar Q1928+738 (Roos, Kaastra, and Hummel 1993).

To picture the physical configuration for a gravitational wave explanation consider a terrestrial observer looking in the direction of a distant quasar. The observer sees two images because the gravitational field of a lens galaxy near the line of sight creates two light paths to the observer. As the quasar light passes through the lens galaxy, stars within the galaxy act as microlenses that can further magnify the luminous quasar structure. Any dark matter objects would also introduce microlensing. The theory for the formation of two quasar images indicates that the surface mass density is sufficiently high that microlensing events should always be underway. If a gravitational wave originating at the center of the lens galaxy passes through the field of microlenses, it should alter the pattern of null geodesics by which light passes through the lens galaxy, and impose the wave’s periodicity on the resulting signal, suggesting the gravitational wave’s frequency should be evident in the time series record of the quasar’s brightness.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the evidence for the observed Q0957 frequency offset. In Section 3, the amount that microlensing signals would be affected by propagating gravitational waves is calculated, and we conclude that no observable signature would be found. Section 4 reconsiders the origin of the observed effect in Q0957 and speculates on prospects for observing gravitational waves in other microlensed quasar systems.

Geometric units where $`G=c=1`$ are used throughout; conventional units are adopted (and specified) when numerical values are quoted.

## 2 Frequency Shifts in the Q0957 Coherence

Frequency shift effects in $`\mathrm{Q0957}`$ were first discussed in Thomson and Schild (1997), who noted that (p. 188) “Analyzing the A and B light curves jointly, we find a frequency shift between them. This shift is one-sided, so it is not the result of a simple modulation, and has about the same value as the periodicity seen in the microlensing.” A more comprehensive discussion and a plot of the unexpected behavior is given in Schild and Thomson (1997), who plot the dual-frequency cross coherence between the delayed A and the B light curves for a $`3286`$day time interval. Their surprising result is that although the two images originate in the same quasar, the brightness records have almost no cross-coherence over the frequency band $`1.55.0`$ cy/yr. Instead, the coherency seems to be shifted up to higher frequencies, commonly 2 to 3 cy/yr higher than the expected frequency. Because the quasar’s random brightness fluctuations appear to be phase coherently shifted to higher frequency over a restricted frequency band, the effect might be thought of as a kind of blueshift that operates over only a limited frequency band. Several such blue shifting frequencies are found, and it is not yet clear whether a single such blueshift operates over only a limited time interval (a limited range of Julian dates). In this report we focus on the dominant frequency offset, 0.29 cycles/year. Because the affected frequency band was shown by Schild (1996) to be dominated by microlensing effects, it seems likely that the shift of frequency coherence results from the microlensing.

For modulation of the microlensing signal by gravitational waves to be observable, two conditions must be met. First, the amplitude of the gravitational wave at the microlensing field must be large enough to alter the microlensing amplitude, implying the amplitude must be a significant fraction of the Einstein radius of a microlensing particle. Second, the quasar source must also have sufficiently fine structure that the background to the wave-altered geodesics produces the periodically modulated brightness changes.

While the quasar accretion disc is usually taken to be quite large and structureless, a study of the Q0957 statistics by Schild (1996) showed that fluctuations were seen to be so rapid that they evidenced dark matter in the form of condensed objects (rogue planets) having approximately terrestrial mass and cosmologically significant numbers. They also evidenced compact quasar structure, which seemed surprising at the time but has since been confirmed in the observation of an apparent cusp crossing in quasar $`\mathrm{Q2237}`$.111See the data at website http://www.astro.princeton.edu/$``$ogle/ogle2/huchra.html These Q0957 and Q2237 observations place important constraints on the size of the emitting quasar source. For the brightness profile illustrated in Schild’s (1996) Fig. 5, a time scale of $`60`$ days is evidenced, about the same as the peak of the power spectrum illustrated in his Fig. 4. Thus quasar structure on size scales less than the accretion disc diameter seems to be indicated by the microlensing data for two quasars.

Because the B quasar image passes 5 times closer to the lens galaxy nucleus than A, we presume that gravitational waves would be greatest in B, and compute the spacing of the microlensing masses to determine the amplitude of gravitational wave that would be needed. The normalized surface mass density for the B image was defined in Schmidt and Wambsganss (1998) and shown to be equal to $`1.17`$. Schmidt and Wambsganss also show that for standard cosmology, the angular size diameter of a solar mass Einstein ring projected to the quasar source is $`3\times 10^{13}`$ cm. The calculated $`1.17`$ surface mass density means that along any line of sight, on average an observer sees one microlensing mass magnifying the background quasar source, so on average the Einstein rings are adjacent to one another (they touch each other with $`17\%`$ overlap, loosely speaking). Because the distance to the lens is nearly half the distance to the quasar in a correct calculation of the angular diameter distances, the separation of the microlenses projected onto the plane of the sky at the distance of the lens galaxy is about half the Einstein ring diameter, or about $`10^{13}`$ cm.

From these numbers we wish to estimate an amplitude scale for which the gravitational waves emanating from the putative black hole at the center of the lens galaxy would periodically influence the microelnsing. We presume that the gravitational waves passing the network of microlenses alter the null geodesics of the quasar beams periodically, and cause the observed periodic changes in the microlensing magnification. The microlensing magnification is usually illustrated as the pattern of high magnification cusps that the masses impose upon the light beam from the distant source. Such cusp patterns have been illustrated, for example, by Wambsganss (1992) and Seitz, Wambsganss, and Schneider (1994), who show that for optical depths near 0.1 the cusps have a characteristic size scale about the same as the Einstein ring diameter, but for higher optical depths, such as $`1.17`$ appropriate for Q0957, the cusp scale is about a factor of ten smaller, especially when the random motions of the field microlenses are taken into account (Wambsganss & Kundic, 1995). Thus we take the characteristic size scale for the brightness amplification cusps to be $`10^{12}`$ cm. We are aware that this is also aproximately the size of the putative black hole at the center of the quasar.

Because the brightness fluctuations observed are small, only 3% or so, it may not be justified to assume that the gravitational wave induced alteration of the quasar light’s path is the full amplitude of the cusp pattern; even an alteration of the propagation path by 10% of the characteristic cusp spacing should produce an effect of the small amplitude observed. If the predicted amplitude of the propagation path alteration were $`10^{11}`$ cm, we would feel obliged to model this and sharpen this estimate, but we shall see that the predicted effect falls short of this amplitude by several orders of magnitude. In this sense, we take the fiducial amplitude for any gravitational wave alteration of the pattern of null geodesics through the pattern of microlensing masses to be $`10^{11}`$ cm.

## 3 The expected gravitational wave amplitude

To explicitly compute the effect of a gravitational wave on photons propagating through a symmetric Schwarzschild gravitational lens, consider the geometry shown in Figure 1. An Earth-bound observer and a distant source of photons are situated about a thin gravitational lens, with the source lying at a misalignment angle $`\beta `$ from the line of sight to the lens. The Einstein radius is given by

$$\eta =\sqrt{\frac{2M}{L}},$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the lens mass and $`L`$ is the separation between the lens and observer (or lens and source).

If one wants to consider the effect of the wave on photons propagating through the lens and toward a distant observer, one approach is to consider the superposition of a linearized Schwarzschild metric (describing the lens) and a linearized metric describing gravitational plane-waves. Consider the case of a gravitational wave with amplitude $`h`$, frequency $`\omega `$ and $`+`$ polarization propagating through a Schwarzschild lens down the $`+x`$axis. The spacetime metric may be written as

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2\left(1+\frac{2M}{r}\right)\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right)+h\mathrm{cos}\omega (tx)\left(dy^2dz^2\right),$$
(2)
where $`r`$ is the radial coordinate from the lens. Note that in the limit $`h0`$, this becomes the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates.

A standard (but computationally intensive) approach to studying photon trajectories in the spacetime described by the metric of Eq. (2) is to write out and solve the null geodesic equations. Such a study would allow one to ascertain what, if any, observable effect the gravitational wave might have on an observed microlensing signal.

A simpler approach may be used in the thin lens approximation, where the photon trajectories may be approximated as straight lines deflected when they pass through the lens plane. In this case, an application of Fermat’s principle can be used to extremize the time of flight through the lens in lieu of solving the geodesic equations. The condition that the time of flight be an extremum will provide the necessary geometrical information to consider how the microlensing signal is affected by the gravitational wave.

Fermat’s principle in non-stationary spacetimes has been discussed in the specific context of gravitational lensing (Kovner 1990; Nityananda and Samuel 1992), and has been used to examine the effect of cosmological gravitational waves on the time delay between lensed quasar images (Frieman, Harari and Surpi 1994, hereafter FHS). The conclusion of FHS was that for long wavelength gravitational waves, any time delay between the images due to the gravitational wave would be interpreted by observers as part of the misalignment angle $`\beta `$. We will follow the example of FHS, using Fermat’s principle to compute the apparent misalignment angle $`\beta (h)`$ as a function of the gravitational wave amplitude.

FHS showed that for the lens/gravitational wave system described by the metric in Eq. (2) the time of flight may be written

$$\tau _L^{+L}𝑑z\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dx}{dz}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}h\mathrm{cos}\omega (tx)+\frac{2M}{r}\right],$$
(3)
where $`(dx/dz)`$ characterizes the photon paths in Fig. 1.

Extremizing the time of flight in Eq. (3) leads to an expression for the deflection angle $`\alpha `$ in the lens plane:

$$\alpha =2\left(\theta \beta _g\right),$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ is the apparent location of the image, and $`\beta _g`$ is the apparent misalignment angle in the presence of the gravitational waves, which was found by FHS to be

$$\beta _g=\frac{h}{\omega L}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\omega L}{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega \left(t_e+L\right).$$
(5)
This expression for $`\beta _g`$ is valid so long as $`\eta L1/\omega `$ (i.e., as long as the wavelength of the gravitational wave is much larger than the typical size of the Einstein radius of the microlens).

In general, increasing the misalignment angle reduces the lensing effect. In microlensing, the lens mass is small enough that individual images are unresolvable, and increasing the misalignment angle reduces the microlens amplification. In the presence of gravitational waves, the apparent misalignment angle is given by Eq. (5). The condition that $`\eta L1/\omega `$ amounts to requiring that the gravitational wave vary on a timescale much less than the time of flight for photons through the vicinity of the lens. This suggests that over a long period of time, the microlensing amplification may change due to the fact that $`\beta _g`$ is a slowly varying function of time.

Any change in $`\beta _g`$ over the course of time amounts to a change in the impact parameter of a given photon trajectory which passes through the lens. The misalignment angle subtends an arclength

$$s=L\beta _g=\frac{h}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\omega L}{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\omega \left(t_e+L\right)$$
(6)
for a lens which lies a distance $`L`$ from the observer. Eq. (6) can be separated into a scaling amplitude (given by $`h/\omega `$) multiplied by a periodic function which varies between $`1`$ and $`+1`$. The quantity of interest is the maximum value of $`s`$, which we take to be

$$s_{max}\frac{h}{\omega }.$$
(7)
$`s_{max}`$ represents the maximum deflection of a null geodesic (passing through a thin gravitational lens) by a gravitational wave of amplitude $`h`$ and frequency $`\omega `$.

The gravitational wave amplitude can be estimated by assuming the case of an equal mass circularized binary source. At a distance $`r`$ from a system with total mass $`2m`$, and gravitational wave frequency $`\omega `$, the amplitude is well approximated by

$$h\frac{(2m)^{5/3}\omega ^{2/3}}{r}.$$
(8)
Combining this with Eq. (7) yields

$$s_{max}\frac{(2m)^{5/3}}{r\omega ^{1/3}}.$$
(9)
Eq. (9) may be evaluated for the case of Q0957. Assuming the anomalous frequency shift in the brightness history is caused by gravitational waves, the $`3.4`$ yr period implies a gravitational wave frequency222This value for $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the emitted gravitational radiation (given by the observed $`3.4`$ yr period), corrected for the redshift of the source galaxy, $`z=0.37`$. of $`\omega 8\times 10^8`$ Hz. The separation between the microlens and the source of gravitational waves is taken to be the linear distance between the quasar image which is being microlensed and the center of the primary lensing galaxy. For the Q0957 system, the distance between the B image and the nucleus of the lens galaxy has been measured to be $`1.045`$ arcsec (or $`r5`$ kpc for a lensing galaxy at a redshift of $`z0.37`$, assuming a flat cosmology with a Hubble parameter of $`75`$ km s-1 Mpc-1) (Bonometti, 1985). If the typical mass of a central galactic black hole is $`m10^8M_{}`$, then the maximum deflection is

$$s_{max}10^6\mathrm{cm}.$$
(10)
## 4 Discussion

This calculation of the maximum deflection of the pattern of null geodesics due to a gravitational wave from a putative binary black hole at the center of the lens galaxy shows that no observable effects would be expected. The gravitational wave deflects the propagation paths by $`10^6`$ cm, whereas a deflection of order $`10^{11}`$ cm (the smallest size scale expected to be found in quasar source structure) would be required to explain the frequency offset between the A and B images.

Might the effects be observable in a different lens system having different parameters? Our Eq. (9) shows that the deflection amplitude is a weak function of the gravitational wave source frequency $`\omega `$, which is presumed known for the Q0957 system; other lens systems with a factor 100 higher binary black hole frequency are certainly possible (they would have a lifetime shorter than a Hubble time). The Q0957 system has the widest image separation of all known lens systems, so most other lenses would have a smaller value of $`r`$, the impact parameter of the quasar beam passing the binary black hole; thus an effect might be slightly favored in other gravitational lens systems (Eq. (9)). An effect would be strongly favored by a more massive black hole binary, but we have already used large values for the orbiting masses. We conclude that the detection of gravitational waves with quasar microlensing seems not to be possible for any known system.

We are left to specualte about the nature of the periodicity observed in the microlensing (Schild and Thomson 1997). A microlensing explanation seems essential because the observed effect is asymmetrical; the frequency offset seems to affect the B image most strongly, and the B image has the hugest optical depth to microlensing. With the gravitational wave explanation excluded it seems most likely that the source of the periodic activity is orbital effects in the microlensing objects themselves. This would literally mean that the planetary mass objects found by Schild (1996) to dominate the mass of the lens galaxy are in some (or most) cases binaries. Heretofore we have disfavored this explanation because a simple calculation of the transverse velocities predicts that the microlens’ orbital velocity would be much less than such cosmological velocity components as the motion of the sun around the center of the galaxy (220 km/sec), or the motion of the source quasar or lens galaxy relative to its local Great Attractor (600 km/sec). Nevertheless it would be possible for some orbital effects to be introduced into the microlensing, and more intricate microlensing simulations might be necessary to explore an orbital explanation.

The authors would like to thank David J. Thomson, Chris Kochanek and William A. Hiscock for helpful discussions. The work of SLL was supported by NASA Cooperative Agreement No. NCC5-410.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The standard model is unlikely to be a fundamental theory; it contains 19 arbitrary parameters, 13 of which are the charged fermion masses and mixing angles. At least six more parameters are needed to describe neutrino masses and mixing (for three active neutrinos). Supersymmetric \[SUSY\] grand unified theories \[GUTs\] provide a beautiful framework for understanding many of the outstanding problems of the standard model.

For this framework to be accepted as a description of Nature, the three pillars of SUSY GUTs must be verified. These are

* \[I\] Gauge and Yukawa Coupling Unification;
* \[II\] Observable Superparticle Spectrum;
* \[III\] Nucleon Decay

Of these only (I) has been verified. (II) must await RunII at the Fermilab Tevatron or the LHC and (III) is in danger of being observed or excluded by SuperKamiokande and Soudan II. It is this last feature which is the main subject of this letter. In the next section we review the steps in the calculation of nucleon decay rates.

## 2 Nucleon Decay

In SUSY GUTs, dimension five baryon and lepton number violating operators resulting from the exchange of color triplet Higgsinos dominate; suppressed by one power of an effective color triplet mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$. Unlike proton decay mediated by gauge boson exchange, the value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$ is a free parameter. It is only constrained by requiring perturbative threshold corrections at $`M_G`$. This constraint, in conjunction with nucleon decay bounds, however, has been used to rule out simple SU(5) SUSY GUTs. SO(10) on the other hand, has escaped exclusion, but it is now under siege.

In equation 1, the Higgs doublets $`H_u(H_d)`$ and the color triplets $`T(\overline{T})`$ are contained in a single 10 dimensional representation $`10_H`$ of SO(10). The couplings of the color triplet Higgs fields to quarks and leptons are given in terms of Yukawa-like $`3\times 3`$ complex matrices $`c_{qq}`$, $`c_{ud}`$, $`c_{ue}`$, $`c_{ql}`$. These are related by SO(10) to the Yukawa matrices $`Y_u`$, $`Y_d`$, $`Y_e`$ (eqn. 1).111For more details on notation, see . In a predictive SUSY GUT the arbitrary parameters in the Yukawa matrices, defined at the GUT scale, are fixed when fitting charged fermion masses and mixing angles at low energies. Hence the parameters in the flavor matrices $`c_{qq}`$, $`c_{ud}`$, $`c_{ue}`$, $`c_{ql}`$ are also fixed once charged fermion masses are fit.222 In our analysis the Yukawa matrices and gauge couplings are renormalized from $`M_G`$ to $`M_Z`$ using two loop SUSY renormalization group equations \[RGEs\]. We then use a global $`\chi ^2`$ analysis to fit the data. This analysis self consistently checks for electroweak symmetry breaking and includes the relevant one loop threshold corrections at $`M_Z`$.

$`H_uQY_u\overline{U}+H_dQY_d\overline{D}+H_dLY_e\overline{E}`$
$`+Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_{qq}QT+Qc_{ql}L\overline{T}+\overline{U}c_{ud}\overline{D}\overline{T}+\overline{U}c_{ue}\overline{E}T`$ (1)
Below the GUT scale the color triplets are integrated out of the theory giving the dimension five operators (eqn. 2). All dimensionless (dimensionful) parameters are then renormalized to $`M_Z`$.2 We use universal squark and slepton masses ($`m_0`$), gaugino masses ($`M_{(1/2)}`$) and non-universal Higgs masses ($`m_{H_u},m_{H_d}`$) at $`M_G`$.

$`H_uQY_u\overline{U}+H_dQY_d\overline{D}+H_dLY_e\overline{E}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_{qq}QQc_{ql}L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}}\overline{U}c_{ud}\overline{D}\overline{U}c_{ue}\overline{E}`$ (2)
In the effective theory below $`M_Z`$ the coefficients of the effective (dimension six) four fermi baryon and lepton number violating operators are determined. 333In a more detailed calculation it may be appropriate to have a hierarchy of effective field theories to take into account the hierarchy of SUSY particles between 100 GeV and 3 TeV. These are obtained via one loop graphs with squark, slepton and gaugino intermediate lines. In general there are LLLL, LLRR and RRRR operators generated via gluino and chargino exchanges.444We have not included the contribution of neutralino loops. For more details, see for example .

We then renormalize the four fermi operators from $`M_Z`$ to 1 GeV using QCD with the multiplicative factor $`A_3`$.555Note, $`A_3`$ is different than $`A_L`$ which appears in  and is used in many other works on proton decay. This is because $`A_L`$ takes into account two different effects, the QCD running of the dimension 6 operators from $`M_Z`$ to 1 GeV and the running of the quark masses from low energies to $`M_Z`$ in order to use the correct Yukawa couplings at the weak scale. In our analysis $`A_3`$, including only the QCD running of the dimension 6 operator, is the appropriate factor to use, since we are already using the Yukawa couplings evaluated at $`M_Z`$. The general solution to the RGE for the coefficient $`C(\mu )`$ of the dimension six operator is given by $`C(\mu )=C(\mu _0)(\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\alpha _s(\mu _0)})^{(2/b_0)}`$ where $`b_0=11\frac{2}{3}n_{flavors}`$. Note also that analytically we have the relation $`A_L=A_3^3`$. Given the numerical value we find for $`A_3=1.32`$, we then obtain the value of $`A_L=0.43`$. For some reason, this differs from the value of $`A_L=0.22`$ used in previous works. We believe this must be a numerical error.

$`A_3=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})}{\alpha _s(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c})}}\right)^{(2/9)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c})}{\alpha _s(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{b})}}\right)^{(6/25)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{b})}{\alpha _s(\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{Z})}}\right)^{(6/23)}`$ $`=1.32`$ (3)
The final step is to evaluate the matrix elements of these four fermi operators between a nucleon and the lepton + meson final state. This requires lattice gauge theory calculations and usually chiral Lagrangian analysis. The decay rates depend significantly on the chiral Lagrangian factors $`\alpha _{lat}`$ and $`\beta _{lat}`$ where

$$\beta _{lat}U(𝐤)=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }<0|(u^\alpha d^\beta )u^\gamma |\mathrm{proton}(𝐤)>,$$

$$\alpha _{lat}U(𝐤)=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }<0|(\overline{u}^\alpha \overline{d}^\beta )u^\gamma |\mathrm{proton}(𝐤)>$$

and $`U(𝐤)`$ is the left handed component of the proton’s wavefunction.

We finally obtain the general amplitude for Higgsino mediated nucleon decay given schematically by the formula

$`T`$ $`A_3(\mathrm{FF})(\mathrm{LF})\stackrel{~}{M}_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\beta _{lat}`$ (4)
where

* $`FF`$ is a Flavor Factor depending on Yukawa, gauge couplings and $`c_{qq}c_{ql}`$, $`c_{ud}c_{ue}`$ evaluated at $`M_Z`$ and the specific nucleon decay mode.
* $`LF`$ is a Loop Factor depending on gaugino, squark and slepton masses roughly as $`M_{(1/2)}/m_0^2`$ for $`M_{(1/2)}<<m_0`$.

The Flavor Factor (FF) is model dependent. In our analysis we use a particular SO(10) SUSY GUT with a $`U(2)\times U(1)^n`$ family symmetry with the Yukawa matrices given in . Note, however, that the Yukawa matrices are fixed to fit the low energy quark and lepton masses and mixing angles and the rate for $`bs\gamma `$. The model is also constrained by electroweak symmetry breaking. We estimate, by comparing two quite different models, that the model dependence is probably no more than an order of magnitude in the rate.

The largest uncertainties in the proton lifetime, however, enter through the value of the effective color triplet mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$; through the sparticle spectrum via the Loop Factor (LF), and through the strong interaction matrix element $`\beta _{lat}`$. We address these uncertainties below.

Effective Color Triplet Mass - $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$

The color triplets are required to be heavy with mass of order $`M_G`$ since they contribute to nucleon decay; Higgs doublets on the other hand must have mass of order the weak scale. In SO(10) the Higgs doublets ($`H_u,H_d`$) and triplets ($`T,\overline{T}`$) are in the field $`10_H`$ which is the only Higgs-like representation coupling to standard model fermions. A simple mechanism for accomplishing this doublet-triplet splitting exists in SO(10), known as the Dimopoulos-Wilczek \[DW\] mechanism. In this mechanism an adjoint (45 dimensional) scalar obtains a vev of order (B - L) $`\times M_G`$, with B (Baryon) and L (Lepton) number and gives mass to the Higgs field $`10_H`$. Since color triplet Higgs fields have non-zero B-L charge, while Higgs doublets have zero charge, only the triplets obtain mass. A simple variation of the original mechanism also allows for the possibility of obtaining large (or small) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50(2)`$ solutions with the addition of four fields, $`\overline{\psi }^{},\overline{\psi }`$; $`\psi ^{},\psi `$ ($`\overline{16},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}16}`$ representations of SO(10)) with the unprimed fields obtaining vevs in the ”right-handed neutrino” directions. For self-consistency, $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ get mass of order $`M_G`$ and their mass and vevs are generated in the SO(10) breaking sector of the theory.

The Higgs doublet and triplet mass matrices are given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}10_H^5& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^5& (\overline{\psi }^{})^5\end{array}`$

$$M_{(t,d)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 45& 0\\ 45& X& \psi \\ \overline{\psi }& 0& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}10_H^{\overline{5}}\\ 10^{\overline{5}}\\ (\psi ^{})^{\overline{5}}\end{array}\right)$$

where the superscript indicates the SU(5) content of the field. We take the vevs $`45(BL)M_G`$, $`MM_G`$ and $`X10^3M_G`$. We then consider two cases

1. $`\overline{\psi }\psi =0`$
2. $`\overline{\psi }\psi 0.1M_G`$

In both cases 1 and 2, the effective color triplet mass (eqn. 2) is given by

$$1/\stackrel{~}{M}_t(M_t^1)_{11}=XM/detM_tX/M_G^2(10^{19}\mathrm{GeV})^1$$
(5)
where $`M_t`$ is the color triplet mass matrix. Note there is actually no color triplet with mass greater than $`M_{Planck}`$ .

Consider the light Higgs doublets.

1. $`H_u,H_d10_H`$ are identified as the light Higgs doublets. We have $`\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau =\lambda _t\lambda `$ at $`M_G`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$. $`\lambda `$ is the universal third generation Yukawa coupling given in $`\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}_H\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}16}_3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}16}_3`$.
2. The light Higgs doublets are identified as $`H_u`$ and $`\gamma H_d`$ with $`\gamma =\frac{XM}{\overline{\psi }\psi }<<1`$. We then have $`\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau \gamma \lambda <<\lambda _t\lambda `$.

The lightest Higgs doublet (besides $`H_u,H_d`$) has mass of order $`10^2M_G`$.

A limit on the value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$, the effective color triplet Higgs mass, is obtained by requiring perturbative threshold corrections to gauge coupling unification. At one loop the definition of the GUT scale is somewhat arbitrary. A particularly convenient choice is to define $`M_G`$ as the scale where the two gauge couplings, $`\alpha _i,i=1,2`$, meet. We define $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G\alpha _1(M_G)=\alpha _2(M_G)`$ and the relative shift in $`\alpha _3(M_G)`$ is given by

$$ϵ_3(\alpha _3(M_G)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G)/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G.$$
(6)
In general, a value of $`ϵ_3(24\%)`$ is needed to obtain $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.119}`$. The one loop threshold correction coming solely from the Higgs sector ($`5+\overline{5}`$) is given by

$`ϵ_3(Higgs)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G}{5\pi }}\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_t}{M_G}}\gamma )`$ (7)
which is valid in either case 1 or 2 above, if we let $`\gamma =\frac{\lambda _b}{\lambda _t}`$.

Since the Higgs contribution to $`ϵ_3`$ is always positive, we must therefore have a negative contribution coming from the rest of the GUT sector of the theory. If we demand that the maximum allowed threshold correction from the GUT sector is $`10\%(8\%)`$, we then have at most a positive $`6\%(4\%)`$ contribution from the Higgs sector (assuming we need $`ϵ_34\%`$). This gives an upper bound on the allowed values of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t\gamma `$.

Note, in the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime there is no explicit suppression factor entering the coefficient of the dimension 5 operators, since they are all proportional to $`\lambda ^2/\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$. The difference in the small vs large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regimes is the maximum allowed value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$ consistent with perturbative threshold corrections. 666This result was also discussed in . We find the bound $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$$`<8\times 10^{19}\gamma ^1\mathrm{GeV}(6\times 10^{18}\gamma ^1)`$ GeV for $`ϵ_3(Higgs)<`$ 6% (4%). Unfortunately this bound is exponentially sensitive to the assumed maximum allowed correction $`ϵ_3(Higgs)`$.

Finally we warn the reader that, with additional SO(10) adjoints and a clever modification of the DW doublet-triplet splitting sector, it is indeed possible to suppress proton decay via dimension five operators entirely, see for example Chacko and Mohapatra. In this case, we would unfortunately lose a significant test of SUSY GUTs. Moreover such elaborate constructs for suppressing nucleon decay seem entirely contrived and unnatural.

Natural Superparticle Spectrum

In order for SUSY to provide a solution to the gauge hierarchy problem, the SUSY breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ must be of order the weak scale. Otherwise we must fine tune in order to have $`M_Zm_{Higgs}<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$. In order for nucleon decay rates to be consistent with the present data we need to maximize squark and slepton masses, consistent with naturalness, and minimize gaugino masses, consistent with present experimental bounds.

How heavy can squarks and sleptons be? Since the first two families of squarks and sleptons couple weakly to the Higgs bosons, it has been argued that it is still natural to have heavy first and second generation squarks and sleptons as long as the third generation squarks and sleptons are lighter than, say, one TeV. In fact in SUSY SO(10) with Yukawa unification and SO(10) boundary conditions at $`M_G`$ for soft SUSY breaking mass parameters, it was noted that the third generation squarks and sleptons are naturally lighter than the first two generations due to RGE running. This is due to the fact that in this limit, $`\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau =\lambda _t1`$ has the effect of driving the third generation scalars to lower masses. For $`m_0=3000`$ GeV and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we find all third generation squarks and sleptons are lighter than 1 TeV, except for the left-handed stau and tau sneutrino. These have mass $`2`$ TeV. If we estimate the contribution to $`\delta m_H^2\frac{\lambda _\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2}(\stackrel{~}{m}_\tau ^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{\nu _\tau }^2)`$ and demand $`\delta m_H^2<(130\mathrm{GeV})^2`$, we find $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\tau \stackrel{~}{m}_{\nu _\tau }<2100`$ GeV. Thus we avoid fine-tuning in the effective theory at the weak scale.

Note however that for $`m_0=3000`$ GeV we must still do some fine-tuning in order to obtain the correct electroweak symmetry breaking via RGE running from $`M_{GUT}`$ to $`M_Z`$. This is because all three families of squarks and sleptons have large mass during most of the running. This fine tuning can be avoided, however, if we take large masses at $`M_G`$ for the first two families of squarks and sleptons, while keeping the mass of the third family less than $``$ 1 TeV. This is certainly consistent with the SO(10) GUT $`\times `$ U (2) family symmetry which we are considering. It may even be possible in this case to increase the squark and slepton masses of the first two families above 3 TeV.777In order to check these possibilities, we must include two loop RGE running as emphasized by Arkani-Hamed and Murayama . We will investigate this further elsewhere.

For small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, only the stop squark mass is naturally light. Thus, in this case, the upper bound on $`m_0`$ is $``$ 1000 GeV.

Lattice Results

There have been several lattice calculations of the chiral Lagrangian parameters $`\alpha _{lat},\beta _{lat}`$. A recent lattice calculation  on a significantly larger lattice gives $`\beta _{lat}\alpha _{lat}=0.015`$ GeV3. The statistical uncertainties in this result are small ($`\pm 1`$ in the last digit). However systematic uncertainties connected with the chiral Lagrangian approach and the quenched approximation may be significant, perhaps as large as 50%. Note that the proton lifetime is also sensitive to the relative magnitude of $`\alpha _{lat}`$ and $`\beta _{lat}`$. In our results we use the central value quoted in .

## 3 Results

The process $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ is the dominant decay mode for the proton. In all cases we find the rate for $`nK^0\overline{\nu }`$ dominates over $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$; typically by a factor of 2 - 4. However the best experimental bound is on the latter — SuperKamiokande 90% CL bounds on nucleon decay based on 61-ktonyear exposure

$`\tau (pK^+\overline{\nu })>`$ $`1.9\times 10^{33}\mathrm{years}`$ (8)
and we use it to establish that SUSY GUTs are under siege.

The result of this analysis is the theoretical upper bound on the proton lifetime given by

$`\tau (pK^+\overline{\nu })=`$ $`4.7\times 10^{33}\mathrm{years}\times ({\displaystyle \frac{0.015\mathrm{GeV}^3}{\beta _{lat}}})^2\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_t}{8\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}}})^2`$ (9)
for $`m_0=3000`$ GeV, $`M_{(1/2)}=175`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 54`$ or

$`\tau (pK^+\overline{\nu })=`$ $`1.0\times 10^{34}\mathrm{years}\times ({\displaystyle \frac{0.015\mathrm{GeV}^3}{\beta _{lat}}})^2\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_t}{5\times 10^{21}\mathrm{GeV}}})^2`$ (10)
for $`m_0=1000`$ GeV, $`M_{(1/2)}=300`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$.888For $`ϵ_3(Higgs)4\%`$ simply change the value of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$ in eqn. 9 (10) to $`6\times 10^{18}(4\times 10^{20})`$.

Let us briefly summarize the theoretical input to these upper bounds.

* This upper bound assumes a very conservative upper limit on the color triplet Higgsino mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_t`$; obtained by demanding that the Higgs contribution to the one loop threshold correction to gauge coupling unification at $`M_G`$ is at most 6%.
* Gaugino masses are taken to be near the allowed experimental lower bounds. While squark and slepton masses must be near the upper bounds allowed by naturalness. In SO(10) with universal squark and slepton mass $`m_0`$, we have $`m_03000`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ or $`m_01000`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2`$.
* We use the central value for $`\beta _{lat}`$ given in . If the reader prefers another value, the new bound can be obtained by a simple rescaling.
* Any further uncertainty depends on the specific model for the Higgs doublet and triplet Yukawa couplings; we estimate this uncertainty to be at most an order of magnitude in the lifetime. The upper bound given here is for the particular SO(10) SUSY GUT with a $`U(2)\times U(1)^n`$ family symmetry which provides an excellent fit to charged fermion masses and mixing angles .

Clearly we have pushed most of the parameters to (or perhaps beyond) what the reader may consider reasonable upper or lower bounds. Nevertheless, with these exceptionally conservative bounds we are barely consistent with the latest Super-Kamiokande limits on $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ (eqn. 8) .

We have shown that the recent SuperKamiokande bounds on proton decay severely constrain SO(10) SUSY GUTs. Recall, simple SU(5) SUSY GUTs have already been excluded by this data. Some general conclusions may be drawn from our analysis.

* Based on these results the first two generations of squarks and sleptons must have mass significantly greater than 1 TeV; while the third generation squarks and sleptons can be lighter than 1 TeV, but not lighter than $`400`$ GeV. Thus, at best we expect only the third generation squarks and sleptons to be visible at LHC.
* Clearly proton decay must be seen soon IF minimal SUSY GUTs are the correct description of nature.

## 4 Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by DOE grant DOE/ER/01545-7895. We are sincerely indebted to T. Blažek for allowing us to use his computer code for the global $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the precision electroweak data including fermion masses and mixing angles. SR thanks J. Pati and F. Wilczek for discussions. Also RD thanks H. Murayama for discussions.


text:
# Probing Dense Matter in the cores of AGN: Observations with RXTE and ASCA

## 1. Introduction

X-ray observations are excellent for studying the accretion process in active galactic nuclei (AGN) because they allow us to see directly into the galaxy core to determine what happens around the black hole, all the way from the gravitational radius out to scales $``$10 billion times larger. X-rays can arise anywhere there is matter to reprocess high-energy continuum photons. Features of X-ray reprocessing such as Fe K$`\alpha `$ lines and Compton reflection (Lightman & White 1988, Guilbert & Rees 1988), can arise from an accretion disk (George & Fabian 1991) or the obscuring torus of unified models (Krolik, Madau & Zycki 1994, Ghisellini, Haardt & Matt 1994). Significant Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission may also be produced in distributions of clouds such as the UV/optical broad line region.

Spectral variability is critical to understanding where reflection/fluorescence features arise. If the reprocessing arises in an accretion disk, we expect it to respond to the continuum with a lag of only $`3000M_8`$ s, where $`M_8`$ is the mass of the central black hole in units of $`10^8M_{}`$. If it comes from as far out as an obscuring torus, the lag should be $`5\times 10^7L_{44}^{1/2}`$ s, where $`L_{44}`$ is the luminosity in units of $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1. For current favored models of Seyfert 1s where the observed reprocessing occurs in a neutral and Compton-thick accretion disk, the iron line and reflection hump should be physically coupled.

### 1.1. MCG $``$2-58-22: A “Reflection-less” Seyfert 1 Galaxy?

MCG $``$2-58-22 is a bright, unabsorbed Seyfert 1 galaxy with evidence for a Doppler broadened iron line (FWHM of $`31,000_{18,000}^{+30,000}`$ km s-1; Weaver et al. 1995). It was observed with ASCA and RXTE for a total of 38 ks on December 15, 1997.

MCG $``$2-58-22 varies significantly on timescales of years (Figure 1), changing intensity by a factor of three between ASCA observations in 1993 and 1997. The ASCA \+ RXTE spectrum and best-fitting model are shown in Figure 2. Using the pexrav model in xspec and assuming a face-on disk (where R = 1 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ coverage), RXTE detects essentially no reflection, with an upper limit of R = 0.08. Comparing ASCA observations, the iron line normalization stays constant at $`5\times 10^5`$ photons cm-2 s-1 and the EW drops from $`230`$ eV to $`125`$ eV in four years.

The lack of reflection is puzzling if the broad iron line comes from a disk. Although a large disk inclination or overabundance of iron can suppress reflection, the iron line would be much broader than observed in the former case and much stronger in the latter. Relativistic smearing of the Compton hump is also not likely because this would smear out the line. Plausible explanations include a partly ionized accretion disk, a cutoff in the intrinsic spectrum at energies between 10 and 40 keV, a Compton-thin accretion disk, or a lag in the response of reflection to the continuum (larger than that of the iron line).

The spectrum can be more easily explained if the iron line originates elsewhere. The constant line strength suggests that the line originates at least a few light years away. In fact, the line width is marginally consistent with the inferred velocity of the UV/optical broad line region clouds (16,000 km s-1; Wu, Boggess & Gull 1981). BLR clouds with $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{23}`$ cm-2 would produce fluorescence but no reflection.

### 1.2. The Contribution of Non-Disk Emission to X-ray Reprocessing

An obvious complication for spectral studies is the contribution of reprocessed emission from non-disk regions. To study this, we have looked at 15 Seyfert 1 galaxies with multiple observations in the ASCA archive. (Gelbord and Weaver, this volume). Modeling the iron line with a narrow Gaussian (to fit the line core), we find that eleven galaxies show some evidence for a change in EW. This can be explained as a significant time delay in flux from the line core, which might be due to emission from the outer disk, the BLR or the torus. One of the best examples of non-variability is NGC 4151, for which the line core flux does not change and the the EW is inversely proportional to the continuum flux (Figure 3).

In a second study, we obtained four RXTE observations of MCG$``$5-23-16 in 1996 and 1997 spaced $`3`$ months apart. The spectral results are plotted in Figure 4. Between the third (a long-look covering two days) and fourth pointings, the $`210`$ keV flux decreases while the line normalization remains the same and the EW drops from about 200 eV to 150 eV (Mattson and Weaver, in prep). The lack of response to the continuum suggests that at least some of the line emission occurs from far out. However, the reflection component tracks the continuum during the same time. If real, this would strongly support the idea that MCG –5-23-16 has two physically distinct reprocessing regions. Similar behavior of the iron line not tracking reflection is seen by RXTE for NGC 5548 (Chiang et al. 1999).

### 1.3. Compton Reflection and RXTE

Preliminary RXTE and ASCA results suggest that Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission and Compton reflection are at least partly decoupled in their behavior. Such a result has strong implications and thus deserves close scrutiny. In particular, it is important to rule out any possible systematic calibration effects. The PCA detector calibration is still being refined; however, up to December 1997, the ftools v4.1 matrix for gain epoch 3 (4/15/96 – 3/22/99) provides good fits to the Crab spectrum with less than 4% residuals near $`67`$ keV and $`1020`$ keV (K. Jahoda, private communication).

Table 1 compares results for a handful of Seyfert 1 galaxies observed during 1996 and 1997. Data were fitted with the pexrav plus Gaussian models in xspec and response matrices were generated for each observation with ftools v4.1. MCG –2-58-22 was observed at the end of 1997, where response deviations from the Crab begin, but there is no clear systematic trend for R to decrease with time. It is possible that R is systematically underestimated (the mean for IC 4329a is 0.43, where R=1 for an accretion disk), but this cannot account for the non-detection in MCG –2-58-22, even after including a 4% systematic error. We conclude that there is no time-dependent (i.e., calibration-dependent) trend for R to decrease with time.

## 2. Conclusions

Results are summarized from an RXTE and ASCA investigation of spectral variability in Seyfert 1 galaxies. The spectra defy a simple interpretation, with significant time lags and the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line and Compton reflection behaving in a decoupled fashion. A possible explanation is that the spectral variability of the accretion-disk is diluted by emission from other, larger regions.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by NASA grants NAG5-7010, NAG5-6917 & NAG5-3504.

## REFERENCES

Chiang, J. et al. 2000, ApJ, 528, 292

George, I. M. & Fabian, A. C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F. & Matt, G. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 743

Guilbert, P. W. & Rees, M. J. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 475

Krolik, J., Madau, P. & Zycki, P. 1994, ApJ, 420, L57

Lightman, A. P. & White, T. R. 1988, ApJ, 335, 57

Weaver, K. A., Nousek, J., Yaqoob, T., Hayashida, K. & Murakami, S. 1995, ApJ, 451, 147

Wu, C., Boggess, A. & Gull, T. R. 1981, ApJ, 247, 449


text:
# A SIMPLE MODEL FOR THE NON-RETARDED DISPERSIVE FORCE BETWEEN AN ELECTRICALLY POLARIZABLE ATOM AND A MAGNETICALLY POLARIZABLE ONE

## Abstract

It is well known that for the case of two neutral but electrically polarizable atoms the consideration or not of retardation effects on the dispersive van der Waals force between them leads essentially to different power laws for the forces; while the retarded force is proportional to $`1/r^8`$, where $`r`$ is the distance between the atoms, the non-retarded force is proportional to $`1/r^7`$. Here we consider the (repulsive) dispersive force between an electrically polarizable atom and a magnetically polarizable one and show that, in contrast to the previous case, a quite unexpected result appears, namely: while the retarded force is still proportional to $`1/r^8`$, the non-retarded force is proportional to $`1/r^5`$. We employ a semiclassical method based on the fluctuating dipole model for both atoms.

PACS: 35.20.-i

e-mail: farina@i.f.ufrj.br

e-mail: filadelf@i.f.ufrj.br

e-mail:tort@if.ufrj.br

In the context of thermodynamics of real gases, it was recognized by van der Waals  in the second half of last century that attractive forces should exist between molecules (atoms) even when the molecules do not posses permanent electric dipole moments. Since these forces depend on the atomic (electric) polarizabilities, which in turn are closely related to the refractive index, they are referred to as dispersive van der Waals forces. When retardation effects of the electromagnetic field interaction are neglected, an approximation that can be made only for short distances, these forces are called non-retarded dispersive van der Waals forces, while the name retarded dispersive van der Waals forces is left for the cases where the retardation effects are not negligible. From experimental data, van der Waals tried to infer the form of the interaction energy between the atoms, but the correct form and explanation for the non-dispersive forces had to wait for the advent of quantum mechanics and only after the paper by London  in 1930 the precise origin of these forces were understood. The influence of retardation effects on the dispersive forces were obtained for the first time in 1948 by Casimir and Polder . Basically they showed that, while the non-retarded force is proportional to $`1/r^7`$, where $`r`$ is the distance between the two atoms, the retarded force behaves like $`1/r^8`$. An immediate consequence of dispersive forces between two atoms is the existence of (dispersive) forces also for macroscopic bodies (for a detailed discussion see for instance ). For the case of two rarefied macroscopic bodies, the resultant dispersive force can be obtained by a direct integration of the pairwise forces. On the other hand, for non-rarefied media the non-additivity effects must be taken into account  (see also  for a simple discussion). However, though the final numerical result is affected by these effects, the pairwise integration already gives the correct dependence on the geometry. For instance, the retarded force per unit area between two parallel semi-infinite slabs of polarizable material distant apart a distance $`d`$ is proportional to $`1/d^4`$, no matter the non-sdditivities are taken into account or not. Retardation effects are automatically taken into account when the interaction energy is calculated with the aid of the zero-point energy method, introduced in 1948 by Casimir . In fact, the (standard electromagnetic) Casimir force between two macroscopic bodies can be considered as the retarded dispersive van der Waals force between them with the non-additivity effects included111The Casimir effect is more general than that, since it occurs whenever a relativistic field (not only the electromagnetic one) is constrained by some boundary conditions or is considered in a topologically non-trivial manifold .

In this note, we shall investigate the non-retarded interaction between two non-similar atoms: one of them is only electrically polarizable and the other, only magnetically polarizable. We shall show that a quite unexpected result is obtained, namely: while the retarded interaction is proportional to $`1/r^7`$ (retarded force proportional to $`1/r^8`$), the non-retarded interaction is proportional to $`1/r^4`$ (non-retarded force proportional to $`1/r^5`$), in contrast to the $`1/r^6`$ dependence for the case of the interaction energy between two electrically polarizable atoms. Though here we discuss a simple model, this drastic change is fully justified in a QED calculation .

The retarded interaction energy between two atoms with both electrically and magnetically polarizations was calculated for the first time by Feinberg and Sucher  and is given by (see also a detailed discussion in reference :

$$U(r)=\left[23\left(\alpha _1\alpha _2+\beta _1\beta _2\right)+7\left(\alpha _1\beta _2+\alpha _2\beta _1\right)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}c}{4\pi r^7},$$
(1)
where in Eq.(1 ) $`\alpha _i`$ is the (static) polarizability and $`\beta _i`$ is the (static) magnetic polarizability, but, as far as the authors are aware of, no one in literature had considered the non-retarded case until very recently , where the authors show, with the aid of perturbative quantum electrodynamics techniques, that the non-retarded dispersion van der Waals interaction potential for the case at hand obeys a $`1/r^4`$ law and not the $`1/r^6`$ law as one would naively think. It is the purpose of this note to obtain this rather surprising result in a much simpler way, which we think can be understood by any undergraduate student who is familiar with introductory electromagnetism and ordinary quantum mechanics.

Our procedure will be based on the dipole fluctuating method as discussed for instantce in references . To this effect we model the electric polarizable molecule by an electric charge $`e`$ of mass $`m_e`$ which oscillates harmonically along a fixed, but arbitrary direction defined by the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐮}_e`$, so that the atom is effectively replaced by an electric dipole $`𝐩(t)=ex_e(t)\widehat{𝐮}_e`$, where $`x_e`$ measures the position along the oscillation axis taking the origin at the equilibrium position. The magnetically polarizable atom will be replaced by a magnetic charge $`g`$ of mass $`m_g`$ which, similarly to its electric counterpart, also oscillates harmonically along another fixed, but arbitrary direction defined by the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐮}_g`$. Effectively we have a magnetic dipole $`𝐦(t)=gx_g(t)\widehat{𝐮}_g`$ playing the role of the magnetically polarizable atom. Each dipole is the source of electric and magnetic fields that pervade all space. Each dipole also probes the electric and magnetic fields created by the other.

The electric and magnetic fields at a point of the space identified by the position vector $`𝐫`$ created by an electric dipole are given by :

$`𝐄_q(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3\left(𝐩(t^{})\widehat{r}\right)\widehat{r}𝐩(t^{})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}+\left[3\left(\dot{𝐩}(t^{})\widehat{r}\right)\widehat{r}\dot{𝐩}(t^{})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cr^2}}`$ (2)
$`\left[\ddot{𝐩}(t^{})\left(\ddot{𝐩}(t^{})\widehat{𝐫}\right)\widehat{𝐫}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2r}},`$
and

$$𝐁_q(𝐫,t)=\left[\frac{1}{cr^2}\dot{𝐩}(t^{})+\frac{1}{c^2r}\ddot{𝐩}(t^{})\right]\times \widehat{𝐫}.$$
(3)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the dipole to the point of observation and $`t^{}=tr/c`$ is the retarded time. The fields generated by a magnetic dipole can be obtained by means of the substitutions $`𝐩𝐦`$, $`𝐄𝐁`$ and $`𝐁𝐄`$ . The Lorentz force acting on the electric dipole whose position is identified by the vector $`𝐫_e`$ at a given instant of time $`t`$ is

$$𝐅_e(𝐫_e,t)=e𝐄_g(𝐫_e,t^{})+\frac{e}{c}𝐯_e(t)\times 𝐁_g(𝐫_e,t^{}).$$
(4)
In the same way, the Lorentz force acting on the magnetic dipole will be given by:

$$𝐅_g(𝐫_g,t)=g𝐁_e(𝐫_g,t^{})\frac{g}{c}𝐯_g(t)\times 𝐄_e(𝐫_g,t^{}).$$
(5)
If we project these forces along the directions defined by the (fixed) unit vectors $`\widehat{𝐮}_e`$ and $`\widehat{𝐮}_g`$, neglect retardament and radiation reaction, and take into account the forces that bind the oscillating electric and magnetic charges to their respective centers of force by simulating them through Hookean forces, we end up with a coupled system of linear differential equations which reads

$`\ddot{x}_e(t)+\omega _e^2x_e(t)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_e}}𝐄_g(𝐫_e,t)\widehat{𝐮}_e+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_ec}}𝐯_e(t)\times 𝐁_g(𝐫_e,t)\widehat{𝐮}_e,`$ (6)
$`\ddot{x}_g(t)+\omega _g^2x_g(t)={\displaystyle \frac{g}{m_g}}𝐁_e(𝐫_g,t)\widehat{𝐮}_g+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{m_gc}}𝐯_g(t)\times 𝐄_e(𝐫_g,t)\widehat{𝐮}_g.`$ (7)
where $`\omega _e`$ and $`\omega _g`$ are, respectively, the natural frequencies of the electric and magnetic dipoles. If the dipoles are not very far from each other ($`r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}137}a_0,`$ where $`a_0`$ is Bohr’s radius, see for instance ), the dominant term leads to:

$$\ddot{x}_e(t)+\omega _e^2x_e(t)=F(r)\dot{x}_g(t)$$
(8)
where $`F(r):=+\frac{eg}{m_ecr^2}(\widehat{u}_g\times \widehat{r}_{eg})\widehat{u}_e`$, since $`\widehat{r}_{ge}=\widehat{r}_{eg}`$, and

$$\ddot{x}_g(t)+\omega _g^2x_g(t)=H(r)\dot{x}_e(t)$$
(9)
where $`H(r):=+\frac{eg}{m_gcr^2}(\widehat{u}_e\times \widehat{r}_{eg})\widehat{u}_g`$. Equations (8) and (9) form system of coupled differential equations that can be solved in the usual way, i.e., we try a solution of the form $`x_i(t)=C_i\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$, where $`C_i`$ is a complex constant with $`i=e,g`$, thereby obtaining the following algebraic equation:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\omega _e^2+\omega _g^2F(r)H(r)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega _e^2\omega _g^2=0.$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\omega ^2.`$ If we set $`F(r)H(r)=0`$ we can easiliy verify that the roots of the above equation are real and given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\omega _e^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\omega _g^2`$ as expected. The roots of Eq.(10 ) satisfy the simple relations

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\omega _e^2+\omega _g^2F(r)H(r)$$
(11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\omega _e^2\omega _g^2$$
(12)
Let us introduce the auxiliary quantity

$$S:=\left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right)^2\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)^2,$$
(13)
where $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are two real positive roots of the original algebraic equation of the fourth degree for $`\omega `$. Using the simple properties given by Eqs.(11) and (12) we find

$$S=F(r)H(r)$$
(14)
Hence from and we can write

$$\omega _1+\omega _2=\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)\sqrt{1+\frac{S}{\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)^2}}$$
(15)
Upon quantization and assuming that $`\left|S\right|\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)^2`$ the ground state energy will be given by

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}e^2g^2}{4\left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right)m_em_gc^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{eg}^2}{r^4}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\omega _e+\omega _g\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e\omega _g}{c^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _e\omega _g}{\omega _e+\omega _g}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta Q_{eg}^2}{r^4}}`$
where we have rewritten the last term, which is the interaction potential, so that the electric and magnetic polarizabilities $`\alpha =\frac{e^2}{m_e\omega _e^2}`$ and $`\beta =\frac{g^2}{m_g\omega ^2}`$ , can be identified . The quantity $`Q_{eg}:=(\widehat{𝐮}_g\times \widehat{𝐫}_{eg})\widehat{𝐮}_e`$ is a spatial orientation factor to be properly averaged. The force between the electrically polarizable atom and the magnetically polarizable one is repulsive as expected, but it varies with the inverse fifith power of the separation:

$$𝐅(r)=\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\omega _e\omega _g}{c^2}\right)\left(\frac{\omega _e\omega _g}{\omega _e+\omega _g}\right)\frac{\alpha \beta Q_{eg}^2}{r^5}𝐫_{eg}$$
(17)
The $`1/r^4`$ behavior of (16) (or the $`1/r^5`$ behavior of (17) can be traced back to the near field approximation of the electromagnetic fields involved, which contribute to the problem with terms varying with $`1/r^2`$ and to the fact that terms stemming from the vector products in the equations of motion are zero. Take, for instance, the magnetically polarizable atom. There are two forces acting on it: the first one is due to the magnetic field created by the fluctuating electri dipole of the other atom, which does not have the typical $`1/r^3`$ behaviour of a static zone field; the second one is due to the cross product between the magnetic charge velocity ($`\stackrel{}{v}_g`$) and the electric field generated by the electric fluctuating dipole ($`\stackrel{}{E}_e`$). However, though $`\stackrel{}{E}_e`$ exhibits the static zone term (proportional to $`1/r^3`$), this term disappears from the calculation when projected into the fixed (but arbitrary) direction of motion of the magnetic charge $`g`$. An analogous explanation holds for the electric polarizable atom. We conclude, then, that this is a very peculiar result whose origin lies in the fact that one of the atoms is only electrically polarizable and the other, only magnetically polarizable. Had we started with two magnetically polarizable atoms, we would have obtained a non-dispersive interaction energy proportional to $`1/r^6`$.

Acknowledgements: One of us (C.F.) wishes to acknowledge the partial financial support of CNPq (the National Research Council of Brazil).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

General Relativity, in its weak-field and slow-motion approximation, predicts that two massive test particles following in opposite directions two geodesic circular orbits of identical radius in the equatorial plane of a central spinning body take different times in describing a full revolution with respect to an asymptotically inertial observer. If $`t^+`$ denotes the period of the particle moving in the same sense of the rotation of the central body and $`t^{}`$ denotes the period of the particle moving in the opposite sense, it turns out that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=t^+t^{}=4\pi \frac{J}{Mc^2},$$
($`1`$)
where $`J`$ and $`M`$ are the proper angular momentum and the mass, respectively, of the central source and $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum. Note that the Newtonian gravitational constant $`G`$ does not appear in eq.($`1`$). The co-rotating particle turns out to be slower than the counter-rotating one. This is the so called gravitomagnetic clock effect \[Cohen and Mashhoon, 1993; Mashhoon et al., 1999; 2000\]. Eq.($`1`$) is also equal to the difference in the test particles’ proper periods $`\tau ^\pm `$ for test particles orbiting at distances larger than the gravitational radius $`r_g=2GM/c^2`$ of the central body and neglecting terms of order $`𝒪(c^4)`$.

For a couple of artificial Earth satellites eq.($`1`$) yields a time shift of $`10^7`$ s which is large enough to be detected according to the present-day level of accuracy in timing measurements with atomic clocks \[Lichtenegger et al., 2000\]. Note that eq.($`1`$) is independent of the satellite’s orbit radius. This feature could be fruitfully exploited in choosing suitably the orbital parameters of the satellites to be employed. However, it has been shown in \[Gronwald et al., 1997; Lichtenegger et al., 2000\] that, in order to make feasible such measurement, the radial and azimuthal positions of the satellites should be known at a level of $`\delta r10^2`$ cm and $`\delta \phi 10^2`$ milliarcseconds (mas) per revolution. Such constraints are very stringent: suffice it to say that the position of LAGEOS laser-ranged satellite is presently known at a centimeter level. Recently, in \[Iorio, 2001; Lichtenegger et al., 2001\] the impact of the long-periodic and short-periodic gravitational perturbations, with the systematic errors induced by them in $`r`$ and $`\phi `$, have been worked out: the conclusion is that, at the present level of knowledge of the static and time-varying parts of the Earth’s gravitational field \[Lemoine et al., 1998\], the gravitational errors are larger than the required $`\delta r`$ and $`\delta \phi `$.

However, in the near future the new, more accurate data for the terrestrial gravitational field from the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be available and the situation could become more favorable. So, it appears important to assess the error budget due to the non-gravitational forces \[Milani et al., 1987\] on the satellite’s radial and azimuthal locations, which is the scope of this paper.

We will consider throughout it a couple of identical passive, geodetic, laser-ranged spherical satellites of LAGEOS type both because Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) has reached in the last decade an astonishingly level of accuracy and because with this kind of satellites it is by far simpler to model accurately enough the non-gravitational perturbations. Indeed, they depend on the physical and geometrical characteristics of the satellites and on the geometry of their orbits as well. For example, twice a year, almost six months apart, the Sun, moving along the ecliptic, intersects the Earth’s equatorial plane so that the satellite’s revolutions occurring these times are affected by the phenomenon of eclipses. The radiative perturbations which are generated, directly or indirectly, by the solar electromagnetic radiation like the direct solar radiation pressure, the albedo and the Yarkovsky-Schach effect act differently on the satellite’s orbit with respect to the orbital arcs described in full sunlight and in many cases such discrepancies are relevant and difficult to calculate. Moreover, the thermal forces which cause the Yarkovsky-Schach and the Rubincam effects depend on both the physical properties of the satellite and on the orientation of its spin axis with respect to an inertial frame. The terrestrial environment may cause the spin direction to change in a more or less predictable way over time spans of some years, as it is occurring to LAGEOS \[Métris et al., 1999\].

In order to detect the gravitomagnetic time shift, which is cumulative, there is no need of very long orbital arcs: indeed, for example, the orbital period of LAGEOS amounts to $`1\times 10^1`$ days only, so that $`10^210^3`$ revolutions \[Lichtenegger et al., 2000\] would correspond to arcs $`10^110^2`$ days long111However, as pointed out in \[Iorio, 2001\], short arcs would not allow to average out many gravitational perturbations. We could take advantage of this fact by choosing the arcs so to avoid the eclipses effects; moreover, over such short time spans it would be possible to consider the satellite’s spin axis direction as fixed in the inertial space. Indeed, many thermal effects vanish for a suitable fixed spin axis direction.

The basic assumptions of our study are the following:
$``$ In order to simplify the calculations we will consider a couple of LAGEOS type satellites with semimajor axis $`a=12270`$ km, as for LAGEOS, zero eccentricity $`e`$ and inclination $`i`$ and orbital period $`P=1.35\times 10^4`$ s
$``$ The physical parameters of the satellites like area-to-mass ratio $`S/m`$, reflectivity and drag coefficients $`C_R`$ and $`C_D`$, etc. are assumed to be equal to those of LAGEOS: $`S/m=6.87\times 10^3`$ cm2 g-1, $`C_R=1.13`$, $`C_D=4.9`$
$``$ We will assume that their spins are aligned with the Earth’s spin axis assumed as $`z`$ axis of a terrestrial equatorial inertial frame
$``$ Only orbital arcs in full sunlight will be considered: the eclipses effects will be neglected
$``$ The perturbations on $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ will be averaged over an orbital revolution
$``$ The perturbations which will be considered are the direct solar radiation pressure, the Earth’s albedo, the Poynting-Robertson effect, the direct Earth IR radiation pressure, the anisotropic thermal radiation or Yarkovsky-Schach effect, the thermal trust or Rubincam effect, the atmospheric drag and the effect of the Earth’s magnetic field.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 and Section 3 the perturbations on $`r`$ and $`\phi `$, respectively, are worked out, while Section 4 is devoted to the conclusions.

## 2 The radial position

The radial position of a satellite in a perturbed circular orbit may change due to variations both in its semimajor axis $`a`$ and its eccentricity $`e`$ according to \[Christodoulidis et al., 1988\]:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }a)^2+\frac{1}{2}(a\mathrm{\Delta }e)^2}.$$
($`2`$)
The perturbations on $`a`$ are calculated with \[Milani et al., 1987\]:

$$\dot{a}=\frac{2}{n}T,$$
($`3`$)
where $`n=\frac{2\pi }{P}`$ is the mean motion, $`P`$ is the Keplerian satellite’s orbital period and $`T`$ is the along-track disturbing acceleration. Concerning the eccentricity, since we are dealing with circular orbits we will use the components of the eccentricity vector $`h=e\mathrm{cos}\omega `$, $`k=e\mathrm{sin}\omega `$ ($`\omega `$ is the argument of perigee) and \[Milani et al., 1987\]:

$$\dot{h}\dot{e}\mathrm{cos}\omega +𝒪(e)=\frac{1}{na}[R\mathrm{cos}(\omega +f)+2T\mathrm{sin}(\omega +f)]+𝒪(e),$$
($`4`$)
$$\dot{k}\dot{e}\mathrm{cos}\omega +𝒪(e)=\frac{1}{na}[R\mathrm{sin}(\omega +f)+2T\mathrm{cos}(\omega +f)]+𝒪(e),$$
($`5`$)
where $`f`$ is the true anomaly and $`R`$ is the radial component of the perturbing acceleration. For a circular orbit, from eq.($`4`$) and eq.($`5`$) it follows:

$$\dot{e}=\sqrt{(\dot{h})^2+(\dot{k})^2}.$$
($`6`$)
### 2.1 The radiative perturbations

The perturbing acceleration due to direct solar radiation pressure can be approximately written as \[Lucchesi, 1998\]:

$$𝐰_{}=w_{}\widehat{s},$$
($`7`$)
where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the unit vector from the Earth to the Sun and:

$$w_{}=\frac{S}{m}\frac{I_0}{c}C_R.$$
($`8`$)
In eq.($`7`$) the term $`(d_{}/r_{})^2`$, in which $`d_{}`$ is the semimajor axis of the Earth orbit around the Sun and $`r_{}`$ is its instantaneous distance, has been set equal to one. $`I_0`$ is the solar constant. For LAGEOS type satellites eq.($`8`$) amounts to almost $`3.6\times 10^7`$ cm s-2.

Concerning the semimajor axis, it turns out that if the total solar radiation force acting on the spacecraft can be expressed in the general form $`\text{F}(\widehat{s})`$, no long-term effect in $`a`$ will appear to any order in $`e`$ \[Milani et al., 1987\]. So, $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$.

Regarding the eccentricity, it can be proved that it is affected, at zero order in $`e`$, by long-term periodic perturbations with an almost yearly period \[Lucchesi, 1998\]. The amplitudes for the components of the eccentricity vector are:

$$<\dot{h}>_{2\pi }\frac{3}{2}\frac{w_{}}{na},$$
($`9`$)
$$<\dot{k}>_{2\pi }\frac{3}{2}\frac{w_{}}{na},$$
($`10`$)
so that, over an orbital revolution, the radial position of the satellite changes of almost 11 cm \[Milani et al., 1987\].

Assuming that the solar constant is known at $`0.3\%`$ \[Ciufolini et al., 1997\], the major source of uncertainty in the satellite’s radial position due to the direct solar radiation pressure would reside in the $`C_R`$ satellite’s coefficient. Assuming a global $`0.5\%`$ mismodeling, the systematic error would amount to $`\delta r_{SRP}=5\times 10^2`$ cm. This result suggests that, in order to meet the requirement of $`\delta r10^2`$ cm, a careful analysis of the optical properties of the satellites should be conducted in accurate pre-launch controls.

For a circular and equatorial orbit the perturbations on the satellite’s radial position induced by the Earth’s albedo are entirely due to the changes in the eccentricity vector as well. Indeed, the along-track acceleration, which is particularly sensitive to the specular part of Earth’s albedo and to its spatial and temporal variations, can be expanded in terms of long-periodical harmonics whose coefficients are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ \[Anselmo et al., 1983\]. Concerning the eccentricity vector, the simple analytic model by Métris et al., , based on an uniform mean albedo of $`\overline{𝒜}=0.3`$, turns out to be adequate. The related perturbation amounts to $`8\times 10^2`$ cm per orbit. Then, the systematic error due to the mismodeling in $`\overline{𝒜}`$, assumed to be $`10\%`$ \[Lucchesi, 1998\], amounts to $`8\times 10^3`$ cm per orbit.

It may be important to note that a way to reduce the impact of the direct solar radiation pressure and the albedo could be the use of a couple of dense satellites with small $`\frac{S}{m}`$.

The Poynting-Robertson acceleration \[Burns et al., 1979\] leaves unaffected the eccentricity while changes the semimajor axis with long-term perturbations whose nominal amplitudes are of the order of $`10^310^4`$ cm per orbit. Consequently, the related systematical errors are negligible.

### 2.2 The thermal perturbations

Concerning the direct Earth IR radiation pressure, the Earth thermal emissivity $``$ can be modelled in a form of a latitude-dependent spherical harmonic expansion on a spherical Earth surface \[Sehnal, 1981\]:

$$=_0+_1(t)P_1(\mathrm{sin}\varphi )+_2P_2(\mathrm{sin}\varphi )+\mathrm{},$$
($`11`$)
where $`\varphi `$ is the terrestrial latitude. Regarding the effects of the first two zonal constant terms $`_0`$ and $`_2`$, $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$ since it is proportional to $`(e\mathrm{sin}i)^2`$ and $`<\dot{e}>_{2\pi }=0`$ since it is proportional to $`e(\mathrm{sin}i)^2`$ \[Sehnal, 1981\]. The perturbations due to $`_1(t)`$, which shows an approximately yearly variation, vanish as well since $`R`$ and $`T`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ \[Métris et al., 1997\].

The Yarkovsky-Schach effect \[Afonso et al., 1989\] induces perturbations on the semimajor axis which vanishes since the first non-zero term in $`\dot{a}`$ is of order $`𝒪(e)`$ for orbital arcs in full sunlight. As far as the eccentricity vector is concerned, $`e`$ would be perturbed at a level of $`9\times 10^2`$ cm per orbit. However, such effect depends on the orientation of the satellite’s spin axis $`\widehat{\xi }`$: for a fixed direction such that $`\xi _x=\xi _y=0`$, as it could be feasible over short arcs, $`<\dot{h}>_{2\pi }=<\dot{k}>_{2\pi }=0`$ \[Lucchesi, 1998\].

The thermal thrust or Rubincam effect \[Rubincam, 1987\] depends on $`\widehat{\xi }`$ as well; for $`\xi _x=\xi _y=0`$ it vanishes because it can be proved that, in this case, $`R`$ and $`T`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}i`$.

### 2.3 Other perturbations

The neutral and charged drag has negligible effects on $`r`$. Indeed, by neglecting the corotation of the exosphere, it turns out that \[Milani et al., 1987\]:

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }a>_{2\pi }=C_D\frac{S}{m}a^2\varrho ,$$
($`12`$)
in which $`\varrho `$ is the atmospheric density. For $`\varrho =8.4\times 10^{21}`$ g cm-3 \[Afonso et al., 1985\] we would have a decay in $`a`$ of $`4.2\times 10^4`$ cm per revolution. The same holds for the charged drag \[Rubincam, 1990\]. For circular orbits the eccentricity is not affected by the drag \[Milani et al., 1987\].

If the satellites carry an electric charge, as it is the case for LAGEOS, the Earth’s magnetic field acts upon them via the Lorentz force. Its effect on the semimajor axis is of course zero since the Lorentz force does not change the satellite’s total mechanical energy $`W`$ and, consequently, $`a`$: indeed, $`W=\frac{GM}{2a}`$. Regarding the eccentricity vector, it turns out that $`<\dot{h}>_{2\pi }=<\dot{k}>_{2\pi }=0`$ because $`R`$ is constant and $`T`$ is of order $`𝒪(e)`$.

## 3 The azimuthal position

As in \[Iorio, 2001; Lichtenegger et al., 2001\], for a satellite in an equatorial and circular orbit the rate of the azimuthal angle can be calculated by means of:

$$\dot{\phi }=\dot{\omega }+\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{cos}i+\dot{}.$$
($`13`$)
In eq.($`13`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the longitude of the ascending node and $``$ is the mean anomaly whose rate equation is given by:

$$\dot{}=n\frac{2}{na}R\frac{r}{a}\sqrt{1e^2}(\dot{\omega }+\mathrm{cos}i\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}).$$
($`14`$)
For $`e=i=0`$ eqs.($`13`$)-($`14`$) yield:

$$\dot{\phi }=n\frac{2}{na}R.$$
($`15`$)
In dealing with eq.($`15`$) the indirect effects on $`n`$ induced by the perturbations on $`a`$ must be considered as well. At the first perturbative order they are: \[Milani et al., 1987\]

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n=\frac{3n}{2a}\mathrm{\Delta }a.$$
($`16`$)
### 3.1 The radiative perturbations

The direct solar radiation pressure does not affect $`\phi `$ because, as seen in previous section, $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$; moreover, $`<R>_{2\pi }=0`$.

Regarding the Earth’s albedo, the indirect perturbations on $`n`$ vanish because $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$. According to the model by Métris et al.,  $`<R>_{2\pi }=0`$.

The non-vanishing perturbations of order $`𝒪(e^0)`$ induced by the Poynting-Robertson effect, which amount to almost $`10^5`$ mas per revolution or less are negligible.

### 3.2 The thermal perturbations

Concerning the direct Earth IR radiation pressure, $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$ so that the indirect perturbations on the mean motion vanish as well. The first two constant zonal terms of the Earth IR emissivity yield non-vanishing terms of zero order in $`e`$. Indeed, it turns out that, for $`_0`$:

$$<\frac{2}{na}R>_{2\pi }^{(0)}=\frac{2}{na}(\frac{R_{}}{a})^2_0\frac{S}{m}\frac{C_R}{c},$$
($`17`$)
which yields $`1.6\times 10^1`$ mas per revolution. The systematic error induced by the mismodeling in $`_0`$ is within the limit $`\delta \phi 10^2`$ mas per revolution and could be reduced by using satellites with small area-to-mass ratio. The bias due to $`_2`$ is negligible since its nominal perturbation amounts to $`1\times 10^3`$ mas per revolution. As in for $`r`$, also in this case $`_1(t)`$ does not contribute since $`R`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}i`$.

The Yarkovsky-Schach effect does not affect the azimuthal position since $`<\dot{a}>_{2\pi }=0`$ and it turns out that $`R`$ averages out over an orbital revolution. The same holds for the Rubincam effect which is not present when $`\xi _z=\pm 1`$ and $`i=0`$.

### 3.3 Other perturbations

The indirect perturbation on $`n`$ due to the drag shift experienced by the semimajor axis is negligible because it amounts to $`6\times 10^4`$ mas per revolution, while:

$$<\frac{2}{na}R>_{2\pi }=C_D\frac{S}{m}nae<\mathrm{sin}E>_{2\pi }=0,$$
($`18`$)
where $`E`$ is the eccentric anomaly.

The effect of the Earth’s magnetic field is completely negligible since it is of the order of $`10^5`$ mas per revolution.

The major source of error in the azimuthal position turns out to be the Earth’s $`GM`$. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^{(GM)}=\frac{\delta (GM)}{2na^3}\times P=1.2`$ mas per revolution by assuming $`\delta (GM_{})=8\times 10^{11}`$ cm3 s-2 \[McCarthy, 1996\].

## 4 Conclusions

In the context of the gravitomagnetic clock effect, by considering a couple of identical SLR satellites of LAGEOS type with $`e=i=0`$ and $`\xi _x=\xi _y=0`$, $`\xi _z=\pm 1`$ over short orbital arcs in full sunlight, it turns out that some non-gravitational perturbations on $`r`$ and $`\phi `$ vanish.

Regarding the radial position, the largest perturbations are due to the direct solar radiation pressure which would change the satellite’s distance of almost $`10^1`$ cm per revolution and the Earth’s albedo which would induce a change of $`8\times 10^2`$ cm per revolution. However, their systematic errors induced by the mismodeling in the optical properties of the satellites and the Earth’s albedo should fall below the cutoff $`\delta r10^2`$ cm. The influence of the other non vanishing perturbations, like Poynting-Robertson effect and neutral and charged drag, is negligible. The thermal perturbations vanish.

The azimuthal angle is perturbed by the Earth’s IR direct radiation pressure at a level of $`10^1`$ mas per revolution. The other non vanishing perturbations are negligible.

It should be pointed out that all the non-vanishing perturbations are proportional to $`\frac{S}{m}`$. This means that the impact of their systematic errors could be reduced by using particularly dense satellites with small area-to-mass ratio. However, the largest source of error in $`\phi `$ is the uncertainty in the Earth’s $`GM`$ which induce a bias of 1.2 mas per revolution. This is a hard limitation to overcome because it is independent of the particular satellite employed and is related to our knowledge of the terrestrial gravitational field. Moreover, as pointed out in \[Iorio, 2001\], at the present level of knowledge of the terrestrial gravitational field, the mismodeled gravitational time varying perturbations induce systematic errors which are larger than the required constraints; they could be overcome by averaging them over adequately long time spans.

The results of the present work suggest that for a suitable choice of the satellites to be employed and of their orbital geometry it would be possible to keep the non-gravitational perturbations within the required constraints in order to make feasible the measurement of the gravitomagnetic clock effect. As far as the systematic errors induced by the forces acting upon the satellites are concerned, the major problems come from the Earth’s gravitational environment. Improvements in satellite tracking accuracy of almost two orders of magnitude are needed as well.

## Acknowledgements

I thanks L. Guerriero for his support and encouragement.