text:
# References

1. Introduction

The holographic principle is based on the idea that for a given volume $`V`$ the state of maximal entropy is given by the largest black hole that fits inside $`V`$. ’t Hooft and Susskind  argued on this basis that the microscopic entropy $`S`$ associated with the volume $`V`$ should be less than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy

$$S\frac{A}{4G}$$
(1)
of a black hole with horizon area $`A`$ equal to the surface area of the boundary of $`V`$. Here the dependence on Newton’s constant $`G`$ is made explicit, but as usual $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are set to one.

To shed further light on the holographic principle and the entropy bounds derived from it, we study in this paper the standard cosmology of a closed radiation dominated Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe with general space-time dimension

$$D=n+1.$$

The metric takes the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2(t)d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2$$
(2)
where $`R(t)`$ represents the radius of the universe at a given time $`t`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ is a short hand notation for the metric on the unit $`n`$-sphere $`S^n`$. Hence, the spatial section of a $`(n+1)`$d closed FRW universe is an $`n`$-sphere with a finite volume

$$V=\mathrm{Vol}(S^n)R^n.$$

The holographic bound is in its naive form (1) not really applicable to a closed universe, since space has no boundary. Furthermore, the argumentation leading to (1) assumes that it’s possible to form a black hole that fills the entire volume. This is not true in a cosmological setting, because the expansion rate $`H`$ of the universe as well as the given value of the total energy $`E`$ restrict the maximal size of black hole. As will be discussed in this paper, this will lead to a modified version of the holographic bound.

The radiation in an FRW universe is usually described by free or weakly interacting mass-less particles. More generally, however, one can describe the radiation by an interacting conformal field theory (CFT). The number of species of mass-less particles translates into the value of the central charge $`c`$ of the CFT. In this paper we will be particularly interested in radiation described by a CFT with a very large central charge. In a finite volume the energy $`E`$ has a Casimir contribution proportional to $`c`$. Due to this Casimir effect, the entropy $`S`$ is no longer a purely extensive function of $`E`$ and $`V`$. The entropy of a $`(1+1)`$d CFT is given by the well-known Cardy formula

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(L_0\frac{c}{24}\right)},$$
(3)
where $`L_0`$ represents the product $`ER`$ of the energy and radius, and the shift of $`\frac{c}{24}`$ is caused by the Casimir effect. In this paper we show that, after making the appropriate identifications for $`L_0`$ and $`c`$, the same Cardy formula is also valid for CFTs in other dimensions. This is rather surprising, since the standard derivation of the Cardy formula based on modular invariance only appears to work for $`n=1`$. By defining the central charge $`c`$ in terms of the Casimir energy, we are able to argue that the Cardy formula is universally valid. Specifically, we will show that with the appropriate identifications, the entropy $`S`$ for a $`n+1`$ dimensional CFT with an AdS-dual is exactly given by (3).

The main new result of this paper is the appearance of a deep and fundamental connection between the holographic principle, the entropy formulas for the CFT, and the FRW equations for a radiation dominated universe. In $`n+1`$ dimensions the FRW equations are given by

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}`$ (4)
$`\dot{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{n1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{V}}+p\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}`$ (5)
where $`H=\dot{R}/R`$ is the Hubble parameter, and the dot denotes as usual differentiation with respect to the time $`t`$. The FRW equations are usually written in terms of the energy density $`\rho =E/V`$, but for the present study it is more convenient to work with the total energy $`E`$ and entropy $`S`$ instead of their respective densities $`\rho `$ and $`s=S/V`$. Note that the cosmological constant has been put to zero; the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ will be described elsewhere .

Entropy and energy momentum conservation together with the equation of state $`p=E/nV`$ imply that $`E/V`$ and $`p`$ decrease in the usual way like $`R^{(n+1)}`$. Hence, the cosmological evolution follows the standard scenario for a closed radiation dominated FRW universe. After the initial Big Bang, the universe expands until it reaches a maximum radius, the universe subsequently re-collapses and ends with a Big Crunch. No surprises happen in this respect.

The fun starts when one compares the holographic entropy bound with the entropy formulas for the CFT. We will show that when the bound is saturated the FRW equations and entropy formulas of the CFT merge together into one set of equation. One easily checks on the back of an envelope that via the substitutions

$`2\pi L_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}ER`$
$`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}`$ $``$ $`(n1){\displaystyle \frac{V}{4GR}}`$ (6)
$`S`$ $``$ $`(n1){\displaystyle \frac{HV}{4G}}`$
the Cardy formula (3) exactly turns into the $`n+1`$ dimensional Friedman equation (4). This observation appears as a natural consequence of the holographic principle. In sections 2 and 3 we introduce three cosmological bounds each corresponding to one of the equations in (6) The Cardy formula is presented and derived in section 4. In section 5 we introduce a new cosmological bound, and show that the FRW equations and the entropy formulas are exactly matched when the bound is saturated. In section 6 we present a graphical picture of the entropy bounds and their time evolution.

2. Cosmological entropy bounds

This section is devoted to the description of three cosmological entropy bounds: the Bekenstein bound, the holographic Bekenstein-Hawking bound, and the Hubble bound. The relation with the holographic bound proposed by Fischler-Susskind and Bousso (FSB) will also be clarified.

2.1. The Bekenstein bound

Bekenstein  was the first to propose a bound on the entropy of a macroscopic system. He argued that for a system with limited self-gravity, the total entropy $`S`$ is less or equal than a multiple of the product of the energy and the linear size of the system. In the present context, namely that of a closed radiation dominated FRW universe with radius $`R`$, the appropriately normalized Bekenstein bound is

$$SS_B$$
(7)
where the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ is defined by

$$S_B\frac{2\pi }{n}ER.$$
(8)
The bound is most powerful for relatively low energy density or small volumes. This is due to the fact that $`S_B`$ is super-extensive: under $`V\lambda V`$ and $`E\lambda E`$ it scales like $`S_B\lambda ^{1+1/n}S_B`$.

For a radiation dominated universe the Bekenstein entropy is constant throughout the entire evolution, since $`ER^1`$. Therefore, once the Bekenstein bound is satisfied at one instance, it will remain satisfied at all times as long as the entropy $`S`$ does not change. The Bekenstein entropy is the most natural generalization of the Virasoro operator $`2\pi L_0`$ to arbitrary dimensions, as is apparent from (6). Indeed, it is useful to think about $`S_B`$ not really as an entropy but rather as the energy measured with respect to an appropriately chosen conformal time coordinate.

2.2. The Bekenstein-Hawking bound

The Bekenstein-bound is supposed to hold for systems with limited self-gravity, which means that the gravitational self-energy of the system is small compared to the total energy $`E`$. In the current situation this implies, concretely, that the Hubble radius $`H^1`$ is larger than the radius $`R`$ of the universe. So the Bekenstein bound is only appropriate in the parameter range $`HR1`$. In a strongly self-gravitating universe, that is for $`HR1`$, the possibility of black hole formation has to be taken into account, and the entropy bound must be modified accordingly. Here the general philosophy of the holographic principle becomes important.

It follows directly from the Friedman equation (4) that

$$HR\begin{array}{c}_<\\ ^>\end{array}1S_B\begin{array}{c}_<\\ ^>\end{array}(n1)\frac{V}{4GR}$$
(9)
Therefore, to decide whether a system is strongly or weakly gravitating one should compare the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ with the quantity

$$S_{BH}(n1)\frac{V}{4GR}.$$
(10)
When $`S_BS_{BH}`$ the system is weakly gravitating, while for $`S_BS_{BH}`$ the self-gravity is strong. We will identify $`S_{BH}`$ with the holographic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole with the size of the universe. $`S_{BH}`$ indeed grows like an area instead of the volume, and for a closed universe it is the closest one can come to the usual expression $`A/4G`$.

As will become clear in this paper, the role of $`S_{BH}`$ is not to serve as a bound on the total entropy, but rather on a sub-extensive component of the entropy that is association with the Casimir energy of the CFT. The relation (6) suggests that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is closely related to the central charge $`c`$. Indeed, it is well-known from $`(1+1)d`$ CFT that the central charge characterizes the number of degrees of freedom may be even better than the entropy. This fact will be further explained in sections 5 and 6, when we describe a new cosmological bound on the Casimir energy and its associated entropy.

2.3. The Hubble entropy bound

The Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ is equal to the holographic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$ precisely when $`HR=1`$. For $`HR>1`$ one has $`S_B>S_{BH}`$ and the Bekenstein bound has to be replaced by a holographic bound. A naive application of the holographic principle would imply that the total entropy $`S`$ should be bounded by $`S_{BH}`$. This turns out to be incorrect, however, since a purely holographic bound assumes the existence of arbitrarily large black holes, and is irreconcilable with a finite homogeneous entropy density.

Following earlier work by Fischler and Susskind , it was argued by Easther and Lowe , Veneziano , Bak and Rey , Kaloper and Linde , that the maximal entropy inside the universe is produced by black holes of the size of the Hubble horizon, see also . Following the usual holographic arguments one then finds that the total entropy should be less or equal than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Hubble size black hole times the number $`N_H`$ of Hubble regions in the universe. The entropy of a Hubble size black hole is roughly $`HV_H/4G`$, where $`V_H`$ is the volume of a single Hubble region. Combined with the fact that $`N_H=V/V_H`$ one obtains an upper bound on the total entropy $`S`$ given by a multiple of $`HV/4G`$. The presented arguments of  are not sufficient to determine the precise pre-factor, but in the following subsection we will fix the normalization of the bound by using a local version of the Fischler-Susskind-Bousso formulation of the holographic principle. The appropriately normalized entropy bound takes the form

$$SS_H\text{for }HR1$$
(11)
with

$$S_H(n1)\frac{HV}{4G}.$$
(12)
The Hubble bound is only valid for $`HR1`$. In fact, it is easily seen that for $`HR1`$ the bound will at some point be violated. For example, when the universe reaches its maximum radius and starts to re-collapse the Hubble constant $`H`$ vanishes, while the entropy is still non-zero.111To avoid this problem a different covariant version of the Hubble bound was proposed in . This should not really come as a surprise, since the Hubble bound was based on the idea that the maximum size of a black hole is equal to the Hubble radius. Clearly, when the radius $`R`$ of the universe is smaller than the Hubble radius $`H^1`$ one should reconsider the validity of the bound. In this situation, the self-gravity of the universe is less important, and the appropriate entropy bound is

$$SS_B\text{for }HR1$$
(13)
2.4. The Hubble bound and the FSB prescription.

Fischler, Susskind, and subsequently Bousso , have proposed an ingenious version of the holographic bound that restricts the entropy flow through contracting light sheets. The FSB-bound works well in many situations, but, so far, no microscopic derivation has been given. Wald and collaborators  have shown that the FSB bound follows from local inequalities on the entropy density and the stress energy. The analysis of  suggests the existence a local version of the FSB entropy bound, one that does not involve global information about the causal structure of the universe, see also . The idea of to formulate the holographic principle via entropy flow through light sheets also occurred in the work of Jacobson , who used it to derive an intriguing relation between the Einstein equations and the first law of thermodynamics. In this subsection, a local FSB bound will be presented that leads to a precisely normalized upper limit on the entropy in terms of the Hubble constant.

According to the original FSB proposal, the entropy flow $`S`$ through a contracting light sheet is less or equal to $`A/4G`$, where $`A`$ is the area of the surface from which the light sheet originates. The following infinitesimal version of this FSB prescription will lead to the Hubble bound. For every $`n1`$ dimensional surface at time $`t+dt`$ with area $`A+dA`$ one demands that

$$dS\frac{dA}{4G},$$
(14)
where $`dS`$ denotes the entropy flow through the infinitesimal light sheets originating at the surface at $`t+dt`$ and extending back to time $`t`$, and $`dA`$ represents the increase in area between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$. For a surface that is kept fixed in co-moving coordinates the area $`A`$ changes as a result of the Hubble expansion by an amount

$$dA=(n1)HAdt,$$
(15)
where the factor $`n1`$ simply follows from the fact that $`AR^{n1}`$. Now pick one of the two past light-sheets that originate at the surface: the inward or the outward going. The entropy flow through this light-sheet between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$ is given by the entropy density $`s=S/V`$ times the infinitesimal volume $`Adt`$ swept out by the light-sheet. Hence,

$$dS=\frac{S}{V}Adt.$$
(16)
By inserting this result together with (15) into the infinitesimal FSB bound (14) one finds that the factor $`Adt`$ cancels on both sides and one is left exactly with the Hubble bound $`SS_H`$ with the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$ given in (12). We stress that the relation with the FSB bound was merely used to fix the normalization of the Hubble bound, and should not be seen as a derivation.

3. Time-evolution of the entropy bounds.

Let us now return to the three cosmological entropy bounds discussed in section 2. The Friedman equation (4) can be re-written as an identity that relates the Bekenstein-, the Hubble-, and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. One easily verifies that the expressions given in (8), (10), and (12) satisfy the quadratic relation

$$S_H^2+(S_BS_{BH})^2=S_B^2.$$
(17)
It is deliberately written in a Pythagorean form, since it suggests a useful graphical picture of the three entropy bounds. By representing each entropy by a line with length equal to its value one finds that due to the quadratic Friedman relation (17) all three fit nicely together in one diagram, see figure 1. The circular form of the diagram reflects the fact that $`S_B`$ is constant during the cosmological evolution. Only $`S_H`$ and $`S_{BH}`$ depend on time.

Let us introduce a conformal time coordinate via

$$Rd\eta =(n1)dt$$
(18)
and let us compute the $`\eta `$-dependence of $`S_{BH}`$ and $`S_H`$. For $`S_{BH}`$ this easily follows from: $`\dot{S}_{BH}=(n1)HS_{BH}=(n1)R^1S_H`$. For $`S_H`$ the calculation is a bit more tedious, but with the help of the FRW equations, the result can eventually be put in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS_H}{d\eta }}`$ $`=`$ $`S_BS_{BH},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS_{BH}}{d\eta }}`$ $`=`$ $`S_H.`$ (19)
These equations show that the conformal time coordinate $`\eta `$ can be identified with the angle $`\eta `$, as already indicated in figure 1. As time evolves the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$ rotates into the combination $`S_BS_{BH}`$ and visa versa. Equation (S3.Ex5) can be integrated to

$`S_H`$ $`=`$ $`S_B\mathrm{sin}\eta `$
$`S_{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`S_B(1\mathrm{cos}\eta )`$ (20)
The conformal time coordinate $`\eta `$ plays the role of the time on a cosmological clock that only goes around once: at $`\eta =0`$ time starts with a Big Bang and at $`\eta =2\pi `$ it ends with a Big Crunch. Note that $`\eta `$ is related to the parameter $`HR`$ via

$$HR=\mathrm{cot}\frac{\eta }{2}$$
(21)
So far we have not yet included the CFT into our discussion. We will see that the entropy of the CFT will ‘fill’ part of the diagram, and in this way give rise to a special moment in time when the entropy bounds are saturated.

4. Casimir energy and the Cardy formula

We now turn to the discussion of the entropy of the CFT that lives inside the FRW universe. We begin with a study of the finite temperature Casimir energy with the aim to exhibit its relation with the entropy of the CFT. Subsequently a universal Cardy formula will be derived that expresses the entropy in terms of the energy and the Casimir energy, and is valid for all values of the spatial dimension $`n`$.

4.1. The Euler relation and Casimir energy.

In standard textbooks on cosmology  it is usually assumed that the total entropy $`S`$ and energy $`E`$ are extensive quantities. This fact is used for example to relate the entropy density $`s`$ to the energy density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$, via $`Ts=\rho +p`$. For a thermodynamic system in finite volume $`V`$ the energy $`E(S,V)`$, regarded as a function of entropy and volume, is called extensive when it satisfies $`E(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda E(S,V).`$ Differentiating with respect to $`\lambda `$ and putting $`\lambda =1`$ leads to the Euler relation111We assume here that there are no other thermodynamic functions like a chemical or electric potential. For a system with a 1st law like $`TdS=dE+pdV+\mu dN+\mathrm{\Phi }dQ`$ the Euler relation reads $`TS=E+pV+\mu N+\mathrm{\Phi }Q`$.

$$E=V\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_S+S\left(\frac{E}{S}\right)_V$$
(22)
The first law of thermodynamics $`dE=TdSpdV`$ can now be used to re-express the derivatives via the thermodynamic relations

$$\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_S=p,\left(\frac{E}{S}\right)_V=T.$$
(23)
The resulting equation $`TS=E+pV`$ is equivalent to the previously mentioned relation for the entropy density $`s`$.

For a CFT with a large central charge the entropy and energy are not purely extensive. In a finite volume the energy $`E`$ of a CFT contains a non-extensive Casimir contribution proportional to $`c`$. This is well known in $`(1+1)`$ dimensions where it gives rise to the familiar shift of $`c/24`$ in the $`L_0`$ Virasoro operator. The Casimir energy is the result of finite size effects in the quantum fluctuations of the CFT, and disappears when the volume becomes infinitely large. It therefore leads to sub-extensive contributions to the total energy $`E`$. Usually the Casimir effect is discussed at zero temperature , but a similar effect occurs at finite temperature. The value of the Casimir energy will in that case generically depend on the temperature $`T`$.

We will now define the Casimir energy as the violation of the Euler identity (22)

$$E_Cn(E+pVTS)$$
(24)
Here we inserted for convenience a factor equal to the spatial dimension $`n`$. From the previous discussion it is clear that $`E_C`$ parameterizes the sub-extensive part of the total energy. The Casimir energy will just as the total energy be a function of the entropy $`S`$ and the volume $`V`$. Under $`S\lambda S`$ and $`V\lambda V`$ it scales with a power of $`\lambda `$ that is smaller than one. On general grounds one expects that the first subleading correction to the extensive part of the energy scales like

$$E_C(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda ^{12/n}E_C(S,V)$$
(25)
One possible way to see this is to write the energy as an integral over a local density expressed in the metric and its derivatives. Derivatives scale like $`\lambda ^{1/n}`$ and because derivatives come generally in pairs, the first subleading terms indeed has two additional factors of $`\lambda ^{1/n}`$. The total energy $`E(S,V)`$ may be written as a sum of two terms

$$E(S,V)=E_E(S,V)+\frac{1}{2}E_C(S,V)$$
(26)
where the first term $`E_E`$ denotes the purely extensive part of the energy $`E`$ and $`E_C`$ represents the Casimir energy. Again the factor $`1/2`$ has been put in for later convenience. By repeating the steps that lead to the Euler relation one easily verifies the defining equation (24) for the Casimir energy $`E_C`$.

4.2. Universality of the Cardy formula and the Bekenstein bound

Conformal invariance implies that the product $`ER`$ is independent of the volume $`V`$, and is only a function of the entropy $`S`$. This holds for both terms $`E_E`$ and $`E_C`$ in (26). Combined with the known (sub-)extensive behavior of $`E_E`$ and $`E_C`$ this leads to the following general expressions

$$E_E=\frac{a}{4\pi R}S^{1+1/n}E_C=\frac{b}{2\pi R}S^{11/n}$$

where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are a priori arbitrary positive coefficients, independent of $`R`$ and $`S`$. The factors of $`4\pi `$ and $`2\pi `$ are put in for convenience. With these expressions, one now easily checks that the entropy $`S`$ can be written as

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{ab}}\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)}.$$
(27)
If we ignore for a moment the normalization, this is exactly the Cardy formula: insert $`ER=L_0`$ and $`E_CR=c/12`$, and one recovers (3). It is obviously an interesting question to compute the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ for various known conformal invariant field theories. This should be particularly straightforward for free field theories, such as $`d=4`$ Maxwell theory and the self-dual tensor theory in $`d=6`$. This question is left for future study.

Given the energy $`E`$ the expression (27) has a maximum value. For all values of $`E`$, $`E_C`$ and $`R`$ one has the inequality

$$S\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi }{\sqrt{ab}}ER$$

This looks exactly like the Bekenstein bound, except that the pre-factor is in general different from the factor $`2\pi /n`$ used in the previous section. In fact, in the following subsection we will show that for CFTs with an AdS-dual description, the value of the product $`ab`$ is exactly equal to $`n^2`$, so the upper limit is indeed exactly given by the Bekenstein entropy. Although we have no proof of this fact, we believe that the Bekenstein bound is universal. This implies that the product $`ab`$ for all CFTs in $`n+1`$ dimensions is larger or equal than $`n^2`$. Only then it is guaranteed that the upper limit on the entropy is less or equal than $`S_B`$.

The upper limit is reached when the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is equal to the total energy $`E`$. Formally, when $`E_C`$ becomes larger that $`E`$ the entropy $`S`$ will again decrease. Although in principle this is possible, we believe that in actual examples the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is bounded by the total energy $`E`$. So, from now on we assume that

$$E_CE$$
(28)
In the next subsection we provide further evidence for this inequality.

From now on we will assume that we are dealing with a CFT for which $`ab=n^2`$. In the next section I will show that this includes all CFTs that have an AdS-dual description.

4.3. The Cardy formula derived from AdS/CFT

Soon after Maldacena’s AdS/CFT-correspondence  was properly understood  it was convincingly argued by Witten  that the entropy, energy and temperature of CFT at high temperatures can be identified with the entropy, mass, and Hawking temperature of the AdS black hole previously considered by Hawking and Page . Using this duality relation the following expressions can be derived for the energy and entropy222These expressions differ somewhat from the presented formulas in  due to the fact that (i) the $`D+1`$ dimensional Newton constant has been eliminated using its relation with the central charge, (ii) the coordinates have been re-scaled so that the CFT lives on a sphere with radius equal to the black hole horizon. We will not discuss the AdS perspective in this paper, since the essential physics can be understood without introducing an extra dimension. The discussion of the CFT/FRW cosmology from an AdS perspective will be described elsewhere . for a $`D=n+1`$ dimensional CFT on $`R\times S^n`$:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{L^n}}`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4\pi L}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{R^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{V}{L^n}}`$ (29)
The temperature again follows from the first law of thermodynamics. One finds

$$T=\frac{1}{4\pi L}\left(\left(n+1\right)+\left(n1\right)\frac{L^2}{R^2}\right).$$
(30)
The length scale $`L`$ of the thermal CFT arises in the AdS/CFT correspondence as the curvature radius of the AdS black hole geometry. The expression for the energy clearly exhibits a non-extensive contribution, while also the temperature $`T`$ contains a corresponding non-intensive term. Inserting the equations (29,30) into (24) yields the following result for the Casimir energy

$$E_C=\frac{c}{12}\frac{n}{2\pi R}\frac{V}{L^{n1}R}.$$
(31)
Now let us come to the Cardy formula. The entropy $`S`$, energy $`E`$ and Casimir energy $`E_C`$ are expressed in $`c`$, $`L`$ and $`R`$. Eliminating $`c`$ and $`L`$ leads to a unique expression for $`S`$ in terms of $`E`$, $`E_C`$ and $`R`$. One easily checks that it takes the form of the Cardy formula

$$S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_C\left(2EE_C\right)}$$
(32)
In the derivation of these formulas it was assumed that $`R>>L`$. One may worry therefore that these formulas are not applicable in the early universe. Fortunately this is not a problem because during an adiabatic expansion both $`L`$ and $`R`$ scale in the same way so that $`R/L`$ is fixed. Hence the formulas are valid provided the (fixed) ratio of the thermal wave-length and the radius $`R`$ is much smaller than one. Effectively this means, as far as the CFT is concerned, we are in a high temperature regime. We note further that with in this parameter range, the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is indeed smaller than the total energy $`E`$.

Henceforth, we will assume that the CFT that describes the radiation in the FRW universe will have an entropy given by (32) with the specific normalization of $`2\pi /n`$. Note that if we take $`n=1`$ and make the previously mentioned identifications $`ER=L_0`$ and $`E_CR=c/12`$ that this equation exactly coincides with the usual Cardy formula. We will therefore in the following refer to (32) simply as the Cardy formula. To check the precise coefficient of the Cardy formula for a CFT we have made use of the AdS/CFT correspondence. The rest of our discussions in the preceding and in the following sections do not depend on this correspondence. So, in this paper we will not make use of any additional dimensions other than the ones present in the FRW-universe.

5. A new cosmological bound

In this section a new cosmological bound will be presented, which is equivalent to the Hubble bound in the strongly gravitating phase, but which unlike the Hubble bound remains valid in the phase of weak self-gravity. When the bound is saturated the FRW equations and the CFT formulas for the entropy and Casimir energy completely coincide.

5.1. A cosmological bound on the Casimir energy

Let us begin by presenting another criterion for distinguishing between a weakly or strongly self-gravitating universe. When the universe goes from the strongly to the weakly self-gravitating phase, or vice-versa, the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$ and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$ are equal in value. Given the radius $`R`$, we now define the ‘Bekenstein-Hawking’ energy $`E_{BH}`$ as the value of the energy $`E`$ for which $`S_B`$ and $`S_{BH}`$ are exactly equal. This leads to the condition

$$\frac{2\pi }{n}E_{BH}R(n1)\frac{V}{4GR}.$$
(33)
One may interpret $`E_{BH}`$ as the energy required to form a black hole with the size of the entire universe. Now, one easily verifies that

$`E`$ $``$ $`E_{BH}\text{for }HR1`$
$`E`$ $``$ $`E_{BH}\text{for }HR1.`$ (34)
Hence, the universe is weakly self-gravitating when the total energy $`E`$ is less than $`E_{BH}`$ and strongly gravitating for $`E>E_{BH}`$.

We are now ready to present a proposal for a new cosmological bound. It is not formulated as a bound on the entropy $`S`$, but as a restriction on the Casimir energy $`E_C`$. The physical content of the bound is the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ by itself can not be sufficient to form a universe-size black hole. Concretely, this implies that the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is less or equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking energy $`E_{BH}`$. Hence, we postulate

$$E_CE_{BH}$$
(35)
To put the bound in a more conventional notation one may insert the definition (24) of the Casimir energy together with the defining relation (33) of the Bekenstein-Hawking energy. We leave this to the reader.

The virtues of the new cosmological bound are: (i) it is universally valid and does not break down for a weakly gravitating universe, (ii) in a strongly gravitating universe it is equivalent to the Hubble bound, (iii) it is purely holographic and can be formulated in terms of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$ of a universe-size black hole, (iv) when the bound is saturated the laws of general relativity and quantum field theory converge in a miraculous way, giving a strong indication that they have a common origin in a more fundamental unified theory.

The first point on the list is easily checked because $`E_C`$ decays like $`R^1`$ while $`E_{BH}`$ goes like $`R^n`$. Only when the universe re-collapses and returns to the strongly gravitating phase the bound may again become saturated. To be able to proof the other points on the list of advertised virtues, we have to take a closer look to the FRW equations and the CFT formulas for the entropy an entropy.

5.2. A cosmological Cardy formula

To show the equivalence of the new bound with the Hubble bound let us write the Friedman equation as an expression for the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$ in terms of the energy $`E`$, the radius $`R`$ and the Bekenstein-Hawking energy $`E_{BH}`$. Here, the latter is used to remove the explicit dependence on Newton’s constant $`G`$. The resulting expression is unique and takes the form

$$S_H=\frac{2\pi }{n}R\sqrt{E_{BH}\left(2EE_{BH}\right)}$$
(36)
This is exactly the Cardy formula (32), except that the role of the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ in CFT formula is now replaced by the Bekenstein-Hawking energy $`E_{BH}`$. Somehow, miraculously, the Friedman equation knows about the Cardy formula for the entropy of a CFT!

With the help of (36) is now a straightforward matter to proof that when $`HR1`$ the new bound $`E_CE_{BH}`$ is equivalent to the Hubble bound $`SS_H`$. First, let us remind that for $`HR1`$ the energy $`E`$ satisfies $`EE_{BH}`$. Furthermore, we always assume that the Casimir energy $`E_C`$ is smaller than the total energy $`E`$. The entropy $`S`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`E_C`$ as long as $`E_CE`$. Therefore in the range

$$E_CE_{BH}E$$
(37)
the maximum entropy is reached when $`E_C=E_{BH}`$. In that case the Cardy formula (32) for $`S`$ exactly turns into the cosmological Cardy formula (36) for $`S_H`$. Therefore, we conclude that $`S_H`$ is indeed the maximum entropy that can be reached when $`HR1`$. Note that in the weakly self-gravitating phase, when $`EE_{BH}`$, the maximum is reached earlier, namely for $`E_C=E`$. The maximum entropy is in that case given by the bekenstein entropy $`S_B`$. The bifurcation of the new bound in two entropy bounds is a direct consequence of the fact that the Hubble bound is written as the square-root of a quadratic expression.

5.3. A limiting temperature

So far we have focussed on the entropy and energy of the CFT and on the first of the two FRW equations, usually referred to as the Friedman equation. We will now show that also the second FRW equation has a counterpart in the CFT, and will lead to a constraint on the temperature $`T`$. Specifically, we will find that the bound on $`E_C`$ implies that the temperature $`T`$ in the early universe is bounded from below by

$$T_H\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}$$
(38)
The minus sign is necessary to get a positive result, since in a radiation dominated universe the expansion always slows down. Further, we assume that we are in the strongly self-gravitating phase with $`HR1`$, so that there is no danger of dividing by zero.

The second FRW equation in (5) can now be written as a relation between $`E_{BH}`$, $`S_H`$ and $`T_H`$ that takes the familiar form

$$E_{BH}=n(E+pVT_HS_H)$$
(39)
This equation has exactly the same form as the defining relation $`E_C=n(E+pVTS)`$ for the Casimir energy. In the strongly gravitating phase we have just argued that the bound $`E_CE_{BH}`$ is equivalent to the Hubble bound $`SS_H`$. It follows immediately that the temperature $`T`$ in this phase is bounded from below by $`T_H`$. One has

$$TT_H\text{for }HR1$$
(40)
When the cosmological bound is saturated all inequalities turn into equalities. The Cardy formula and the defining Euler relation for the Casimir energy in that case exactly match the Friedman equation for the Hubble constant and the FRW equation for its time derivative.

6. The entropy bounds revisited.

We now return to the cosmological entropy bounds introduced in sections 2 and 3. In particular, we are interested in the way that the entropy of the CFT may be incorporated in the entropy diagram described in section $`3`$. For this purpose it will be useful to introduce a non-extensive component of the entropy that is associated with the Casimir energy.

The cosmological bound $`E_CE_{BH}`$ can also be formulated as an entropy bound, not on the total entropy, but on a non-extensive part of the entropy that is associated with the Casimir energy. In analogy with the definition of the Bekenstein entropy (8) one can introduce a ’Casimir’ entropy defined by

$$S_C\frac{2\pi }{n}E_CR.$$
(41)
For $`d=(1+1)`$ the Casimir entropy is directly related to the central charge $`c`$. One has $`S_C=2\pi c/12`$. In fact, it is more appropriate to interpret the Casimir entropy $`S_C`$ as a generalization of the central charge to $`n+1`$ dimensions than what is usually called the central charge $`c`$. Indeed, if one introduces a dimensionless ‘Virasoro operator’ $`\stackrel{~}{L}_0\frac{1}{2\pi }S_B`$ and a new central charge $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{12}\frac{1}{2\pi }S_C`$, the $`n+1`$ dimensional entropy formula (32) is exactly identical to (3).

The Casimir entropy $`S_C`$ is sub-extensive because under $`V\lambda V`$ and $`E\lambda E`$ it goes like $`S_C\lambda ^{11/n}S_C`$. In fact, it scales like an area! This is a clear indication that the Casimir entropy has something to do with holography. The total entropy $`S`$ contains extensive as well as sub-extensive contributions. One can show that for $`E_CE`$ the entropy $`S`$ satisfies the following inequalities

$$S_CSS_B$$
(42)
where both equal signs can only hold simultaneously. The precise relation between $`S`$ and its super- and sub-extensive counterparts $`S_B`$ and $`S_C`$ is determined by the Cardy formula, which can be expressed as

$$S^2+(S_BS_C)^2=S_B^2.$$
(43)
This identity has exactly the same form as the relation (17) between the cosmological entropy bounds, except that in (17) the role of the entropy and Casimir entropy are taken over by the Hubble entropy $`S_H`$ and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$. This fact will be used to incorporate the entropy $`S`$ and the Casimir entropy $`S_C`$ in the entropy diagram introduce in section 3.

The cosmological bound on the Casimir energy presented in the section 4 can be formulated as an upper limit on the Casimir entropy $`S_C`$. From the definitions of $`S_C`$ and $`E_{BH}`$ it follows directly that the bound $`E_CE_{BH}`$ is equivalent to

$$S_CS_{BH}$$
(44)
where we made use of the relation (33) to re-write $`E_{BH}`$ again in terms of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{BH}`$. Thus the bound puts a holographic upper limit on the d.o.f. of the CFT as measured by the Casimir entropy $`S_C`$.

In figure 2 we have graphically depicted the quadratic relation between the total entropy $`S`$ and the Casimir entropy $`S_C`$ in the same diagram we used to related the cosmological entropy bounds. From this diagram it easy to determine the relation between the new bound and the Hubble bound. One clearly sees that when $`HR>1`$ that the two bounds are in fact equivalent. When the new bound is saturated, which means $`S_C=S_{BH}`$, then the Hubble bound is also saturated, ie. $`S=S_H`$. The converse is not true: there are two moments in the region $`HR<1`$ when the $`S=S_H`$, but $`S_CS_{BH}`$. In our opinion, this is an indication that the bound on the Casimir energy has a good chance of being a truly fundamental bound.

7. Summary and conclusion

In this paper we have used the holographic principle to study the bounds on the entropy in a radiation dominated universe. The radiation has been described by a continuum CFT in the bulk. Surprisingly the CFT appears to know about the holographic entropy bounds, and equally surprising the FRW-equations know about the entropy formulas for the CFT. Our main results are summarized in the following two tables. Table 1. contains an overview of the bounds that hold in the early universe on the temperature, entropy and Casimir energy. In table 2. the Cardy formula for the CFT and the Euler relation for the Casimir energy are matched with the Friedman equations written in terms of the quantities listed in table 1.

| CFT-bound | FRW-definition |
| --- | --- |
| $`TT_H`$ | $`T_H\dot{H}/2\pi H`$ |
| $`SS_H`$ | $`S_H(n1)HV/4G`$ |
| $`E_CE_{BH}`$ | $`E_{BH}n(n1)V/8\pi GR^2`$ |

Table 1: summary of cosmological bounds

| CFT-formula | FRW-equation |
| --- | --- |
| $`S=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)}`$ | $`S_H=\frac{2\pi R}{n}\sqrt{E_{BH}(2EE_{BH})}`$ |
| $`E_Cn(E+pVTS)`$ | $`E_{BH}=n(E+pVT_HS_H)`$ |

Table 2: Matching of the CFT-formulas with the FRW-equations

The presented relation between the FRW equations and the entropy formulas precisely holds at this transition point, when the holographic bound is saturated or threatens to be violated. The miraculous merging of the CFT and FRW equations strongly indicates that both sets of these equations arise from a single underlying fundamental theory.

The discovered relation between the entropy, Casimir energy and temperature of the CFT and their cosmological counterparts has a very natural explanation from a RS-type brane-world scenario  along the lines of . The radiation dominated FRW equations can be obtained by studying a brane with fixed tension in the background of a AdS-black hole. In this description the radius of the universe is identified with the distance of the brane to the center of the black hole. At the Big Bang the brane originates from the past singularity. At some finite radius determined by the energy of the black hole, the brane crosses the horizon. It keeps moving away from the black hole, until it reaches a maximum distance, and then it falls back into the AdS-black hole. The special moment when the brane crosses the horizon precisely corresponds to the moment when the cosmological entropy bounds are saturated. This world-brane perspective on the cosmological bounds for a radiation dominated universe will be described in detail in .

We have restricted our attention to matter described by a CFT in order to make our discussion as concrete and coherent as possible. Many of the used concepts, however, such as the entropy bounds, the notion of a non-extensive entropy, the matching of the FRW equations, and possibly even the Cardy formula are quite independent of the equation of state of the matter. One point at which the conformal invariance was used is in the diagrammatic representation of the bounds. The diagram is only circular when the energy $`E`$ goes like $`R^1`$. But it is possible that a similar non-circular diagram exists for other kinds of matter. It would be interesting to study other examples in more detail.

Finally, the cosmological constant has been put to zero, since only in that case all of the formulas work so nicely. It is possible to modify the formalism to incorporate a cosmological constant, but the analysis becomes less transparent. In particular, one finds that the Hubble entropy bound needs to be modified by replacing $`H`$ with the square root of $`H^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/n`$. At this moment we have no complete understanding of the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, and postpone its discussion to future work.

Acknowledgements

I like to thank T. Banks, M. Berkooz, S. Gubser, G. Horowitz, I. Klebanov, P. Kraus, E. Lieb, L. Randall, I. Savonije, G. Veneziano, and H. Verlinde for helpful discussions. I also thank the theory division at Cern for its hospitality, while this work was being completed.


format: text

text:
# HEXTE DETECTIONS OF HARD X–RAY TAILS IN SCO X–1

## 1 Introduction

Observations of hard X–ray emission from atoll sources (e.g. Barret, McClintock, & Grindlay 1996; Barret et al. 2000) have revealed the unexpected result that power law spectra extending above 30 keV may not be an exclusive signature of a black hole. Rossi X–ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) observations of hard X–ray emission from SAX J1808.4$``$3658 (Heindl & Smith 1998) demonstrated that hard X–ray flux is also present in other types of low–mass X–ray binaries (LMXBs). These observations refined the role of hard X–ray emission in distinguishing between neutron star and black hole binaries.

Scorpius X–1 is a high luminosity LMXB Z source, where the primary is a neutron star with a low magnetic field. The presence of a non–thermal component in Sco X–1 has been suggested (e.g., Peterson & Jacobson 1966; Riegler, Bolt, & Serlemitsos 1970; Agrawal et al. 1971; Haymes et al. 1972; Duldig et al. 1983) and the absence of such a component has also been reported (e.g., Lewin, Clark, & Smith 1967; Buselli et al. 1968; Jain et al. 1973; Johnson et al. 1980). In fact, high sensitivity searches have failed to detect such a component, placing strong upper limits on the non-thermal flux (e.g., Greenhill et al. 1979; Rothschild et al. 1980; Soong & Rothschild 1983). More recently, however, Strickman & Barret (2000) have reported the presence of a hard X–ray tail in Sco X–1 using CGRO/OSSE.

We used RXTE observations from the public database to search for hard X–ray tails in Sco X–1 spectra. Sco X–1 has been observed with RXTE several times, and our data sample (1997 April to 1999 July) contains 185,672 s of Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on–source time and more than 100 ks of on–source live-time in the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE). We describe data selection and analysis in § 2, results in § 3, discuss the detection of a non-thermal component in § 4, and present our conclusions in § 5.

## 2 Data Selection and Analysis

In this work we used data from HEXTE to search for hard X–ray tails in Sco X–1 in the $``$ 20–220 keV interval, and data from the PCA to determine the Z position of Sco X–1 in the color–color diagram. The PCA (Jahoda et al. 1996) is a set of 5 identical Xenon proportional counters covering the energy range 2–60 keV with a total area of $``$ 7000 cm2. The HEXTE (Rothschild et al. 1998) consists of two clusters of 4 NaI(Tl)/CsI(Na) phoswich scintillation counters totaling $``$ 1600 cm2 of effective area in the 15–250 keV energy range . Each cluster rocks between source and two background fields to measure the instrumental background in near real time. The PCA background is estimated from particle rates and the known diffuse X–ray flux. The PCA and HEXTE share a common 1 full width at half maximum field of view. Pertinent to this work, the HEXTE continuum sensitivity at 100 keV, for $``$ 5 kseconds of live–time, is $``$ 13 mCrab (3$`\sigma `$, scaled to in-flight backgrounds from the predictions of Gruber et al. 1996).

We selected those observations from the RXTE public database (as of 2000 April) in which $``$ 5000 s of HEXTE total on–source time is available, in order to achieve good sensitivity at high energies. Since some observations did not point directly at Sco X–1 (in order to reduce the very high counting rate), we have also discarded observations for which RXTE pointing offsets were larger than 0.01. These criteria resulted in selection of the 16 observations displayed in Table 1. The resulting accumulated on–source HEXTE live–time is 104,238 s.

### 2.1 Data Analysis

We performed our analysis using HEXTE Archive Histogram Mode data, which are accumulated every 16 s, have spectral information in 64 compressed channels, and are present for all observations, independent of selected Science Mode.

The data analysis was performed using software from FTOOLS 5.0. For each observation, we divided the data into subsets according to position on the Z diagram (see below and Table 1). We then accumulated individual source and background count histograms for HEXTE clusters A and B and added them to form a single HEXTE source and background histogram for each subset. Response matrices for HEXTE A and B were generated and added (with weights of 0.57 and 0.43 respectively, according to their effective areas).

In order to be confident that any high energy excesses were real, we tailored our data selection to optimize background subtraction. We verified that any remaining systematic errors as a result of our procedure were small and did not affect the results. We followed the standard practices extensively studied for HEXTE background subtraction by us and other workers (Rothschild et al. 1998; MacDonald 1999). First, we selected only data taken more than 15 minutes after satellite passage through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). This allows any short–lived radioactive species produced in the detector material to decay and ensures that the systematic error of our linearly interpolated background estimate is $``$ 0.02 % of the background. We verified this process by comparing – for each cluster – the spectra from the two separate background fields which are sampled alternately during observations. In each case, subtracting these spectra showed no excess emission, giving us confidence in the on–source background estimate. This also verified that there were no confusing sources in the background fields. We note, too, that none of the Sco X–1 spectra show evidence for the prominent instrumental background lines at $``$ 30, 70, 160 and 190 keV (Rothschild et al. 1998) which we would expect to be apparent if there were over or under–subtracted backgrounds. Even though there was no obvious sign of residual background features, we allowed the normalization of the background spectra to vary in our fitting procedure. As expected, the fitted adjustment to the background level was always $``$ 1 %. Even with this added degree of freedom, the significance of the detected high energy tails remained essentially unchanged. This also verified that live-times were calculated accurately, as systematic errors in the exposure would lead to incorrect background subtraction. Finally, at 100 keV (see Figure 5), the Sco X–1 hard flux is of the order of 0.02 counts/s/keV, while the HEXTE background was typically 0.23 counts/s/keV. Thus, our measurements are at level of $``$ 10 % of the background. MacDonald (1999) showed that our background subtraction method, even for very long integrations, is free of systematic errors at a level of $``$ 0.05 % of the background. A more detailed discussion of HEXTE background systematics is given in Gruber et al. (1996).

We used the PCA data in order to constrain the position of Sco X–1 in a color–color diagram. High resolution ($``$ 4 ms) lightcurves provided power spectra to characterize any quasi-periodic oscillations and/or continuum noise. Low resolution (16 s) lightcurves were used to generate color–color diagrams. We defined soft color as the ratio of the counts in the (5–7)/(3–5) keV energy bands and hard color as the ratio (7–20)/(5–7) keV. For observations 5/6, 12–15, 17/18 and 20/21 (see Table 1) the source was moving between the Normal and Flaring Branches. For those 5 dual–branch observations, we divided each into Normal and Flaring Branch subsets. This then resulted in 21 subsets.

### 2.2 Spectral Fitting

We used XSPEC 11.0 to fit the 20–220 keV HEXTE spectra with a combination of a thermal component plus a hard component. To fit the thermal component we tested the following models: thermal Comptonization (e.g. Lamb & Sanford 1979), blackbody, and thermal bremsstrahlung. The thermal bremsstrahlung model returned, in all of our subsets, the smallest $`\chi ^2`$, and it was utilized to represent the lower energy HEXTE flux.

In the 5 subsets in which we detected the presence of a hard X–ray tail (see next section), a simple power law model, as well as ones with a spectral break, were evaluated. We found that the simple power law model described the hard component well, and it was used to represent the higher energy HEXTE flux. In all 5 subsets with significant non–thermal flux, a high temperature thermal component did not provide an acceptable fit.

## 3 Results

We developed two criteria to determine the presence of a hard X–ray tail in a particular spectrum: 1) a signal to noise ratio (SNR) $``$ 5 in the 75–220 keV energy range, and 2) an F–Test null significance for the addition of the hard component at a level of 10-7 or less. We claim that we observed a hard X–ray tail only when both these criteria were fulfilled. We thus have 5 strong detections of non–thermal flux in Sco X–1 spectra, with the hard X–ray tail extending at least to 220 keV. The spectral parameters derived for those subsets are shown in Table 2. Similarly we defined a strong non–detection when 1) the SNR in the 75–220 keV is $`<`$ 1 and 2) the F–Test is at a level of $``$ 10-5. We thus have 4 strong non–detections. We note that several subsets formally have very significant F–Test values, but SNR values $`<`$ 5. These typically result from deviations in the 30–50 keV range, possibly due to imperfect modeling of the thermal component. We cannot conclude that these subsets have truly non–thermal emission, although this possibility is open. In Figure 5 we show spectra both from one of our detections and one of our non–detections.

The derived photon indices ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) for the 5 subsets where the tail was observed spanned a wide range: from $``$0.7 to 2.4, which differs from the OSSE results which have an average of 2.5 (Strickman & Barret 2000). It is suggestive that the two hardest photon indices were obtained when the source was on the flaring branch, and the softest were on the horizontal branch, showing a possible correlation between the hardness of the spectrum and the mass accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$, which increases in the sequence HB $``$ NB $``$ FB (e.g., van der Klis 1996). We also note that both times the source was on the HB a hard X–ray tail was detected.

The non–thermal 20–200 keV flux from the 5 detections varied by a factor of $``$ 2.5 from 0.63—1.56 $`\times `$ 10-9 ergs cm-2 s-1 (see Table 2). Upper limits to the 20–200 keV flux from the 4 strong non–detections were estimated using a photon index of 1, the mean from the 5 detections. The one non–detection subset with equivalent sensitivity to the detection subsets has a 2$`\sigma `$ upper limit to the 20–200 keV flux of 1.0 $`\times `$ 10-10 ergs cm-2 s-1. This implies at least an order of magnitude in overall variability in the non-thermal component in Sco X–1.

In order to estimate the 2–20 keV luminosity, $`L_{220}^{total}`$, we used a complex multicomponent model to heuristically fit the PCA spectra. We estimate the uncertainty in the derived flux due to uncertainties in the proper spectral shape to be $``$ 2 %. Using 2.8 kpc as the distance to Sco X–1 (Bradshaw, Fomalont, & Geldzahler 1999), $`L_{220}^{total}`$ ranges over 2.1–3.2 $`\times `$ 1038 ergs s-1 for the 5 detection subsets. Similarly, the range of the 20–200 keV luminosities of the non–thermal component measurements is $`L_{20200}^{nt}`$$`=`$ 5.9–15.0 $`\times `$ 1035 ergs s-1. Thus the non–thermal component represents about 1 % of the total flux from Sco X–1.

No correlation between the presence of the hard tail and the position of the source in the color–color diagram is indicated, i.e., we have observed the hard X–ray tail in all three branches. In addition the HEXTE thermal component is not correlated with the presence of the hard X–ray tail, i.e., the presence of the hard tail is indicated by neither the temperature nor flux of the HEXTE thermal component.

## 4 Discussion

From the lack of correlation between the presence of the hard tail and the position of the source in the color–color diagram source it would appear that the hard X–ray tail emission region is not associated with that part of the accretion disk which is believed to be responsible for the QPO behavior (van der Klis et al. 1996). These results also do not support a correlation between the presence of the hard tail and clustering in the color–color diagram, such as mentioned by Strickman & Barret (2000). We also note that this behavior is different from GX 17 $`+`$ 2, in which a hard tail is correlated with the position in the Z (Di Salvo et al. 2000). Frontera et al. (1998) have also reported the detection of a hard tail in another Z source (Cyg X–2).

Nevertheless we must point out that the observed photon indices may be related to the position in the Z diagram. The hardest observed photon indices are in the FB and the softest ones in the HB. From this point of view the production of hard X–ray photons may be correlated with the accretion rate at the inner part of the disk. Motivated by the observation that Sco X–1 is a variable radio source (e.g., Fender & Hendry 2000), we considered whether or not the hard X–ray emission could be explained in terms of synchrotron emission. While the measured photon indices are consistent with this idea for the HB and NB, the ones measured when the source was in the FB (consistent with 0) are not, since it would require an inverted distribution of relativistic electrons. Similarly, the HB and NB spectra could result from Comptonization, but the FB power law indices are again too hard.

A difference between atoll sources and Sco X–1 is also seen in the soft X-ray luminosity. The atoll source hard tails appear when the 2–20 keV luminosity is relatively low, $`<`$ 1037 ergs s-1; whereas the soft flux in Sco X–1 is essentially at the Eddington limit ($``$ 1038 ergs s-1). It is also interesting to note that some models used to explain the hard X–ray emission of atoll LMXBs (e.g. Mitsuda et al. 1989; Hanawa, 1990) are applicable in a low luminosity state up to $``$ 20 keV. This, however, is not the case of our observations. On the other hand, Sco X–1 may be similar to some atoll sources in the luminosity of the power law component. The Sco X–1 power law luminosity in the 20–200 keV range is comparable to the weaker atoll source hard X-ray luminosities reported by Barret, McClintock, & Grindlay (1996).

Distinguishing neutron stars from black holes remains a key goal in high energy astrophysics. Recently it has been argued (Barret et al. 2000) that the luminosities in the 1–20 keV (defined as Lx) and 20–200 keV (defined as Lhx) bands could be used to distinguish between black hole and low state neutron star systems displaying hard X–ray emission. In their argument, the critical luminosity, Lcrit = 1.5 $`\times `$ 1037 ergs s-1, is the dividing line between neutron star and black hole binaries with the neutron star systems emitting Lhx $``$ Lx when Lx $``$ Lcrit. Since Sco X–1 is emitting Eddington–level soft fluxes, we cannot test that idea. On the other hand, our observed Lhx does not contradict the idea pointed out by Barret et al. (2000) that only black hole binaries can have both Lx and Lhx above Lcrit, since our measured Lhx is below the Lcrit value (see Table 1).

## 5 Conclusion

We have observed significant detections of a non–thermal component in Sco X–1 on 5 out of 21 occasions with HEXTE on-board RXTE. We also have found that the presence of the hard X–ray tail is not associated with a particular position in the color–color diagram, but that the photon indices, instead, may be correlated with the position on the Z diagram, albeit with a very limited number of examples. We inferred that the non–thermal power law flux of the source varied by over an order of magnitude comparing our detections with the non–detections, and by a factor of $``$ 3 in the 5 cases where the presence of the hard X–ray tail was strongly indicated. Our observed 20–200 keV luminosities are in agreement with only black hole binaries emitting hard X–rays with luminosity $``$1.5 $`\times `$1037 ergs s-1.

This research has made use of data obtained through the HEASARC, provided by the NASA/GSFC. FD gratefully acknowledges FAPESP/Brazil for financial support under grant 99/02352-2. FD acknowledges Stefan Dieters, Wayne Coburn and John Tomsick for helpful discussions. We also thanks an anonymous referee for suggestions. This research was supported by NASA contract NAS5–30720.