text:
# The Butcher-Oemler Effect in 295 Clusters: Strong Redshift Evolution and Cluster Richness Dependence

## 1. Introduction

The Butcher-Oemler (BO) effect provided some of the first evidence for the evolution of galaxies and clusters. Butcher & Oemler (1978, 1984) found an excess of blue galaxies in high redshift clusters in comparison with the typical early-type population observed in the central region of local clusters (Dressler 1980). The BO effect has also been observed in more recent studies, which indicate an even stronger evolution of the fraction of blue galaxies in clusters (Rakos & Schombert 1995, Margoniner & de Carvalho 2000).

The BO effect is an indicator of evolution in the cluster galaxy population, which may result from changes in the morphology and star-formation rates of member galaxies with redshift. The fact that blue galaxies are more commonly found at higher redshifts, and the observation of an apparent excess of S0 galaxies in low redshift clusters, lead to the suggestion by Larson et al. (1980) of an evolutionary connection between S0 and spiral galaxies. This idea can explain the population of blue galaxies observed by Butcher & Oemler as spiral galaxies seen just before running out of gas, and the disappearance of this population in more evolved, low redshift rich clusters (Dressler et al. 1997, Couch et al. 1998). In the last decade, high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope images have allowed the determination of the morphology of these high redshift blue galaxies. Dressler et al. (1994), Couch et al. (1994, 1998), and Oemler et al. (1997) found that the Butcher & Oemler galaxies are predominantly normal late-type spirals, and that dynamical interactions and mergers between galaxies may be a secondary process responsible for the enhanced star formation. A recent study by Fasano et al. (2000) indicates that as the redshift decreases, the S0 cluster population increases while the number of spiral galaxies decreases, supporting Larson’s original idea of spirals evolving into S0s.

A second factor affecting the number of blue galaxies may be their environment. The fraction of blue galaxies seems to be correlated with local galaxy density, and with the degree of substructure in the cluster. Many studies have shown that the blue galaxies lie preferentially in the outer, lower density cluster regions (Butcher & Oemler 1984, Rakos et al. 1997, Margoniner & de Carvalho 2000). Also, Smail et al. (1998) studied 10 massive clusters and found that the fraction of blue galaxies in these clusters is smaller than observed in Butcher & Oemler (1984) clusters at the same redshift range. However, an opposite trend is found in non-relaxed clusters with a high degree of substructure, where the fraction of blue galaxies is higher than that observed in regular clusters (Caldwell & Rose 1997, Metevier et al. 2000).

The evolution of these galaxies is probably correlated with its environment in the sense that spirals might consume and/or lose their gas, evolving to SOs, while falling into the higher density cluster regions. Although the exact mechanism responsible for the BO effect is not completely understood (Kodama & Bower 2000), most authors seem to agree that the effect is real. A different idea is presented by Andreon & Ettori (1999) who show that the mean X-ray luminosity and richness of Butcher & Oemler (1984) clusters increases with redshift, and argue that the increase in the fraction of blue galaxies with redshift may not represent the evolution of a single class of objects.

We present observations of the BO effect in a large sample of 295 Abell (1958, 1989) clusters of all richnesses, with no further selection on the basis of morphology or X-ray luminosities. This is important because all previous studies were based on samples biased toward richer clusters, with some samples being further selected according to morphology and/or X-ray luminosities, so that a combination of different selection effects could be mimicking the observed $`f_B(z)`$ relation. Although our sample inherits biases existent in the Abell catalog, it should contain a more representative variety of clusters (in terms of degree of substructure, richness, and mass) at each redshift than any previous sample, and because of its large size should allow a better determination of the relation. Any results ¸driven by selection effects present in previous samples might become apparent when compared with this one. We describe the data in Section 2, the BO effect analysis in Section 3, and our conclusions in Section 4.

## 2. Sample Selection and Input Data

The data presented in this paper were obtained to calibrate the DPOSS-II (the Digitized Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey, Djorgovski et al. 1999). It comprises 44 Abell clusters imaged at the 0.9m telescope at the Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory (CTIO) (Margoniner & de Carvalho 2000, hereafter MdC00), and 431 clusters observed at the Palomar Observatory 1.5m telescope (Gal et al. 2000, hereafter G00, and in preparation). The CCD images were taken in the g, r and i filters of the Thuan & Gunn (1976) photometric system, with typical $`1`$-$`\sigma `$ magnitude errors of 0.12 in g, 0.10 in r, and 0.16 in i at $`r=20.0^m`$. We have also observed 22 control fields in order to assess the background contribution. More details concerning the data reduction, photometry, and catalog construction can be found in MdC00 and G00.

From this original sample we excluded 120 clusters observed with a small field of view CCD, and 31 very low redshift ($`z<0.05`$) clusters, for which only the core region can be observed with our $`13^{}\times 13^{}`$ images. Also, 26 cluster fields which exhibited galaxy counts comparable to the mean background, and one cluster with a bright star occupying $`25\%`$ of the CCD region, were excluded from the analysis. Since 2 Abell clusters had repeated observations from G00 and MdC00, our final sample comprises 295 clusters. It is important to note that at variance with previous studies, the sample presented in this work is representative of all richness class clusters (21% $`R=0`$, 50% $`R=1`$, 21% $`R=2`$, and 8% $`R3`$). No further selection regarding richness, morphology or degree of sub-clustering was applied when determining our sample. Spectroscopic redshifts for 77 clusters were obtained from the literature, and for the remainder photometric redshifts were estimated with an rms accuracy of approximately 0.04 using the methodology described in MdC00.

## 3. Analysis of the Butcher-Oemler Effect

The BO effect can be measured by comparing the fraction of blue galaxies in clusters at different redshifts. The $`(gr)vs.r`$ color-magnitude (CM) relation was determined by fitting a linear relation to the red galaxy envelope using the same prescription as in MdC00. Red envelopes were subjectively classified as well-defined or not by visual inspection. Galaxies were defined as blue if they had $`(gr)`$ colors $`0.2^m`$ below the linear locus in the CM relation. We used the spectral energy distribution of a typical elliptical galaxy (Coleman et al. 1980) to derive $`k(z)`$ corrections for our sample, and also corrected the data for extinction using the maps of Schlegel et al. (1998). Because the main purpose of this work is to study the evolution of galaxy populations, fainter galaxies play a crucial role. Whereas Butcher & Oemler were limited to brighter galaxies by their photographic data, our CCD sample allows us to probe significantly deeper, selecting galaxies with r magnitude between $`M^{}1`$ and $`M^{}+2`$, inside a region of radius $`0.7`$ Mpc around the cluster. This fixed linear size was chosen because our CCD images cover a field of radius $`0.54.0`$ Mpc at $`z=0.030.38`$, and we want to study the same physical region and the same galaxy luminosity range for the entire sample. We assume a cosmology with $`H_{}=67`$ Km s-1 Mpc-1, and $`q_{}=0.1`$, in which $`M_r^{}=20.16`$ (Lin et al. 1996).

Most ($`61\%`$) of the clusters in our sample are at $`z=0.10.2`$, so that the $`0.7`$ Mpc central region, and the entire luminosity range between $`M^{}1`$ and $`M^{}+2`$ can be observed. Clusters at higher redshifts are limited at brighter absolute magnitudes and a correction was applied in order to compare the fraction of blue galaxies in these clusters with the rest of our sample. The lower redshift clusters suffer from the opposite problem, since the brighter galaxies will be saturated, and we are also limited by the field of view. Details about these corrections can be found in MdC00, the only difference being that in the present work we adopt a more conservative brighter limiting magnitude of $`M^{}+2`$ instead of $`M^{}+3`$.

The blue and total counts contain a mix of cluster members and background galaxies. Background variations place a fundamental limit on the accuracy of $`f_B`$ measurements: no matter how well one determines the mean background from a number of control fields, the background estimate for any particular cluster is no more accurate than the scatter in the control fields. For each cluster, we measured the effect of this scatter by computing $`f_B`$ using background corrections from the 22 individual control fields scaled to the area of the CCD and the CM relation appropriate to that cluster. The final $`f_B`$ is given by the median and the rms is based on the central two quartiles of the distribution. Simple propagation of errors through the equation $`f_B\frac{n_{blue,cluster}n_{blue,background}}{n_{total,cluster}n_{total,background}}`$ would give an overestimate because $`n_{blue,background}`$ and $`n_{total,background}`$ are correlated. The usual assumption that the error in $`f_B`$ is mainly due to Poisson statistics in the background-corrected cluster counts does not properly take into account the background variations and errors thus derived are about three times smaller than ours when applied to the same data.

The final fractions of blue galaxies for the entire sample are shown in the upper panel of Figure 1. For those clusters with multiple observations, we have used the observation with smaller $`\sigma _{f_B}`$. Clusters with spectroscopic and photometric redshift measurements are indicated by solid and open circles respectively. The individual error bars are not presented to avoid confusion in the plot, but the median $`\sigma _{f_B}`$ is 0.071. The lower panel presents only clusters that have: (1) $`\sigma _{f_B}<0.071`$, (2) spectroscopic redshift measurements, and (3) a well-defined CM relation. The $`1`$-$`\sigma _{f_B}`$ errors are indicated for these clusters. In both panels, the solid lines indicates a linear fit derived from the clusters with $`z0.25`$ ($`f_B=(1.24\pm 0.07)z0.01`$, with an rms scatter of $`0.1`$ for the entire sample shown in the upper panel, and $`f_B=(1.34\pm 0.11)z0.03`$, with an rms of $`0.07`$ for the sample shown in the lower panel). The fits were done with the GaussFit program (Jefferys et al. 1988) taking into account the measurement errors in $`f_B`$. The dashed line indicates the rms scatter around the fit, and while the upper panel shows a larger scatter, the two derived relations are the same within the errors. A clear trend of strong evolution with redshift is seen. A $`\chi _\nu `$ test applied to the fit presented in the upper panel results in 1.36 if only $`f_B`$ errors are considered, and 1.13 when the uncertainties in the photometric redshifts are also taken into account. Such small $`\chi _\nu `$ is due however to large measurement errors in this sample. A higher $`\chi _\nu `$ of 1.72 is obtained for the subsample of clusters with smaller $`\sigma _{f_B}`$ and spectroscopic redshift (lower panel of Figure 1).

Richness is a natural second parameter which might cause the range in $`f_B`$ at given redshift. The left upper panel of Figure 2 shows the $`f_B(z)`$ diagram with symbol sizes scaled by $`N`$, the number of galaxies between $`M^{}1`$ and $`M^{}+2`$, inside $`0.7`$ Mpc, after background correction. Only clusters from the lower panel in Figure 1 and at redshifts between 0.1 and 0.2, where no corrections needed to be applied to compute $`f_B`$, are presented in this figure. The solid line is the best-fit linear $`f_B(z)`$ relation for the 26 clusters shown, and the dashed lines indicate the relations obtained when the sample is subdivided in two 13 cluster samples according to richness. The slopes of the three relations are the same within the errors ($`0.86\pm 0.23`$ for the entire sample, $`0.96\pm 0.26`$ for the subsample of richest clusters, and $`0.86\pm 0.56`$ for the poorest ones). Although the uncertainties are large, the rate of evolution is approximately constant for all richnesses, and there is clearly an effect, with richer clusters tending to lower $`f_B`$. The suggestion by Andreon & Ettori (1999) that the observed increase of $`f_B`$ with redshift is caused by missing poor clusters at higher redshift is therefore no longer tenable, because any such selection effects would serve to decrease the redshift evolution of $`f_B`$. The evolution in $`f_B`$ is real, and takes place in all richness classes.

To ensure that richness and redshift are not correlated in this subsample, we plot $`Nvs.z`$ in the right upper panel of Figure 2. The best-linear fit ($`N=(38.2\pm 106.2)z+(89.5\pm 14.5)`$) is indicated by the solid line, and the dashed lines represent adding/subtracting $`1`$-$`\sigma `$ uncertainties to its coefficients. Richness and redshift are uncorrelated in this sample.

To gauge the richness importance, we investigate $`f_B(z,N)`$ relations with various richness dependences ($`N^1`$, $`N^{3/2}`$, $`N^2`$, and $`N^3`$), and found that $`N^2`$ correlates slightly better with $`f_B`$. The final best-fit relation for the data, when both redshift and richness are considered, and taking into account the errors in $`f_B`$ and $`N`$, is $`f_B=(1.03\pm 0.25)z+(388.3\pm 111.4)N^20.04`$, with $`\chi _\nu =0.99`$. The $`F`$ test indicates with $`>99\%`$ confidence ($`F_{\chi _\nu }=23.8`$, for 25 to 24 degrees of freedom) that richness is responsible for the improvement observed in $`\chi _\nu `$. Richness is therefore extremely important in determining $`f_B`$ and it is in fact enough to account for the scatter observed in a simple $`f_B(z)`$ relation. In the lower left panel of Figure 2 we plot $`f_B`$ vs. $`z+378.6N^2`$, which represent an edge-on view of the best-fit plane $`f_B(z,N)`$, and in the lower right panel we present the redshift dependence of a richness-corrected-$`f_B`$: the redshift evolution is clear.

Although all 26 clusters shown in Figure 2 were used to compute the relations indicated by solid lines in the figure, the two clusters represented by open circles (Abell 520, and Abell 1081) seem to deviate from the trend. These clusters also have the largest $`\sigma _N`$ (derived from the scatter in the 22 control regions), and if excluded from the fitting, the relation changes to $`f_B=1.13z+480.56N^20.06`$ ($`\chi _\nu =0.95`$), indicating a slightly stronger redshift dependence.

Finally, we used 11 clusters with ROSAT X-ray luminosities to check for correlations with $`f_B`$, but this small sample did not allow any conclusions. There is a possible trend of increasing $`L_X`$ with redshift in the sense found by Andreon & Ettori (1999) in BO’s original sample. However, there is no clear trend of $`f_B`$ with $`L_X`$, arguing against any contamination of the $`f_B(z)`$ relation by selection effects. A comparison of the X-ray luminosities of these clusters with their $`f_B`$ could provide new insight to the BO effect, and we are in the process of obtaining X-ray fluxes and upper limits from the RASS (Rosat All Sky Survey) for all of these clusters, as well as a larger sample of new clusters generated from DPOSS-II.

We stress that these results are not to be directly compared with fractions of blue galaxies as originally defined in BO84. The most important reason for differences is the magnitude range used to calculate $`f_B`$. The number of blue galaxies increases at fainter magnitudes and it is therefore natural that our $`f_B`$ measurements are in general higher. Also, the usage of a rigid physical scale for all clusters, instead of regions determined individually for each cluster according to its density profile, should yield different $`f_B`$ estimates. When $`f_B`$ is computed using the same absolute magnitude range used by BO84, we find signs of evolution that are stronger than originally suggested in their work, and which are consistent with recent works by Rakos & Schombert (1995) and MdC00. Limiting our sample at brighter absolute magnitudes however increases the $`\sigma _{f_B}`$ (and $`\sigma _N`$) because of the smaller galaxy count statistics, and probes a smaller fraction of the cluster population.

## 4. Summary and Conclusions

We compute $`f_B`$ for 295 randomly selected Abell (1989) clusters, including galaxies as faint as $`M^{}+2`$ to sample a larger range of the luminosity function and provide better statistics in each cluster. The resulting $`f_B`$ shows a stronger trend with redshift than did $`f_B`$ as originally defined by BO84, consistent with the idea that the BO effect is stronger among the late-type spirals and irregulars which dominate the galaxy populations at intermediate and lower luminosities.

This is the first sample large enough to allow the study of the $`f_B`$ variations at a given redshift. A $`\chi _\nu `$ test applied to a simple linear $`f_B(z)`$ relation shows that the scatter in $`f_B`$ at a given redshift is consistently larger than the measurement error, indicating a real cluster-to-cluster variation. We investigate the richness dependence of the Butcher-Oemler effect, and find a strong correlation between $`f_B`$ and galaxy counts in the sense that poorer clusters tend to have larger $`f_B`$ than richer clusters at the same redshift. The inclusion of poor clusters tends therefore to increase the slope of the $`f_B(z)`$ relation, and is another factor (together with the inclusion of fainter galaxies) responsible for the stronger evolution observed in this sample when compared to previous works based mostly on rich clusters.

We show that the fraction of blue galaxies in a cluster can be completely determined by its redshift and richness (within the measurement errors). The evolution in $`f_B`$ with redshift is real, and occurs at approximately the same rate for clusters of all richnesses.

We thank D. Wittman, J.A. Tyson, A. Dressler, S. Andreon, and the anonymous referee for very helpful comments and suggestions which helped to improve the paper. We also thank the Palomar TAC and Directors for generous time allocations for the DPOSS calibration effort, and numerous past and present Caltech undergraduates who assisted in the taking of the data utilized in this paper. RRG was supported in part by an NSF Fellowship and NASA GSRP NGT5-50215. The DPOSS cataloging and calibration effort was supported by a grant from the Norris Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A starburst is a star formation event with a high star formation efficiency. This usually occurs in the galactic nuclear/central regions. Starbursts and successive supernova explosions cause drastic changes in kinematic and physical conditions of interstellar medium, and produce (expanding) superbubbles, chimneys, and/or large-scale outflows. There is observational evidence for these structures in hot and/or atomic gas in many galaxies (e.g. Fabbiano, 1989; Tenorio-Tagle & Bodenheimer, 1988), but there is much less clear evidence in molecular gas. Starburst phenomena in the nuclear regions are also thought to be closely related to active galactic nuclei (AGNs) powered by massive black holes (MBHs; more massive than a stellar-mass BH), such as fueling AGNs and/or causing the growth of MBHs. One question, “can starbursts produce the seeds of MBHs or middle-mass BHs?,” is still largely unresolved.

Nearby (3.25 Mpc; Sandage & Tammann, 1975) irregular galaxy M82 (NGC 3034) has kilo-parsec scale bipolar outflows which can be seen by optical emission lines (e.g. Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn, 1998) and X-ray (e.g. Bregman et al., 1995) (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82a). This outflow is believed to be made by frequent supernova explosions at the central region in consequence of starburst. Recent X-ray studies have found evidences of an MBH with a mass of $`460M_{}`$ in the starburst region (Matsumoto & Tsuru, 1999; Ptak & Griffiths, 1999). In this region, however, strong dust absorption prevents detailed optical/near-infrared observations, so we performed millimeter-wave observations which would not be affected by the dust.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

Aperture synthesis observations of the central region of M82 were carried out in the 12CO, 13CO, and HCN $`J=10`$ lines (rest frequency = 115.271 GHz, 110.201 GHz, and 88.632 GHz, respectively) with the Nobeyama Millimeter Array (NMA) during 1997 November - 1999 March. All the images were obtained using three configurations of six 10m antennas which are equipped with tunerless SIS receivers (Sunada et al., 1994), and the system noise temperatures in the single side band were about 950 K, 850 K, and 450 K at 115 GHz, 110 GHz, and 89 GHz, respectively. As a back-end, we used an XF-type spectro-correlator Ultra Wide Band Correlator (UWBC; Okumura et al., 2000), with a total bandwidth of 512 MHz over 256 channels for the 12CO observations (corresponding to 1300 km s-1 bandwidth with 5.2 km s-1 velocity resolution), and with a total bandwidth of 1024 MHz over 128 channels for the 13CO and HCN observations (corresponding to 2800 km s-1 and 3500 km s-1 bandwidths with 22 km s-1 and 27 km s-1 velocity resolutions, respectively). The band-pass calibration was done with 3C273, and 0923+392 was observed every 10 minutes as a phase and amplitude calibrator. The flux scale of 0923+392 was determined by comparisons with Mars and Uranus, and has an uncertainty of $`20\%`$.

## 3 EXPANDING MOLECULAR SUPERBUBBLE

The overall distribution in the 12CO total integrated intensity map shows diffuse spurs north and south (minor axis direction) of the galaxy, in addition to the previously identified (Shen & Lo, 1995) three prominent peaks (the so-called North-East \[NE\] and South-West \[SW\] lobes and a central peak). These spurs trace the dark filaments which can be seen in optical B-band images (Alton et al., 1999) (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82b). Similar structures have been detected further out in the filaments (Nakai et al., 1987; Kuno & Matsuo, 1997; Alton et al., 1999) which are connected to the large-scale H$`\alpha `$ and X-ray outflow (Shopbell & Bland-Hawthorn, 1998; Bregman et al., 1995) (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82a), but ours is the first detection close to the disk.

A position-velocity (PV) diagram of 12CO data cut along the major axis of the galaxy (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82b) shows an arc-like deviation from rigid rotation between the central peak and the SW lobe. Such deviations are common features of expanding H I superbubbles (Deul & den Hartog, 1990). In addition, recent literature also suggests that this deviation implies the existence of a molecular superbubble (Neininger et al., 1998; Wei$`\beta `$ et al., 1999; Wills et al., 1999). However, any shell structures have not been detected in spatial image so far, and Wei$`\beta `$ et al. (1999) concluded that the superbubble had already broken toward the minor axis direction of this galaxy. We made a channel map, binning over the velocity range $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=118`$ to 212 km s-1, which corresponds to the range deviates from the rigid rotation (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82c). The map clearly shows a shell-like structure, with a diameter of $`210`$ pc $`\times `$ 140 pc ($`14^{\prime \prime }\times 9^{\prime \prime }`$) elongated toward north-south direction, between the two peaks. This structure is also visible in other molecular lines such as 13CO (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82d) and HCN (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82e). These images indicate that the superbubble is still not broken out of the galactic disk. Around the superbubble, however, there are some spurs connecting with the shell structure, so that it may be possible that some parts of the superbubble were already broken.

If we assume that the shell structure is the result of edge-brightening (Wills et al., 1999), the southern part of the shell should be moving perpendicular to the line-of-sight with nearly the rigid rotation velocity, which corresponds to the systemic velocity of the molecular superbubble. Indeed, the velocity field of the southern shell is very close to rigid rotation (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82c). In addition, the PV diagram shows that almost all of the molecular gas except that of the superbubble is on the rigid rotation (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82b). These reasons lead us to conclude that the expansion velocity of the superbubble is the largest velocity deviation from the rigid rotation seen in the PV diagram; the resultant expansion velocity is $`100`$ km s-1. However, we cannot reject the possibility of an expansion velocity of $`50`$ km s-1, which is the mean velocity deviation in the PV diagram (Wei$`\beta `$ et al., 1999), so we use the velocity range of $`50100`$ km s-1 for the following calculations. Using the velocity and the size of the superbubble derived above, the elapsed time from the explosion can be estimated as $`(12)\times 10^6`$ years. Wei$`\beta `$ et al. (1999) also derived similar timescale of $`1\times 10^6`$ years.

Next, we will estimate the energetics of the superbubble. Using the intensity ratios between the 12CO line and the 13CO and HCN lines, we calculated the CO-to-H2 conversion factor based on the Large-Velocity-Gradient (LVG) approximation (Sakamoto, 1999). The resultant conversion factor is $`(1.4\pm 0.6)\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (K km s-1)-1, which is consistent with the previous observations of $`(1.01.2)\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 (K km s-1)-1 (Wild et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1991). Hence, we adopted our estimated value, and the calculated molecular superbubble mass would be $`1.8\times 10^8`$ M. From this molecular gas mass and the expansion velocity, we derive the kinetic energy of the superbubble to be $`(0.52)\times 10^{55}`$ erg, equivalent to the total energy of $`10^310^4`$ supernovae, and an order of magnitude or more larger than that observed in H I superbubbles in other galaxies ($`<10^{54}`$ erg; Tenorio-Tagle & Bodenheimer, 1988). The energy estimated by Wei$`\beta `$ et al. (1999) was $`2\times 10^{54}`$ erg, similar to ours, although their estimation have a large ambiguity in the volume of the material swept up by the explosion.

## 4 MASSIVE BLACK HOLE INSIDE THE SUPERBUBBLE

At the center of the superbubble, there is a hard X-ray variable point source and a 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak (Fig. Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82c); hard X-ray observations with ASCA indicate that there is a strong point source located in the central region of M82. This source shows time variability in its intensity, which indicates the existence of a MBH with its mass of $`4602\times 10^8`$ M (Matsumoto & Tsuru, 1999; Ptak & Griffiths, 1999). Comparing the ROSAT HRI image (Bregman et al., 1995; Stevens et al., 1999) with the false ROSAT image made from ASCA data (the image using similar energy-band with that of ROSAT), it was found that the position of the hard X-ray variable source is consistent with that of the X-ray peak detected with the ROSAT (Matsumoto & Tsuru, 1999). Detailed comparison between the location of this point source and our newly obtained 12CO map, reveals that the X-ray point source is located at the center of the superbubble. Recent high resolution X-ray observations with Chandra show that there is a variable source inside the superbubble with its peak luminosity of $`9\times 10^{40}`$ erg s-1, assuming this source has a same spectrum as the ASCA variable source (Matsumoto et al., 2000). This result also supports the conclusion that there is a MBH inside the superbubble. On the other hand, the emission from the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak (Dietz et al., 1986; Lester et al., 1990) seems to be dominated by luminous supergiants (Joy et al., 1987), which suggest that it is a late phase dense starburst cluster.

Since these objects are located close to the center of the superbubble, it is natural to think that these objects are related to the superbubble’s formation. We therefore discuss the possibility that the starburst at the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak produces the superbubble and the MBH. We first calculated the stellar population of this 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak cluster assuming an initial mass function (IMF), and estimated the starburst evolution as follows: The luminosity of the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak with an extent (full width at half maximum) of $`4^{\prime \prime }`$ (McLeod et al., 1993) is equivalent to $`1500`$ M2 supergiants. We assume that stars with initial mass larger than 30 M (short-lived stars with lifetimes $`<2\times 10^6`$ yr; Lang, 1998) have already exploded as supernovae, and that the remaining stars with initial masses of $`2530`$ M are now M2 supergiants. Using an extended Millar-Scalo IMF (Kennicutt, 1983) of $`dN/dmm^{2.5}`$ with lower and upper mass limits of 1 and 100, and assuming that there are 1500 stars whose masses are $`2530`$ M, the total stellar numbers and the total mass formed at the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak cluster would be about $`8\times 10^5`$ stars and $`2\times 10^6`$ M, respectively. The number of $`30`$ M stars which would have already exploded in this cluster is $`4\times 10^3`$, consistent with the estimated number of supernovae needed to create the superbubble ($`10^310^4`$). The observational evidence and IMF calculations suggest that the expanding molecular superbubble may be a result of localized starbursts which occurred around the position of the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak.

We next discuss the possibility of making a MBH at the starburst in M82. If we assume that stars with initial mass of $`>25`$ M would create stellar-mass BHs of almost the same mass (Brown & Bethe, 1994), there would be $`4\times 10^3`$ BHs with a total mass of $`2\times 10^5`$ M in the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak cluster. Assuming an isothermal sphere stellar density distribution (Lee, 1995), about $`4\times 10^3`$ M BHs would sink into the cluster center by dynamical friction within $`2\times 10^6`$ yr. This mass is well within the range of that of the MBH estimated from the hard X-ray observations. There is also a possibility of star-star merger. If we assume a merging probability of 0.1% in the cluster, which is a similar probability to the simulations of stellar mergers in star clusters (Portegies Zwart et al., 1999), it is possible to make one $`700`$ M star, or several stars of a few hundred M, in the cluster. Explosions of such very high mass stars can produce $`10^{52}`$ erg or even $`10^{54}`$ erg energy hypernovae (e.g. Paczyński, 1998), which can be seen as $`\gamma `$-ray bursts, and may possibly have created the superbubble and MBH. If we set the lower limit of the BH mass, $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, in this cluster using the hard X-ray observations, and the upper limit using the total mass of the stars which seem to be already exploded ($`30`$ M), the range of the BH mass would be $`4602\times 10^5`$ M. This mass range suggests that this MBH might be a middle-mass BH. Since the cluster mass, $`M_{\mathrm{cluster}}`$, is calculated as $`2\times 10^6`$ M using the IMF, the ratio of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ to $`M_{\mathrm{cluster}}`$ would be $`3.6\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{\mathrm{cluster}})1.0`$. As shown in Figure Formation of a Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Superbubble in M82, this range is on the $`M_{\mathrm{bulge}}`$-$`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ relation for galaxies with supermassive BHs (Magorrian et al., 1998).

Since there are many other clusters in the central region of M82, another question, “why other clusters do not have MBHs?,” would arise. One possibility is lack of stellar density. If their densities are small, the effect of dynamical friction or star-star merging rate may decrease and it may not be possible to make massive objects. The low density clusters would also be affected by tidal force (e.g. Taniguchi et al., 2000) and tend to be smaller clusters which are not large enough to make massive objects. There is another possibility that the MBH was not created at the cluster but supplied from satellite galaxy by minor merger (e.g. Taniguchi et al., 2000). In this case, there are two possibilities of the agreement between the position of the MBH and that of the superbubble; one is just accidentally overlapping each other, and another is that the superbubble is created by the MBH. A BH merging with a compact object (neutron star, white dwarf, etc.) can cause a large energy release ($`10^{54}`$ erg; Mészáros et al., 1999). If the MBH meets with a cluster on the way sinking toward the galactic center, there are possibilities to merge with some compact objects, and as a result, energetic explosions would occur and the superbubble would be made. These discussions still have large ambiguities because of lack of detailed information, so that further observations with many wavelengths/frequencies would be needed.

In future, this middle-mass BH may increase its mass. Since massive stars still exist ($`10^5`$ M) at the 2.2 $`\mu `$m secondary peak cluster, it is possible to feed stars and/or stellar-mass BHs to the middle-mass BH. Also, the middle-mass BH is still not at the dynamical center of M82, and it may sink down to the center with dynamical friction, where mass is strongly concentrated. Therefore there are many ways for the middle-mass BH in M82 to increase in mass and therefore grow up to the supermassive BH. Our results may give a new explanation to the reason why some of the quasars are embedded in interacting (and therefore active star forming) galaxies, and strong $`\gamma `$-ray bursts and middle-mass BHs are located either at or offset from galactic nuclei.

We would like to thank J. Makino, Y. Funato, and anonymous referee for helpful discussion and comments. We also thank B. Wallace for carefully reading our manuscript. We are grateful to the NRO staff for the operation and improvement of NMA. S.M. and H.M. are financially supported by the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad.


text:
# PRECISE MEASUREMENT OF JET ENERGIES WITH THE ZEUS DETECTOR

## 1 Introduction

Through studying jet production at the $`ep`$ collider, HERA, a wide variety of fundamental measurements are possible, such as the determination of the strong coupling constant, $`\alpha _s`$, or information on the gluon content of the photon. To make the measurements as significant as possible, jets have to be reconstructed, optimising the energy resolution and minimising the uncertainty of the absolute energy scale. The accurate reconstruction of jets at the ZEUS experiment generally relies on the precise determination of energies and angles of hits in the uranium-scintillator calorimeter (CAL). Before reaching the CAL, particles pass through approximately one radiation length of dead material in the central region of the detector mainly due to the solenoid magnet between the tracking detector and the CAL. The modelling of the energy lost by particles traversing the solenoid plays the most significant rôle in understanding the absolute energy scale between data and MC.

It has been shown that the energy scale of high-energy scattered positrons in the central part of the CAL is understood to within 1$`\%`$. Similarly, the hadronic energy scale (i.e. the energy carried by particles in the neutral current (NC) final state, excluding the scattered positron) is known to within 2$`\%`$, of which 1$`\%`$ comes from the uncertainty of the positron measurement. The uncertainty when specifically studying jet production (jets in the range of transverse energy, $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}10100`$ GeV) is not the same as the hadronic energy scale because the choice of algorithm and modelling of the jet structure can affect the result. The absolute energy scale uncertainty for jet production is currently known to within 3$`\%`$, which contributes a roughly 15$`\%`$ error on a jet cross section measurement, due to the steeply falling $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ distribution.

This article describes a method capable of reducing the jet energy scale uncertainty to $`12\%`$ as for the case of the electromagnetic and hadronic energy scale uncertainties. First, the reconstruction of Energy Flow Objects (EFOs) is introduced, which optimise the use of tracking and CAL information. Then, a method is outlined which exploits energy and momentum conservation in a high purity sample of NC events to correct the CAL-EFOs for energy loss in the dead material of the detector.

## 2 Jet energy correction method

### 2.1 Energy flow objects

The use of EFOs has been shown to improve the reconstruction of kinematic quantities. Clusters of cells are formed and combined with tracks originating from the primary vertex. In general, for low momentum particles, tracks provide a better measurement of the energy, whereas the CAL is better for high momentum particles. In the case of clusters not matched to a track (from, for example, neutral particles) or tracks not matched to a cluster (where the particle momentum is so small that it does not reach the CAL), the situation is clear. However, for clusters and tracks considered matched (or even many tracks matched to one cluster, etc.), a decision has to be made concerning which quantity (or quantities) to use. For a matched cluster-track system, the resolutions and ratio of energy to momentum are considered in the decision-making process. Using this procedure, a list of track-EFOs and CAL-EFOs is obtained. The track-EFOs are assumed to be an accurate measurement of the particle energy, whereas the CAL-EFOs are subject to energy-loss in the dead material in front of the CAL and must be corrected.

### 2.2 Sample of neutral current events

The conservation of energy and momentum in NC events can be exploited to determine the CAL-EFO energy-correction functions by balancing the momentum of the scattered positron with that of the hadronic final state. Using a method similar to that detailed below, the uncertainty in the ZEUS jet energy-scale has already been determined to within 3$`\%`$. In order to reduce this uncertainty, the form of the function for energy loss, improving the samples of events chosen and using a larger data sample have been studied.

Two samples of events with high momentum transfer, $`Q^2>100`$ GeV2, were used to provide full angular coverage of the detector. A sample of events with high positron $`p_T`$ and a sample of events at high effective longitudinal momentum, $`y`$, were used. The kinematic variables of the positron were reconstructed using the double angle method, which, to first order, is independent of the absolute energy scale of the CAL. The hadronic final state four-vector was calculated from the EFOs reconstructed as above and its momentum components balanced with that of the scattered positron. Each correction for the CAL-EFOs were parametrised as a function of energy. There parameters were determined for several bins of polar angle, $`\theta `$, (reflecting the detector geometry), by minimisation of the following quantity:

$$\underset{\mathrm{sample}1}{}min[\left(\frac{p_T^{\mathrm{DA}}p_T^{\mathrm{had}}}{p_T^{\mathrm{DA}}}\right)^2,0.2^2]+\underset{\mathrm{sample}2}{}min[\left(\frac{y^{\mathrm{DA}}y^{\mathrm{had}}}{y^{\mathrm{DA}}}\right)^2,0.2^2].$$

The minimisation was performed using the MINUIT package and correction factors obtained separately for data and MC. The difference between data and MC may arise from inadequate detail in the description of the dead material in front of the CAL and an inaccurate simulation of the hadronic energy loss process.

### 2.3 Energy correction functions

The CAL clusters were corrected for energy loss using the functional form, $`f(E)=A/E^B`$, where $`E`$ is the cluster energy and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are the correction factors to be determined in each angular region. The result of the fits for both data and Herwig MC are shown in fig. 1. It can be seen that the data and MC show similar trends but differ in detail, justifying the need to perform the fits and apply the corrections separately for data and MC.

## 3 Results

To test the validity of the factors obtained, the correction functions were applied to an independent photoproduction MC sample, where the scattered positron is not detected in the CAL. Jet quantities were reconstructed using both EFOs with and without correction and the transverse energy, $`E_T^{\mathrm{JET}}`$, compared to the “true” hadron-level, $`E_T^{\mathrm{HAD}}`$ as shown in fig. 2.

Before the EFOs are corrected, the deviation from the true value is roughly $`1015\%`$ as shown in fig. 2b. After correction, as in fig. 2a, the transverse energies are significantly closer to the true values, demonstrating that the energy correction helps to reproduce the true quantities when applied to an independent MC sample. The extent to which hadron-level quantities in the data are reproduced and the size of the resulting energy scale uncertainty can be determined by comparing the correction in data and MC separately.

The results of applying the corrections to the same data and MC used to obtain the factors is shown in fig. 3. Here, instead of the $`p_T`$ of the hadronic final state, the transverse energy of the jet, $`E_T^{\mathrm{Jet}}`$, which takes into account the extra uncertainties due to jet reconstruction and is closely related to $`p_T^{\mathrm{HAD}}`$, is considered. As a function of the pseudorapidity of the jet, $`\eta ^{\mathrm{Jet}}`$ ($`=\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)]`$), the data and MC agree to within roughly $`1\%`$.

For the global kinematic quantities, $`p_T`$ and $`y`$, a similar trend was seen, i.e. the data and MC agreed to within $`12\%`$ in all parts of the kinematic region considered.

## 4 Conclusions

A method has been developed for correcting for energy lost in the dead material in front of the ZEUS calorimeter. The procedure relies on a combination of tracking and CAL information. The CAL energy correction is determined using energy and momentum balanced NC events. A more accurate reproduction of the hadronic final state is obtained indicating that the absolute CAL energy scale is reproduced to within $`12\%`$ between data and MC.


text:
# Production of 2H, 3He, and 7Li from Interactions Between Jets and Clouds

## Abstract

The interactions between jets of high-energy nuclei and nuclei of the surrounding medium are studied. Such interactions could be initiated by jets from active galactic nuclei interacting with surrounding cool clouds. The resulting nuclear interactions are found to produce copious amounts of 2H and 3He from the 4He nuclei. These results suggest that jets of particles from quasars could have produced anomalously high abundances in surrounding clouds of some of the nuclides usually thought to characterize big bang nucleosynthesis, specifically, the 2H seen in absorption spectra.

galaxies: jets—nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, abundances  33affiliationtext: National Astronomical Observatory, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-858844affiliationtext: Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-003355affiliationtext: Department of Astronomical Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588

The abundances of the nuclides 2H and 3He have long provided signatures of big bang nucleosynthesis (Hata et al. (1995), Copi, Schramm, and Turner (1995)). In recent years, absorption lines from clouds along the line of sight from a quasar to earth have been used to determine the primordial 2H abundance (Burles and Tytler (1998), Burles and Tytler (1999), Tytler and Burles (1997), Molaro et al. (1999), Kirkman et al. (2000)). The values obtained from these studies were found to be consistent with the traditional value. However, the same technique has also resulted in some “primordial” 2H abundance values (Songaila et al. (1994), Carswell et al. (1994), Rugers and Hogan (1996)) that were up to an order of magnitude larger. Subsequent reanalysis of these systems has suggested that the high 2H abundances do not represent the primordial values, (Burles et al. (1999)), but the issue is not completely resolved (Tosi et al. (1998)). The question of whether of not the high 2H abundance is primordial has been addressed from the standpoint of primordial inhomogenieties in the baryon-to-photon ratio, with the conclusion being that if such inhomogenieties are not responsible for the observed 2H abundance, then processes occurring after the initial primordial nucleosynthesis must be responsible. Two such processes are stochastic and anomalous chemical evolution in Lyman limit systems (Jedamzik & Fuller (1997)). Photoerosion reactions, induced by photons from, e.g., an accreting black hole, on atomic nuclei have also been suggested as a possible source for the production of light elements (Boyd et al. (1989)). Another proposed source of processing is the photon flux from accreting black holes that might have been created from the collapse of an early generation of massive stars formed shortly after decoupling (Gnedin & Ostriker (1992),Gnedin et al. (1995)). However, this model has difficulty in predicting abundances that match observation (Balbes et al. (1996)). In this Letter we show that spallation production of these light nuclides would be the inevitable result of jets of high-energy nuclei hitting nuclei in the surrounding medium contained, e.g., in cool clouds, and that such interactions could readily produce enough 2H in the cloud to explain the high 2H observation. Since both required entities are expected in many quasars, high 2H abundances might be occasionally expected. However, a range of abundances from primordial to roughly the high values could be produced by this mechanism.

We have studied the production of 2H and 3He from interactions between jets and clouds, both entities commonly associated with quasars and AGNs. The 2H and 3He would be produced from interactions between 1H amd 4He from a jet interacting with 1H and 4He (assumed primordial abundances) in ambient gas. A localized buildup of 2H and 3He would result from these interactions and, as we show below, could readily lead to 2H and 3H abundances more than an order of magnitude larger than the “low” primordial 2H abundance. Such abundances might then produce the observed high 2H absorption features from very distant quasars, so could provide a natural explanation for the origin of the “high” 2H abundance.

We have assumed parameters for the jets and clouds that are typical of those seen in AGNs. Typical sizes of clouds around active galactic nuclei are 400 solar radii, with typical densities of 1011 particles cm-3 (Peterson (1997)); this corresponds to roughly a 10-6 M object. For convenience, we have assumed the clouds to be cylinders with equal diameters and thicknesses, and with the axis of symmetry in the direction of the jet. This is about what is required to stop 100 MeV protons, or 400 MeV 4He nuclei, so it is appropriate to assume that such clouds would stop the high-energy nuclei. Since there are thought to be many clouds ($``$ 105) about each active galactic nucleus and, presumably, quasar, any jet might well process material in many clouds. For AGN jets, 1 M y-1 is a plausible value for the jet output (although this doesn’t really matter; the product of the jet intensity that intersects a cloud and the time during which they interact is what matters), and their breadth would be expected to exceed the size of a typical cloud by a large factor. Typical jet radii at the cloud are about 0.01 - 0.1pc (Lobanov (1997), Peterson (1997)), so the fraction of mass actually incident on the cloud is proportional to the fraction of cloud and jet cross sectional areas. Therefore, we have assumed a cloud of 10-6 M is bombarded by a jet of 100 MeV protons and 400 MeV 4He nuclei at a rate of 10-3 M year-1 (although only the total flux matters).

Production by spallation of 2H and 3He was examined by means of a computer code which determines the yields of various spallation reactions caused by collisions between incident high-energy nuclei and the nuclei at rest within a stopping medium. As a high-energy projectile enters the stopping medium and is slowed by electronic energy loss, it may undergo one of several nuclear reactions in a collision with a target nucleus at rest. The code tracks the 4He particles through the cloud, calculating the fraction of incident particles that undergo each possible reaction that destroys incident nuclides and creates other nuclei as reaction products, as well as those that come to rest in the stopping medium. The reaction products are also tracked through subsequent possible reactions or to their being deposited in the stopping medium. The incident material and the reaction products are assumed to be well mixed in the stopping medium so that, given that the total jet mass is assumed to be less than 10% of that of the stopping medium, the cloud nuclei are not significantly depleted or diluted.

Spallation cross sections were taken from the literature when available (Meyer (1972)); the reactions included in the code are listed in Table 1. However, a paucity of data for many of the reactions necessitated calculations of some cross sections. It appears (Rogers et al. (1970)) that the direct reaction mechanism is primarily responsible for the reactions

$${}_{}{}^{4}He+p^3H+2p,$$
(1)
$${}_{}{}^{4}He+p^3He+n+p$$
(2)
$${}_{}{}^{4}He+p^3He+d.$$
(3)
Thus the secondary particle energy distributions of the outgoing 3He and 2H particles were calculated by the direct reaction code DWUCK (Kunz ). Such calculations require specification of the nuclear optical potential parameters. Those for reactions involving protons follow the general parametrization of Menet et al. (1971) as shown in Perey and Perey (1976). While this parametrization was based on a study of lower energy protons (30 to 60 MeV) than some of those with which we are concerned, the fit to higher energy data is quite similar to parameter sets determined from higher energy data (Perey and Perey, (1976), Schwandt et al. (1982)). For reactions involving deuterons, the parametrization of Perey and Perey (1976) was also employed, but with the spin-orbit parameters of Lohr et al. (1974) added on. The use of these parameters gave results that closely matched the experimental results of Rogers et al. (1969). Potential parameters for $`\alpha `$-particles followed Perey and Perey (1976).

Little information exists for the three-body final state reactions, although one study (Brinkmöller et al. (1990)) indicates that the three-body final states tend to smear out the structure seen in the energy distributions of the two-body final state reactions. Some peaking toward the higher energies is suggested by the one existing data set. Thus we assumed two possibilities as extreme cases: (a) one in which the distributions of the reaction products were constant with energy, and (b) one in which the distributions were enhanced by a factor of two for the particles in the top quarter of the energy distributions. This change produced effects in our results only at the 1% level; the highest energy component is small. However, this procedure did allow a test of the sensitivity of the results to the shape of these poorly known cross sections. The magnitudes of the cross sections for the three-body final states are unknown. Thus we assumed they scaled with energy as does the 1H(4He,3He)d cross section; their ratio was then fixed at the one energy at which the three-body final state reaction, 1H(4He,n p)3He, was studied (Brinkmöller et al. (1990)). Data for the interaction of 4He with 4He are in similarly short supply. Thus we simply assumed that, for such interactions, the yields would be three times the values for 4He interacting with protons at the same center of mass energy, as recommended by Meyer (1972).

The production of mass 7 elements is included via the reaction 4He(4He,n/p)7Be/Li, and the inverse reaction is also included, with cross-sections given by Mercer et al. (1997) and Abramovich et al. (1984). Recent studies on mass 7 nuclei give total reaction cross sections for the proton interactions with 7Li and 7Be (Carlson et al. (1985)), and excitation above the particle emission threshold is obtained by subtracting the inelastic scattering cross sections to the first excited states of these nuclei (Locard et al. (1967)). This is appropriate because excitation of states higher lying than the first excited state in either 7Be or 7Li results in destruction of the nucleus.

Figure 1 shows the results of one set of our calculations. The results are presented there in a way that allows that graph to be used as a universal predictor that depends only on the cross sections used in the calculations, i.e., the abundances of the light nuclides are given as a function of the fraction of the total mass of the cloud Mdeposited that was added by the jet. The value of Mdeposited is given by

$$M_{deposited}=(dM/dt)_{jet}tf_{overlap}$$
(4)
where (dM/dt)jet is the rate of mass output within the jet, t is the time during which the jet interacted with the cloud, and foverlap is the fraction of the jet that actually interacts with the cloud. As can be seen from Fig. 1, when the mass of the cloud has increased by 1% from the matter added by the jet, the abundances of 3He (which includes that of 3H) and 2H have already increased appreciably, roughly by a factor of four, from those normally associated with primordial nucleosynthesis. Furthermore, their abundances when 10% of the mass of the cloud has been added are roughly a factor of 30 above their primordial values. Their abundances for this jet energy level off gradually as additional mass is added, due to (1) our assumption that the density of the cloud remains constant, i.e., the volume of the cloud increases with the amount of mass transferred to it by the jet (and the cloud is well mixed), and (2) the fact that the fraction of 4He nuclei that are destroyed depends only on the energy. The values for even larger mass depositions can be as much as a factor of five higher than those achieved at 10% added mass, although amounts of added mass to the cloud in excess of that might well destroy the cloud.

The parameters of the jet and the cloud assumed for this calculation are typical of actual systems, as noted above. The cloud mass assumed was 10-5 M, the jet output was 1 M y-1, and foverlap was taken to be 10-3. Therefore, the mass deposited into the cloud was 0.001 M y-1. In the case of this mass flux, the cloud mass will increase considerably in a relatively short amount of time. While this is probably an unrealistically short time scale for a physical situation, the relevant parameter is the ratio of the transferred mass to the total mass of the cloud. The context in which the actual time scale might matter would be if reactions occurred on time scales that were shorter than or the order of the $`\beta `$-decay halflives of the unstable nuclei created: 7Be and 3H. Assuming, though that those nuclides always decay, rather than interact again, they will merely contribute to the abundances of 7Li and 3He. Thus the abundances of these unstable nuclides are simply summed with those of their stable isobars in Figure 1.

That Figure shows how the 2H abundances increases with the amount of jet mass that interacts with the cloud. Also seen to increase are the abundances of 3He and 7Li, in all cases well above their primordial values. Thus the jet-cloud interaction mechanism is clearly capable of producing large abundances of 2H, 3He, and 7Li even when the nuclei of the jet and the reaction products from the reactions it precipitates are admixed into a considerably larger cloud mass.

The energy chosen for the case for which the results are shown in Fig. 1 was selected to be well above the thresholds for producing the 7Li, 3He, 3H, and 2H reaction products. As might be expected, even larger 2H, 3He and 7Li abundances are observed at higher energies. However, the increases with energy are not large, as the fragile reaction products made at the higher initial energies tend to be destroyed. At 100A MeV 8% of the high-energy 4He will be spalled into lighter nuclides, while at 500A MeV the fraction increases to 26%. However, increases in energy do not necessarily produce more 3He and 2H. The production of 2H and 3He peaks at around 500A MeV, as those nuclei, if produced at energies above 500A MeV, will essentially all be destroyed by subsequent spallation reactions. We have further assumed that the high energy particles stop in the medium in which the interactions that produce the 2H and 3He occur. This is clearly not a critical assumption, although if the medium were thin enough for the high-energy particles to emerge with energies above the reaction thresholds, then the resulting 2H and 3He abundances would decrease accordingly.

Could the clouds that are associated with AGNs or quasars be identified as the intergalactic clouds that produce the absorption lines? A fascinating consequence could exist within our own galaxy, the core of which has been observed to contain much higher deuterium abundances than expected (Lubowich et al. (2000)). While primordial infall is a suggested possibility, the observations are consistent with the possibility that the galactic center resulted from jet-cloud interactions in an AGN. The clouds in which we have assumed the processing of 4He to 2H and 3He are close to the central engine of the quasar and are at a higher density than those in which the absorption occurs. However, the jets that we have assumed to interact with the clouds would impart momentum to the clouds, which would be loosely bound to the quasar. Although the jet-cloud interaction is complex (see, e.g., Wang et al. (2000)), it does seem plausible that the clouds in which the jet-cloud interactions occur could evolve into those in which the 2H absorption occurs. Indeed, as noted above, a spread in the values of the 2H abundance would be expected, and this is not inconsistent with that observed (see references in the introductory paragraph) in distant absorption clouds. Note, though, that if the jet-cloud mechanism is found to be important, the values observed for 2H will provide a lower limit on the primordial deuterium abundance; averaging those values would lead to too high a “primordial” abundance.

Finally, 7Li is predicted to have a very large abundance compared to either solar system or primordial abundances. This overabundance would be consistent with the enhanced Li abundance inferred in the galactic center (Lubowich et al. 1998). Note that, if the jet-cloud interaction is the explanation, this 7Li enhancement must accompany the enhanced 2H abundance; the two are produced concurrently by interactions within the same primordial material. Thus the dual enhancement of 2H and 7Li constitutes a test of this model. Mixing subsequent to the jet-cloud interaction with material processed in stars would distort the ratio of those abundances from those predicted here. Furthermore, the actual ratio of the abundances depends on the energy of the particles in the jet; the abundance ratio of 2H to 7Li if the $`\alpha `$-particles in the jet have 200 MeV of energy is 25, whereas it is 500 at 1000 MeV. Even with an uncertain amount of mixing and a large uncertainty in the energy of the particles in the jet, though, the qualitative feature of a large dual enhancement would be preserved.

In summary, the results of calculations describing the interactions between nuclei in intersecting jets and clouds has shown that large abundances of 2H, 3He, and 7Li can be produced therefrom. This might provide an explanation for the observed anomalously high “primordial” 2H abundance. This mechanism also provides a way for producing 2H, normally thought to be only destroyed by galactic chemical evolution. Although prediction of the specific enhancements of 2H, 3He, and 7Li that could result in clouds is complicated by the several parameters needed to fully define the situation, it is clear that the spallation mechanism can produce copius quantities of these nuclides. The possibilities of such production might also be expanded to the realm of higher-metallicity regions. Many QSO spectra seem to indicate considerable abundances of the CNO elements (Hamann & Ferland (1999)). Future work will concentrate on the jet interactions with clouds enhanced in these heavier elements.

We note that, if the spallation production of 2H and 3He is common, it should be relatively easy to find situations in which these nuclides have been produced by searching for other absorption lines from quasars. This mechanism would be expected to produce a wide range of values of the observed 2H abundance, ranging from the true “primordial” value to the maximum that can be produced by this mechanism, apparently even greater than the highest deuterium value yet observed. Such observations could constitute a confirmation of the jet-cloud spallation model.

This work was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-9513893 and PHY-9901241. The authors wish to thank an anonymous referee for several excellent comments and suggestions.


text:
# Constraints in the 𝜆₀-Ω₀ plane from gravitational lensing

## 1. Introduction

Since the details of the gravitational-lensing effect depend on the cosmological model, it offers a means of determining the cosmological parameters $`H_0`$, $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ by comparing expectations from different cosmological models with observations. Advantages of using gravitational lensing to learn about the cosmological model include the fact that it is based on relatively well understood astrophysics and that it makes use of information from an intermediate redshift range, complementing tests which use information primarily from the low-redshift (e.g. cosmic flows) or high-redshift (e.g. cosmic microwave background fluctuations) regimes.

I review simultaneous constraints on the cosmological parameters $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ from gravitational lensing. (Constraints on $`H_0`$ are discussed in other contributions in this volume; in particular, Schechter discusses constraints from lensing.) The emphasis is on systematic extragalactic surveys for strong gravitational lenses, mainly the largest and best-defined such survey, JVAS/CLASS. However, other methods of constraining $`\lambda _0`$ using (mostly strong) gravitational lensing are also discussed. After briefly reviewing the basic theory and history of the subject, I present the currently available constraints and briefly (since this is covered in other contributions in this volume, such as that by Lineweaver) touch on joint constraints with other cosmological tests. Finally, I discuss systematic errors and prospects for the future.

In general, one can derive constraints on $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ from gravitational lensing when there is more than one source plane involved (e.g. Golse, Kneib, & Soucail 2000). This is the case in most examples of weak lensing and cluster lensing. Also, arc statistics (e.g. Bartelmann et al. 1998) can give information about the cosmological model, not only since more than one source plane is involved, but also since this is sensitive to the evolution of structure (the lenses in this context), which also depends on the cosmological model. Another possibility is provided by higher-order effects in measuring $`H_0`$ through gravitational-lens time delays; the time delay is inversely proportional to $`H_0`$, but there is a weaker, non-linear dependence on $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Finally, the statistical analysis of gravitational-lens surveys provides a potentially powerful method of measuring the cosmological parameters.

## 2. Time Delay

The basic idea behind using the time delay in a gravitational-lens system, i.e. the time between seeing variations in the brightness of one image and seeing similar variations in the brightness of another image, is a simple one: Most observables in a gravitational-lens system (angles, brightness ratios etc) are dimensionless; measuring the time delay provides the scale for the lens system. Cosmological distances depend linearly on (the reciprocal of) $`H_0`$ but $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ enter at higher order. Thus, measuring time delays in systems with various values of $`z_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`z_\mathrm{s}`$ might enable one to put constraints on $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. This technique was already mentioned by Refsdal (1966) but at present there are too few lens systems and too many observational and lens-modelling uncertainties for this method to provide useful constraints on $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. For a discussion of future prospects, see Haarsma, Lehár, & Barkana (2000).

The basic equation is

$$H_0=(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^1Tf,$$
(1)
where $`f`$ is a quantity which depends only on observables and the lens model and $`T`$ is the cosmological correction function (Refsdal 1966, Kayser & Refsdal 1983). Since

$$T=\frac{H_0}{c}\frac{D_\mathrm{d}D_\mathrm{s}}{D_{\mathrm{ds}}}(1+z_d)\frac{z_\mathrm{s}z_\mathrm{d}}{z_\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{s}},$$
(2)
there is the natural behaviour

$$T0\text{for}z_\mathrm{s}0.$$

## 3. Gravitational-Lensing Statistics

### 3.1. Basic Principles

Gravitational-lensing statistics—the number of gravitational lenses found in a survey and their properties such as image configuration (including multiplicity, image separations and flux ratios), source and lens redshifts, nature of lens galaxies etc—depends on the cosmological model, the properties of the lens galaxy population, the properties of the source population and on selection effects. The influence of the cosmological is quite large, since two effects occur which tend to reinforce each other (see, e.g., Appendix A in Quast & Helbig (1999)):

* The volume element $`\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}z}`$ influences the number of lenses. It is of course the redshift $`z`$ and related quantities which are observed. The volume element as a function of redshift is strongly dependent on the cosmological model. Thus, if one fixes the space density of galaxies at $`z=0`$, varying the cosmological parameters can greatly vary the number of potential lens galaxies per redshift interval at higher redshift. (Of course, if one has observed the number of potential lens galaxies per redshift interval at higher redshift, then this is an additional constraint; here, I assume that the space density of galaxies is fixed at $`z=0`$ and free, i.e. determined by the cosmological model through $`\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}z}`$, at higher redshift.)
* The cross section of an individual galaxy depends on a combination of various angular size distances. The dependence of the angular size distances on the cosmological model (e.g. Kayser, Helbig, & Schramm 1997) thus means that the lensing cross section of an individual galaxy has a dependence on the cosmological model.

The total lensing cross section obviously depends on the number of potential lens galaxies and the cross section of an individual galaxy. Both of these depend on the cosmological model and the two effects tend to reinforce each other.

In general, the larger $`\lambda _0`$ the more lenses one expects, especially for $`\lambda _0>0`$. The number of lenses, however, is only one measurable quantity and due to parameter degeneracy, just ‘counting lenses’ will give weaker constraints. Traditionally, lensing statistics has tended to give comparatively tight upper limits on $`\lambda _0`$, especially in the often studied flat-universe case. It is important to keep in mind that, as with other constraints in the $`\lambda _0`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ plane, the actual values for the best-fit model are less interesting than more robust limits (cf. Helbig 1999).

Following the formalism in Kochanek (1996), for each source in a survey one can calculate the probability $`p_{\mathrm{lens}}`$ that it is a lens system with the observed properties; for non-lens-systems, the probability that they are non-lenses is obviously $`1p_{\mathrm{lens}}`$. For a given cosmological model, the total likelihood is just the product of the likelihoods for the individual objects in the survey, i.e. information from both the lenses and the non-lenses is used (see, e.g., Appendix A in Quast & Helbig (1999)). One can thus assign a relative probability to each cosmological model. Of course, there is a dependence on quantities other than $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as well. In the new results presented below, we consider all other variables to take fixed, observationally determined values and concentrate on the corresponding constraints in the $`\lambda _0`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ plane (see Helbig et al. (1999) and references therein for more details).

### 3.2. Some History

Turner, Ostriker, & Gott (1984) presented the first quantitative lensing-statistics analysis, but assumed $`\lambda _0=0`$. Fukugita et al. (1992) generalised the Turner et al. treatment to non-zero $`\lambda _0`$, and concluded that $`\lambda _0<0.95`$. Kochanek (1996) came to the more quantitative conclusions that $`\lambda _0<0.66`$ (95%) for $`k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0>0.15`$ (90%) for $`\lambda _0=0`$. This paper is in some sense the definitive analysis, but it is important to remember that it is not based on the best input data. In particular, it is based on optical quasar surveys. Not only is the $`m`$-$`z`$ relation for QSOs not particularly well-known—especially since the $`m`$-$`z`$ relation should apply to QSOs with the same selection criteria as those in the gravitational-lens survey—but selection effects in optical gravitational-lens surveys are more difficult to quantify. It should be noted that Falco, Kochanek, & Muñoz (1998) obtain a higher value of $`\lambda _0`$ based on radio data. This gives some idea of the uncertainties involved. Using only radio data, Falco et al. (1998) obtain $`\lambda _0<0.73`$ ($`2\sigma `$) for $`k=0`$; using combined radio and optical data, they get $`\lambda _0<0.62`$ ($`2\sigma `$) for $`k=0`$. This paper is also interesting since it quantitatively details how the constraints change depending on various assumptions. Helbig et al. (1999) presented an analysis based on the JVAS gravitational-lens survey, which is reasonably large but also well understood. Since in the interesting part of parameter space, lensing statistics essentially measures $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, reducing the results to just a few numbers gives $`2.69<\lambda _0\mathrm{\Omega }_0<0.68`$ (95%); for $`k=0`$: $`0.85<\lambda _0<0.84`$.

In passing, it should be remembered that the redshift of lens galaxies alone is also sensitive to the cosmological model, but the situation here is not clear (see Helbig 2000a for discussion and references).

### 3.3. Radio Lens Surveys

There are many good reasons to do a gravitational-lens survey in the radio as opposed to optical:

* Using interferometry, the beam size is much smaller than the image separation.
* Flat-spectrum objects are compact (i.e. (almost) point sources), allowing typical lensing morphologies to be recognised easily.
* Somewhat related to the previous point, the lensing probability depends on the cross section determined by the lens population; for extended sources, the source geometry partially determines what is recognised as a lens system.
* Most sources are quasars at high redshift, which leads to a high lensing rate.
* Since flat-spectrum objects are compact, they can be variable on relatively short timescales, which aids in determining time delays.
* There is no bias from lens galaxies due to extinction by the lens or comparable brightness of source and lens, as can be the case with optical surveys.
* High-resolution followup is possible with interferometers such as MERLIN, the VLBA, VLBI….

But there is one disadvantage:

* Additional work is required to get redshifts.

By far the largest gravitational-lens survey is CLASS, the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (e.g. Helbig 2000b). (JVAS is essentially a subset of CLASS, consisting of the stronger sources.)

CLASS covers the range in image separation of 0.3–6 arcsec. It was later extended up to 15 arcsec, and a smaller survey using a different strategy extends up to 60 arcsec. (These additions are not reflected in the table.) One wide-separation lens candidate remains (see Phillips et al., these proceedings).

While the actual survey is complete, the followup of the lens system is not. Thus, here I present only preliminary results: $`0.8<\lambda _0\mathrm{\Omega }_0<0.3`$ (95%); for $`k=0`$: $`0.1<\lambda _0<0.65`$. Note that the lower limit on $`\lambda _0`$ (cf. Quast & Helbig 1999) in a flat universe is $`>`$0. It is important to realise the difference between constraints being compatible with a certain cosmological model and favouring a certain cosmological model. For instance, until recently the constraints in the $`\lambda _0`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ plane from gravitational-lensing statistics were so broad that the Einstein-de Sitter model was not ruled out. However, this was never the preferred model; many cosmological models were compatible with the data. Also, since the best-fit model usually occurs in a region of parameter space where the gradient in the probability density is rather flat, the actual best-fit model is very sensitive to noise in the input data; more interesting are the much more stable regions enclosed by a given confidence-level contour.

A more definitive analysis will be done when all lenses are confirmed and enough observational data on lens systems and on the source population are available, taking all errors into account:

* statistical errors (including propagation from errors on input quantities)
* systematic errors $``$ statistical errors, i.e. we hope to eliminate systematic errors, mainly due to our ignorance about details of the source population, by turning them into statistical errors by observationally constraining the corresponding quantities
* sample variance (due to relatively small number of lens systems)

## 4. Conclusions and Outlook

* Despite vast improvements on both the observational and theoretical sides, the upper limit on $`\lambda _0`$ has been a remarkably stable number in the astronomical literature.
* We can already place a statistically strong upper limit on $`\lambda _0`$.
* Gravitational-lensing statistics is already hinting at a positive lower limit on $`\lambda _0`$, at least in a flat universe. While there is abundant evidence for a positive cosmological constant based on various combinations of cosmological tests, at present only the $`m`$-$`z`$ relation for type Ia supernovae (see e.g. the contributions by Perlmutter and Kirschner in these proceedings) is the only cosmological test which indicates this by itself; it would thus be nice to have another test which can do so.
* When the analysis of the CLASS gravitational-lens survey is complete, this will improve in the sense that the statistical errors will become smaller and systematic effects will be reduced; whether or not the upper limit on $`\lambda _0`$ decreases depends, of course, on what the value of $`\lambda _0`$ actually is and to what extent current estimates are biased.
* We will have a robust upper limit on $`\lambda _0`$ soon when the $`S`$-$`z`$ plane for CLASS is better understood. The $`S`$-$`z`$ plane enters into the calculation in two respects, since it determines both the flux-density dependent redshift distribution, which is needed to estimate the redshifts of the non-lensed sources in CLASS, and the redshift-dependent luminosity function, needed for the calculation of the amplification bias. (See McKean et al., these proceedings, for some information about current work in this area.)
* We will be able to provide an independent check on constraints from $`m`$-$`z`$ relation (SN Ia), CMB, (evolution of) LSS and clusters, weak lensing, cluster lensing etc.
* Looking farther ahead, many more lens systems will be found in the future in both radio and optical surveys. Since the Poisson noise due to the small number of systems is at present a source of appreciable uncertainty, progress can be expected just from finding more lens systems (after doing the corresponding analysis, of course).
* Even when the cosmological parameters are known, perhaps more precisely through (a combination of) other methods, gravitational-lensing statistics will still be interesting: It will be possible to use gravitational-lensing statistics to constrain variables other than $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, and thus study galaxy evolution, the source population etc.

#### Acknowledgments.

I thank the organisers of IAU Symposium 201 for inviting me to give this review and the JVAS and CLASS teams for doing the work to provide the numbers on which my preliminary analysis of the CLASS results is based. This research was supported by the European Commission, TMR Programme, Research Network Contract ERBFMRXCT96-0034 “CERES”.

## References

Bartelmann, M., Huss, A., Colberg, J. M., Jenkins, A., & Pearce, F. R. 1998, A&A 330, 1

Falco, E. E., Kochanek, C. S., & Muñoz 1998, ApJ 494, 47

Fukugita, M., Futamase, K., Kasai, M., & Turner, E. L. 1992, ApJ 393, 3

Golse, G., Kneib, J.-P., & Soucail, G. 2000, in L2K: Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing, ed. J.-P. Kneib, Y. Mellier, M. Moniez & J. Tran Thanh Van (in press, astro-ph/0007153)

Haarsma, D., Lehár, J., & Barkana, R. 2000, in Gravitational Lensing: Recent Progress and Future Goals, ed. T. G. Brainerd & C. S. Kochanek (in press, astro-ph/0008326)

Helbig, P. 1999, A&A 350, 1

Helbig, P. 2000a, in L2K: Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing, ed. J.-P. Kneib, Y. Mellier, M. Moniez & J. Tran Thanh Van (in press, astro-ph/0008198)

Helbig, P. 2000b, in L2K: Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing, ed. J.-P. Kneib, Y. Mellier, M. Moniez & J. Tran Thanh Van (in press, astro-ph/0008197)

Helbig, P., Marlow, D., Quast, R., Wilkinson, P. N., Browne, I. W. A. & Koopmans, L. V. E. 1999, A&AS 136, 297

Kayser, R., Helbig, P., & Schramm, T. 1997, A&A 318, 680

Kayser, R., & Refsdal, S. 1983, A&A 128, 156

Kochanek, C. S. 1996, ApJ 466, 638

Quast, R., & Helbig, P. 1999, A&A344, 721

Refsdal, S. 1966, MNRAS 132, 101

Turner, E. L., Ostriker, J. P., & Gott III, J. R. 1984, ApJ 284, 1


text:
# Wormholes and Spacetime Foam: an approach to the cosmological constant and entropy

## Abstract

This paper summarizes the contribution presented at the IX Marcel Grossmann Meeting (Rome, July 2000). A simple model of spacetime foam, made by $`N`$ Schwarzschild wormholes in a semiclassical approximation, is here proposed. The Casimir-like energy of the quantum fluctuation of such a model and its probability of being realized are computed. Implications on the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the cosmological constant are considered. A proposal for an alternative foamy model formed by $`N`$ Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter wormholes is here considered.

The term Spacetime Foam was used for the first time by J.A. Wheeler to indicate that spacetime may be subjected to quantum fluctuations in topology and metric at the Planck scale . Since then a lot of work has been done, especially in the direction of string theory and of Euclidean Quantum Gravity, to see if a nontrivial vacuum can be considered for a quantum theory of gravitation. In this paper we will consider a different approach based on a proposed model of spacetime foam, made by $`N`$ coherent Schwarzschild wormholes . The main reason which has led to consider such a model is based on a Casimir energy computation described by the following Hamiltonian

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\left(M\right)=E\left(M\right)E\left(0\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{Schw.}H_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{Flat}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H_{ql}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(1)
The first term represents the difference of the Hamiltonians evaluated on the Schwarzschild and flat spacetime respectively and the second term has the same meaning of the first one, but it is evaluated on the boundary of the manifold. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a trial wave functional of the gaussian form restricted to the traceless-transverse sector (TT), which is gauge invariant. No matter contribution has been considered. The one-loop contribution shows that quantum fluctuations of the gravitational metric shift the minimum of the effective energy from flat space ( the classical minimum for the energy) to a multi-wormhole configuration. Indeed the total energy contribution to one loop is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{N_w}E\left(M\right)N_w^2\frac{V}{64\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{e},$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the system, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the U.V. cut-off and $`N_w`$ is the wormholes number. This expression shows that a non-trivial vacuum of the multi-wormhole type is favoured with respect to flat space. It is important to remark that it is the $`N`$ \- coherent superposition of wormholes that it is privileged with respect to flat space and not the single wormhole, because the single wormhole energy contribution has an imaginary contribution in its spectrum: a clear sign of an instability. Nevertheless the presence of an unstable mode is necessary to have transition from one vacuum (the false one) to the other one (the true vacuum). Three consequences of this multiply connected spacetime are:

1. the event horizon area of a black hole is quantized and by means of the Bekenstein-Hawking relation, also the entropy of a black hole is quantized. In particular for a Schwarzschild black hole, one gets

$$M=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{2l_p}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi }},$$
(3)
namely the black hole mass is quantized.
2. A cosmological constant is induced by vacuum fluctuations as shown by Eq. $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ whose value is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4l_p^2}{N_w8e\pi }.$$
(4)
When the area-entropy relation is applied to the de Sitter geometry, we obtain

$$\frac{3\pi }{l_p^2\mathrm{ln}2N_w}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c.$$
(5)
3. Combining Eq. $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ and Eq. $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$, one gets

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4l_p^2}{N_w8e\pi }=\frac{3\pi }{l_p^2\mathrm{ln}2N_w}.$$
(6)
This means that we have found a constraint on the U.V. cut-off

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^4=\frac{24e\pi ^2}{\mathrm{ln}2l_p^4}.$$
(7)
This last consequence, although very encouraging, because at first glance the model seems to be U.V. finite, needs a very careful examination and interpretation. In fact, since we have adopted a certain number of approximations, Eq. $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$ could be only an artifact of the calculation scheme. It is interesting to note that Eq. $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ can be obtained at least for $`N_w=1`$ even for Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter wormholes. In this case, the Hamiltonian is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(M,b)=E(M,b)E\left(b\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{SAdS}H_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{AdS}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H_{ql}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(8)
where $`b=\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$, the first term represents the difference of the Hamiltonians evaluated on the Schwarzschild-Anti-de Sitter and Anti-de Sitter spacetime respectively and the second term always represents a subtraction procedure on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This means that a selection rule has to emerge to compare the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{AdS}\mathrm{holes}}=\frac{P_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{AdS}\mathrm{holes}}}{P_{\mathrm{AdS}}}\frac{P_{\mathrm{foam}}}{P_{\mathrm{AdS}}}$$
(9)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{holes}}=\frac{P_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{holes}}}{P_{\mathrm{flat}}}\frac{P_{\mathrm{foam}}}{P_{\mathrm{flat}}}.$$
(10)
In both cases, we find a non-vanishing probability that a non-trivial vacuum has to be considered. However in the case of Eq. $`\left(\text{10}\right)`$, we have obtained that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{holes}}=P\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{8\pi l_p^2}V_c\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right|^2,$$
(11)
which for the de Sitter case becomes

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(3\pi /l_p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\right).$$
(12)
Thus we recover the Hawking result about the cosmological constant approaching zero. Note that the vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is related to the growing of the wormholes number. Although these results are quite encouraging, an important question comes into play: why a space-time formed by wormholes has to be preferred with respect to the flat one, when the last one is the one we observe. The answer that at this stage can only be conjectured is that if we consider the following expectation value on the foam state

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_F\left|\widehat{g}_{ij}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}{\mathrm{\Psi }_F|\mathrm{\Psi }_F},$$
(13)
when the number of wormholes is large enough, i.e. the scale is sufficiently large, we should have to obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_F\left|\widehat{g}_{ij}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}{\mathrm{\Psi }_F|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}\eta _{ij},$$
(14)
where $`\eta _{ij}`$ is the flat space metric. This is a test that this foamy model has to pass if phenomenological aspects have to be considered.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. R. Ruffini who has given to me the opportunity of participating to the Conference. I would like also to thank Prof. A. Perdichizzi for a partial financial support.