text:
# UCL-IPT-01-06 Natural Relations in the Standard Model

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA). We would like to thank J.-M. Gérard and J. Weyers for a critical reading of the manuscript.

## Appendix

## Appendix A Self-energies in the Yukawa sector

After spontaneous breakdown of the symmetry, the Yukawa sector Lagrangian for quarks reads:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}_Y& =& \overline{u}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_dd_R\varphi ^+& +& \overline{d}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_dd_R\varphi ^0& +& \overline{d}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}u_L\varphi ^{}& +& \overline{d}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}d_L\varphi ^0\\ & +& \overline{u}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_uu_R\varphi ^0& & \overline{d}_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_uu_R\varphi ^{}& +& \overline{u}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}u_L\varphi ^0& & \overline{u}_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}d_L\varphi ^+\\ & +& \overline{d}_LM_dd_R& +& \overline{u}_LM_uu_R& +& \overline{d}_RM_d^{}d_L& +& \overline{u}_RM_d^{}u_L\end{array}$$

The Lagrangian fields and parameters are renormalized:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}u_{L,R}& & u_{L,R}^{}& =& (Z_{L,R}^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{L,R}\\ d_{L,R}& & d_{L,R}^{}& =& (Z_{L,R}^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}d_{L,R}\\ M_u& & M_u^{}& =& (Z_L^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Z_{M_u})^1M_u(Z_R^u)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\ M_u& & M_d^{}& =& (Z_L^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}(Z_{M_d})^1M_d(Z_R^d)^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}$$

The one-loop calculation of the fermion self-energies leads to (the first term corresponding to the neutral current intervention ; the second, to the charged current intervention – see figure 1):

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Z_L^u=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]& & & Z_L^d=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]\\ Z_R^u=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]& & & Z_R^d=1\frac{ϵ}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]\\ Z_{M_u}=1ϵ[0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_d^{}]& & & Z_{M_d}=1ϵ[0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{}]\end{array}$$
(11)
with $`ϵ=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}\right)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off and $`\mu `$ an arbitrary energy scale (one checks that $`Z_L^u=Z_L^d`$ as expected). Those results are true only up to a term proportional to the identity in the flavour space, which would take into account the electromagnetic, weak transversal and strong contributions, as well as the tadpole ones. But since this term would factor out in the final result, which is supposed to involve exclusively mixing parameters and up\- or down-type mass ratios, we chose not to write it down. The finite parts of the diagrams are omitted.

From (11), one derives the mass matrices corrections in the weak base

$`M_u^{}`$ $`=M_u+ϵ[M_dM_d^{}M_uM_uM_u^{}M_u]`$
$`M_d^{}`$ $`=M_d+ϵ[M_uM_u^{}M_dM_dM_d^{}M_d]`$
and in the physical base

$`U_L^{}M_u^{}U_R`$ $`=D_u+ϵ[KD_d^2K^{}D_uD_u^3]`$
$`V_L^{}M_d^{}V_R`$ $`=D_d+ϵ[K^{}D_u^2KD_dD_d^3]`$
where we have absorbed a $`\frac{3}{4}\frac{2}{v^2}`$ factor in $`ϵ`$, $`v`$ being the scalar VEV, and where $`D_u`$ and $`D_d`$ are the tree-level diagonal mass matrices while $`K`$ is the tree-level Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Let us repeat that those expressions do not include the finite parts of the radiative correction, and that they account for the sole (neutral and charged) scalar exchanges in the fermion self-energies.

One can rewrite those last expressions as follows

$`M_u^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=D_u+ϵ_u`$
$`M_d^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=D_d+ϵ_d`$
and proceed to the diagonalization of $`M_u^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`M_d^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e.

$`U_L^{}M_u^{\prime \prime }U_R^{}`$ $`=D_u^{}`$
$`V_L^{}M_d^{\prime \prime }V_R^{}`$ $`=D_d^{}`$
where

$$D_u^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_u+ϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}}& \\ & m_c+ϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}\end{array}\right)U_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta _u\\ \theta _u& 1\end{array}\right)$$

$$D_d^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_d+ϵ_{d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}}& \\ & m_s+ϵ_{d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}\end{array}\right)V_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta _d\\ \theta _d& 1\end{array}\right)$$

with

$$\theta _u=\frac{m_uϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}}+m_cϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}}}{m_c^2m_u^2}\text{and}\theta _d=\frac{m_dϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}}+m_sϵ_{u\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}}}{m_s^2m_d^2}$$

The one-loop mixing matrix is defined by

$$K^{}=U_L^{}KV_L^{}$$

so that the one-loop mixing angle reads

$$\theta ^{}=\theta \theta _u+\theta _d$$

Inserting the value of $`ϵ_u`$ and $`ϵ_d`$ in $`\theta ^{}`$, $`D_u^{}`$ and $`D_d^{}`$, leads to the equations (3).

## Appendix B Divergent radiative corrections to $`\lambda `$

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=\lambda _\theta \delta \theta +\lambda _{r_u}\delta r_u+\lambda _{r_d}\delta r_d`$
$`=2\mathrm{sin}2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{(1r_u^2)(1r_d^2)}{2r_ur_d}}\delta \theta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r_d(1r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)r_d(1+r_u^2)(1r_d^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2r_u^2r_d^2}}\delta r_u`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r_u(1+r_u^2)(1r_d^2)r_u(1r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2r_u^2r_d^2}}\delta r_d`$
$`=ϵ\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+r_u^2)(1r_d^2)}{2r_ur_d}}(m_d^2m_s^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(1r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)}{2r_ur_d}}(m_u^2m_c^2)\right]`$
$`+ϵ\mathrm{sin}^22\theta {\displaystyle \frac{(1+r_u^2)(1r_d^2)}{2r_ur_d}}(m_d^2m_s^2)`$
$`+ϵ\mathrm{sin}^22\theta {\displaystyle \frac{(1r_u^2)(1+r_d^2)}{2r_ur_d}}(m_u^2m_c^2)`$
$`=0`$
Fig. 1: relevant divergent diagrams involved in the calculation of the renormalization constants.


format: text

text:
# Centaurus A as the Source of ultra-high energy cosmic rays?

## I Introduction

In acceleration scenarios ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) with energies above $`10^{18}`$eV are assumed to be protons accelerated in powerful astrophysical sources. During their propagation, for energies above $`50`$ EeV ($`1EeV=10^{18}eV`$) they lose energy by pion production and pair production (protons only) on the microwave background. For sources further away than a few dozen Mpc this would predict a break in the cosmic ray flux known as Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff , around $`50`$EeV. This break has not been observed by experiments such as Fly’s Eye, Haverah Park, Yakutsk, Hires and AGASA, which instead show an extension beyond the expected GZK cutoff and events above $`100`$EeV. This situation has in recent years triggered many theoretical explanations ranging from conventional acceleration to new physics as well as the construction of large new detectors .

In bottom-up scenarios of UHECR origin, in which protons are accelerated in powerful astrophysical objects such as hot spots of radio galaxies and active galactic nuclei , one would expect to see the source in the direction of arrival of UHECRs. The lack of observed counterparts to the highest energy events  implies the existence of large scale intervening magnetic fields with intensity $`B0.11\mu `$, which would provide sufficient angular deflection, or bursting sources and a magnetic field of intensity $`B10^{11}`$G which would impart sufficient time delay to UHE protons to explain their lack of correlation in time of arrival with optical or high energy photons . It has been realized recently that magnetic fields as strong as $`1\mu `$G in sheets and filaments of large scale structure, such as our Local Supercluster, are compatible with existing upper limits on Faraday rotation .

Such strong magnetic fields would have profound consequences for the propagation of charged ultra-high energy cosmic rays . In particular in the presence of a magnetic field of strength $`B0.1\mu `$G, and for a source at distance $`10`$Mpc, UHECRs with energy $`E100`$EeV would diffuse, while higher energy cosmic rays would propagate rectilinearly. The resulting modification of the energy spectrum would explain naturally the observed spectrum for a unique power-law injection of index $`2.2`$. In Ref., we further showed that a large number of such sources in the Local Supercluster, at distance scale $`10`$Mpc and an ambient magnetic field $`B0.1\mu `$G would explain the large scale isotropy of arrival directions observed by AGASA. It would also explain the observed small-scale angular clustering (five doublets and one triplet within $`2.5^o`$ out of 57 events above $`40`$EeV) by magnetic lensing effects through the large scale turbulent magnetic field.

At first sight this suggests the possibility of having only one object in the Sky as the source of all UHECRs with $`E5`$EeV, including the highest energy events. Two versions of such single source scenarios have recently been put forward in the literature: one with an extreme version of a coherent Galactic magnetic wind structure in which all observed UHECRs supposedly can be traced back to M87 in the Virgo cluster , and a second one with Centaurus A at 3.4 Mpc distance with an all-pervading magnetic field of intensity $`B0.3\mu `$. In the present paper we examine critically the latter of these scenarios using detailed numerical simulations for the energy spectrum and the angular distribution of UHECRs propagating in magnetic fields of r.m.s. strength between 0.3 and 1 $`\mu `$G.

## II Numerical Simulations

Trajectories are calculated from the Lorentz equation in a given magnetic field and pion production is treated as stochastic energy loss while pair production is included into the equations of motion as a continuous energy loss term. This numerical tool has been used and discussed in earlier publications .

We assume a homogeneous random turbulent magnetic field with power spectrum $`B(k)^2k^{n_B}`$ for $`2\pi /L<k<2\pi /l_c`$ and $`B^2(k)=0`$ otherwise. We use $`n_B=11/3`$, corresponding to Kolmogorov turbulence, in which case $`L`$, the largest eddy size, characterizes the coherence length of the magnetic field; we use $`L1`$Mpc, which corresponds to a few turn-arounds in a Hubble time. Physically one expects $`l_cL`$, but numerical resolution limits us to $`l_c0.008L`$. We generally use $`l_c0.03`$Mpc, but we checked by increasing the resolution for several runs that it has no effect on the results discussed in the following. The magnetic field modes are dialed on a grid in momentum space according to this spectrum with random phases and then Fourier transformed onto the corresponding grid in location space. The r.m.s. strength $`B`$ is given by $`B^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2B^2(k)`$.

Typically, 5000 trajectories are computed for each magnetic field realization obtained in this way for 10-20 realizations in total. Each trajectory is followed for a maximal time of 10 Gyr and as long as the distance from the observer is smaller than double the source distance. We have also checked that the results do not significantly depend on these cut-offs. Furthermore, the distance limit is reasonable physically as it mimics a magnetic field concentrated in the large scale structure, with much smaller values in the voids, as generally expected.

In Fig. 1, we show the angular distribution of UHE events as seen on Earth in equatorial coordinates, for two ranges of energies $`E40`$EeV, and $`E100`$EeV, and for $`B=0.3\mu `$G, with Cen–A as the source. These images are averaged over different spatial realizations of the magnetic field. The distributions for specific realisations are more anisotropic than the average due to cosmic variance. The angular distribution predicted by this one source model is thus not consistent with the isotropic distribution deduced by experimental data . This is even more clearly demonstrated by Fig. 2, which gives the distribution in declination of arrival coordinates of UHE events. The source Cen–A is located at $`\mathrm{RA}=201.3^o`$, $`\delta =43.0^o`$ in equatorial coordinates, and corresponds to the peak of flux in Figs. 1,2.

Cen–A does not lie in the field of view of experiments that have provided data so far such as the Fly’s Eye and AGASA. This and the fact that the angular deflection of particles with $`E100`$EeV is relatively small has an important consequence for the energy spectrum predicted by this model: The Northern hemisphere experiments should never have detected the highest energy events, for which the angular deflection is too weak to bring the particle in the field of view. This is made clear in Fig. 3, where we compare the spectrum predicted for AGASA with the actually observed spectrum, assuming an injection spectrum $`E^2`$ up to $`10^{21}`$eV. The prediction is obtained by folding the simulated distribution in energy $`E`$ and arrival direction $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`D(E,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, with the normalized AGASA exposure function $`\mathrm{AGASA}(\delta )`$ (which to a good approximation only depends on declination $`\delta `$):

$$j(E)d\mathrm{\Omega }D(E,\delta )\mathrm{AGASA}(\delta ).$$
(1)
For reference, we also show in Fig. 3 the spectrum that would be observed by an idealized detector covering the whole sky uniformly, and by a mirror AGASA experiment located in the Southern hemisphere. The solid angle integrated spectrum $`d\mathrm{\Omega }D(E,\delta )`$ observed by a uniform detector is still different from the injection spectrum ($`E^2`$) at low energies, while the two match at high energies. This results from an increased local residence time due to diffusion at low energies, and rectilinear propagation (hence unaffected energy spectrum) at high energies . The pile-up around $`E40`$EeV due to pion production of higher energy particles, also contributes to the change of slope at low energies.

The scenario just discussed, which is already ruled out by the energy spectrum and large-scale isotropy recorded by Northern hemisphere detectors, has been proposed by Farrar & Piran  on analytical grounds to explain all observational data. The discrepancy, as will be discussed in greater detail in Section 3, results from the fact that they argued that diffusion held up to the highest energies, whereas in fact the diffusion approximation breaks for $`E100`$EeV, implying much larger anisotropies at these energies. The impact of angular anisotropy on the energy spectrum for a source located in the blind area of Northern hemisphere detectors had also been overlooked in Ref. .

For the scenario with $`B=0.3\mu `$G we have also established a rough estimate of the minimal number of sources necessary to explain existing observations in the following way: We overlayed distributions from single sources in random directions (for simplicity chosen to be at equal distances as Cen–A) and computed the average and fluctuations of the declination distributions of UHECR arrival directions. The minimal number of sources is determined by requiring that the distribution is consistent with isotropy within the fluctuations and turns out to be 5–10.

We now investigate whether stronger magnetic fields, by providing larger angular deflection, might provide a better match to the observational data. In particular, we focus on the case where $`B=1\mu `$G, and Cen–A is again the unique source of UHECRs. The resulting arrival distribution in declination is shown for several ranges of energies in Fig. 4, and the resulting energy spectra, calculated as before, is shown in Fig. 5. Increasing the magnetic field strength increases the maximal energy at which diffusion takes place, hence it decreases the anisotropy at each energy up to that maximal energy, and thus reduces the differences between the spectra seen by different detectors (AGASA, uniform, and Southern hemisphere analogue of AGASA).

The large-scale anisotropy in this case is much smaller and could not have been detected by Northern hemisphere experiments such as the Fly’s Eye and AGASA. The predicted energy spectrum for AGASA does provide a very good fit to the observed spectrum, see Fig. 5, but the difference is not sufficient to rule out this scenario on this ground. However, we note that it is unlikely that the highest energy Fly’s Eye event would have been detected in this model. This event of energy $`E=320\pm 93`$EeV makes an angle of $`136^o`$ with the line of sight to Cen–A . By folding the energy probability distribution for the Fly’s Eye event with the simulated distribution of deflection angles and energies one finds that 95% of events with a recorded energy corresponding to the Fly’s Eye event are deflected less than $`130^o`$.

Thus the present observational evidence is not sufficient to rule out with a high degree of confidence the possibility that Cen–A is the source of all ultra-high energy cosmic rays, if the intervening magnetic field $`B1\mu `$G. Notably, one cannot rule out the possibility of having a magnetic configuration different from Kolmogorov turbulence, in which case the modification of the energy spectrum would be different than what is shown in the present simulations. For instance, it has been proposed that the magnetic field is not all pervading, but strongly enhanced in regions close to radio-galaxies that were active in the past , in which case the configuration seen by UHECRs would be a collection of scattering centers rather than Kolmogorov turbulence.

However, if future or ongoing experiments in the Northern hemisphere, e.g. the High Resolution Fly’s Eye  and AGASA  keep recording cosmic rays above $`200`$EeV with large deflection angles from the line of sight to Cen–A, even the scenario with $`B1\mu `$G would be unequivocally ruled out. Similarly, if no significant anisotropy is seen between these experiments and the Pierre Auger project  at the highest energies, the model would be discarded. As an example, we calculate from Eq. (1) the fractional difference $`\delta I(I_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{S})/(I_\mathrm{N}+I_\mathrm{S})`$ of integral fluxes $`I_\mathrm{N}`$ and $`I_\mathrm{S}`$ that would be seen by detectors in the Northern and Southern hemispheres above a given energy (for simplicity, we use exposure functions for AGASA and an analogous one for the Southern hemisphere, as before). We find $`\delta I0.19`$ for $`E100`$EeV, and $`\delta I0.78`$ for $`E300`$EeV. These numbers can also very roughly been estimated from Fig. 4. Anisotropies of this size should be easily detectable by a full sky observatory such as the Pierre Auger project  which is currently under construction.

We note in this context that we have assumed in all our simulations that the source emits only protons. If the source is sufficiently compact, protons could convert into neutrons within the source. As pointed out in Ref. , for sources as close as Cen–A, neutrons at the highest energies could survive decay and produce a spike in the direction of the source. This can only increase anisotropy. Preliminary simulations performed with our code indicate that the total flux in the $`2^{}`$ pixel centered on the source is significantly (i.e. by a factor $`2`$) increased only above $`300`$EeV.

We stress that $`B1\mu `$G corresponds to the upper limit inferred on the strength of the magnetic field in the Local Supercluster from Faraday rotation observations of distant quasars . Strictly speaking, the rotation measure is a function of $`B\sqrt{L}`$, where $`L`$ denotes as before the coherence scale of the field, provided that $`LR`$, where $`R`$ represents the size of the medium pervaded by the magnetic field (for the Local Supercluster $`R1050`$Mpc). In principle, the coherence length $`L`$ could be smaller than $`1`$Mpc, used in the previous Section, and $`B`$ correspondingly larger. However, as will be discussed in the next Section, the diffusion coefficient $`D(E)`$ scales inversely proportional with $`L`$, so that by decreasing $`L`$, one would increase $`D(E)`$ correspondingly, and the diffusion approximation would break down at a smaller energy, thereby increasing the anisotropy at higher energies. We thus find that one cannot decrease $`L`$ and increase $`B`$ to improve the fit to the data. Moreover, notwithstanding this fact, if diffusion were to be more efficient at the highest energies observed, the effective distance traveled would be consequently increased, and the GZK cut-off would be more pronounced, which would further aggravate the disagreement with the observed spectrum.

We thus conclude that $`B1\mu `$G seems to be the only value of $`B`$ that would be marginally consistent with Cen–A as the source of observed UHECRs. We further note that if equipartition of energy holds, the magnetic field intensity is tied to the thermal energy density of the ambient gas:

$$B=0.5\mu \mathrm{G}T_7^{1/2}\kappa _{10}^{1/2}h_{70},$$
(2)
where $`T_7T/10^7`$K is the temperature of the Local Supercluster in units of $`10^7`$K, and $`\kappa _{10}\kappa /10`$, with $`\kappa `$ the collapse factor (i.e., the local overdensity of baryons and electrons), and $`h_{70}`$ the Hubble constant in units of $`70`$km/s/Mpc. The gas cools by bremsstrahlung emission in the keV range, which in principle can be observed. A marginal detection of X-ray emission correlated with the plane of the Local Supercluster has actually been reported and corresponds to a collapse factor $`\kappa _{10}1`$, with a weak dependence on the assumed temperature $`T10^8`$; the signal is however weak and these parameters could be in error. Numerical simulations of large-scale structure formation indicate that $`\kappa _{10}1`$ and $`T10^7`$K are probably upper limits for sheets such as the Local Supercluster, and seem to better describe the filamentary structures . Deep searches for soft X-ray emission correlated with the plane of the Local Supercluster using the XMM-Newton or Chandra observatories could improve these limits, and appear mandatory.

## III Comparison with analytical estimates

Let us now compare these results with analytical estimates in an approach similar to . There is often confusion in the literature about different regimes of diffusion and corresponding expressions for the diffusion coefficient. It is dangerous to take analytical expressions too literally as there exists no analytical derivation of diffusion coefficients in the limit in which the turbulent component of the magnetic fields becomes comparable or stronger than a (putative) uniform component, the so-called strong turbulence regime. In this respect, one should note that the formula for the diffusion coefficient given in Ref. , now used without caution in the community, does not correspond to an analytical derivation. It is a phenomenological formula, that is furthermore shown to be in error in Ref. , where analytical approximations and accurate measurements of diffusion coefficients obtained through Monte-Carlo simulations are presented. Notably, this latter study shows that for Kolmogorov turbulence the diffusion coefficient can be approximated as:

$`D(E)`$ $``$ $`0.02E_{20}B_6^1\mathrm{Mpc}^2/\mathrm{Myr}E_{20}<E_\mathrm{c},`$ (3)
$``$ $`0.02E_{20}^2B_6^2L^1\mathrm{Mpc}^2/\mathrm{Myr}E_{20}>E_\mathrm{c}.`$ (4)
In this expression, $`E_{20}`$ is the UHECR energy in units of $`100`$EeV, $`B_6`$ is the magnetic field strength in units of $`\mu `$G, $`L`$ is in units of Mpc and $`E_\mathrm{c}=1.45B_6L`$ (in units of $`100`$EeV) corresponds to the condition $`r_\mathrm{L}=L/2\pi `$, where $`r_L=0.11E_{20}B_6^1`$Mpc is the Larmor radius. Note the difference of the above result with the formula given in Ref. , for which $`D(E)E^{1/3}`$ for $`E_{20}<E_\mathrm{c}`$, and $`D(E)E`$ for $`E_{20}>E_\mathrm{c}`$. The dependence of $`D(E)`$ for $`E<E_\mathrm{c}`$ in Eq. (4) above agrees with the phenomenological Bohm diffusion coefficient $`D_\mathrm{B}r_\mathrm{L}c`$ within a factor two.

The diffusive regime as well as the transition to nearly rectilinear propagation can also be seen in the dependence of time delay $`\tau `$ (defined as the difference between the total propagation time and the straight flight distance $`d/c`$) on energy $`E`$ shown in Fig. 6 for $`B_6=1`$ and Cen–A as the source: In the diffusive regime the average time delay $`\tau (E)d^2/4D(E)`$, where $`d`$ is the source distance, whereas for $`E_{20}3`$, in the regime of almost rectilinear propagation, $`\tau (E)1.7\times 10^8\mathrm{yr}E_{20}^2d_{\mathrm{CenA}}^2LB_6^2`$ , where $`d_{\mathrm{CenA}}d/3.4`$Mpc. The values obtained for $`D(E)d^2/4\tau (E)`$ from Fig. 6 in the diffusive regime are consistent with Eq. (4) within the width of the distribution.

Note that according to Eq. (4) a largest eddy size $`L`$ considerably smaller than 1 Mpc (which is not excluded) would lead to less diffusion, tending to make anisotropies even larger.

Using these results, one can understand the situation encountered in the previous section. In the diffusive regime one finds that the ratio of the diffusive propagation time (which is equal to the time delay in this approximation) to the source distance reads: $`\tau (E)/d16E_{20}^2B_6^2Ld_{\mathrm{CenA}}`$, for $`E_{20}>E_\mathrm{c}`$. Diffusion ceases to be a good approximation when $`\tau (E)/d`$ is no longer $`1`$. For instance, $`\tau (E)/d>2`$ requires $`E_{20}<3B_6L^{1/2}`$. This corresponds to a maximal energy for diffusion of $`100`$EeV when $`B0.3\mu `$G, and $`300`$EeV when $`B1\mu `$G. These numbers are in agreement with the results of the previous section. Note that the ratio of the diffusive propagation time to the source distance also corresponds to the ratio of the source distance to the mean free path for scattering on the magnetic inhomogeneities $`D/c`$ within a factor four.

The difference betwen our results and Ref.  can be explained as a misuse of the diffusion coefficient given in Ref.  by the authors of Ref. , and to some extent, by the fact that that diffusion coefficient itself has the wrong scaling with $`E`$, $`B`$, and $`L`$. More precisely in Ref.  the authors use the diffusion coefficient $`D(E)0.05\mathrm{Mpc}^2/\mathrm{Myr}E_{20}^{1/3}B_6^{1/3}L^{2/3}`$  (note that the present prefactor is the correct one; their Eq. (1) has a numerical error) on the whole energy range, whereas according to Ref. , this scaling is only valid when $`r_\mathrm{L}L/2\pi `$, or as above $`E_{20}E_c=1.45B_6L`$. This makes an important difference, because, had the authors of Ref.  used the other limiting regime they quote, namely $`D0.1E_{20}B_6^1\mathrm{Mpc}^2/\mathrm{Myr}`$, valid for $`E_{20}1.45B_6L`$, they would have found that the ratio of the diffusive distance traveled to source distance reads $`d/4D2.6E_{20}^1B_6d_{\mathrm{CenA}}`$, which shows that $`B>1\mu `$G is necessary to achieve diffusion up to the highest energies $`E_{20}3`$. Instead, they used the former approximation, giving $`d/4D5.3E_{20}^{1/3}B_6^{1/3}L^{2/3}d_{\mathrm{CenA}}`$, which due to the (incorrect) weak scaling would let believe that diffusion can be achieved easily with $`B0.3\mu `$G on the whole range of energies.

One should mention that the transition between diffusive and rectilinear regimes of propagation is not sudden; it stretches over half an order to an order of magnitude. As one approaches this transition, the anisotropy increases steeply to match the small angle deflection in the rectilinear regime $`\theta _E140^{}E_{20}^1B_6L^{1/2}d_{\mathrm{CenA}}^{1/2}`$ . Therefore it is incorrect to assume that the diffusive estimate for the anisotropy remains valid up to the transition energy.

Finally, Ref.  (unlike Ref. ) also base their calculations for the flux of particles detected at Earth on a time-dependent solution of the diffusion equation, but one should rather use a stationary solution corresponding to a continuously emitting source. Indeed if Cen–A were a bursting source, or more generally a source emitting only once on a timescale $`t_{\mathrm{em}}\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$, where $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smallest time delay imparted to all UHECRs, or equivalently, the time delay at the highest energies observed, an experiment like AGASA would record events only in a limited range of energies . In other words the distance $`d_D`$ of the diffusion front from the source at time $`t`$ is given by $`d_D(E)=6D(E)t`$, and depends on energy. At the present time at which AGASA is operating, the front of low energy particles would not have yet reached the Earth, while that of higher energy particles would already have passed. From Fig. 6 one sees that at any given time AGASA would record only part of the total energy spectrum, since particles with $`E=10`$EeV arrive at time $`\tau 10^9`$yrs, while particles with $`E=100`$EeV arrive at times $`\tau 10^8`$yrs.

This implies that if Cen–A is the source of all UHECRs, it has to be a continuously emitting source, or, what amounts to the same, an intermittent source that emits on timescales $`t_{\mathrm{em}}`$, with quiescent periods of duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{min}[\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (E)]`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (E)`$ denotes the spread of time delays at energy $`E`$, and the condition ensures that the various contributions of the various bursts of particles largely overlap so as to produce a featureless energy spectrum at all times. Furthermore, since no low energy cut-off in the energy spectrum has been seen down to energies $`5`$EeV, Cen–A must have been active for a time corresponding to the largest time delay possible $`\tau (5\mathrm{EeV})+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (5\mathrm{EeV})`$. For $`B1\mu `$G, we find that Cen–A must have been producing UHECRs intermittently for the past $`10`$Gyrs. Whether this is realistic or not can hardly be constrained on theoretical grounds. The above constraints on the duration of the periods of activity and quiescence $`t_{\mathrm{em}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ read $`t_{\mathrm{em}}10^7`$yrs, and similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, which are reasonable orders of magnitude for the evolution timescale of Cen–A . The age of Centaurus A can be estimated from the time necessary for its jets to extend to their present size $`250`$kpc, i.e. between $`10^8`$yrs and a $`\mathrm{few}`$Gyrs, depending on the deceleration during extension, so that for our purposes this age is essentially unknown. Note that Centaurus A is a radio-galaxy with sub-relativistic jets, and without hot spots; the lobes are not particularly active, with a total bolometric luminosity $`10^{39}`$ergs/s .

The constraints of Ref.  on the energy requirement must thus be reconsidered. In the stationary regime, the flux at Earth reads $`E^2j(E)=E^2q(E)/(4\pi )^2D(E)d`$, where $`q(E)`$ is the injection spectrum at the source. One easily calculates that, assuming $`q(E)E^2`$, in order to produce the energy weighted flux measured by cosmic ray experiments $`10^{24.5}`$eV<sup>2</sup>m<sup>-2</sup>s<sup>-1</sup>sr<sup>-1</sup>, one requires a UHECR emission power $`𝒫_{\mathrm{UHECR}}10^{39}B_6^1d_{\mathrm{CenA}}`$ergs/s at the source. Note that this represents the average power; the actual power during the phase of activity is higher and reads $`𝒫_{\mathrm{UHECR}}(t_{\mathrm{em}}+\mathrm{\Delta }T)/t_{\mathrm{em}}`$. The above $`𝒫_{\mathrm{UHECR}}`$ is thus a strict lower limit, which is nevertheless more optimistic than the $`10^{43}`$ergs/s obtained in Ref .

As an aside, we note that the above constraint on the age of Centaurus A can be generalized to any such source of UHECRs, namely that the time delay at the lowest energies be smaller than the age of the source, and thus also the age of the Universe. The propagation time at $`5`$EeV reads, using Eq. (4): $`\tau 2.8\mathrm{Gyrs}B_6d_{\mathrm{CenA}}^2`$. Imposing $`\tau 14`$Gyrs gives a general constraint between the distance $`d`$ to the source and the strength of the intervening magnetic field:

$$\left(\frac{B}{1\mu \mathrm{G}}\right)\left(\frac{d}{10\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^20.6$$
(5)
Even if there are several sources contributing to the cosmic ray flux, this limit should hold unless the sources conspire to add their individual piecewise contribution in such a way as to form a featureless energy spectrum. When there are many sources the above constraint disappears, as the central limit theorem would guarantee that a featureless spectrum would be produced; this is notably one of the peculiarities of the $`\gamma `$ray burst model of UHECR origin .

## IV Conclusions

Our detailed numerical simulations show that the model considered in Ref. , in which Centaurus A is the source of all observed UHECRs, is inconsistent with the data, at least for the magnetic field strength $`B0.3\mu `$G put forward by these authors. We find that for a magnetic field strength $`B1\mu `$G, the predicted energy spectrum is in marginal agreement with that observed by AGASA. However the large deflection angle of the highest energy event (the Fly’s Eye event) with respect to the line of sight to Cen–A must be explained as a $`2\sigma `$ fluctuation. We also argued that this magnetic field intensity saturates the observational upper bounds from Faraday rotations and on X-ray emission from the ambien gas. This model can be tested by improving these upper limits with current experiments. We also showed that in order to explain all UHECRs down to $`E5`$EeV, Cen–A must have been producing UHECRs for the past $`10`$Gyrs. All these facts are rather strong requirements on the source and on the intervening magnetic fields. We thus find anew a conclusion obtained in previous studies , namely it is much more likely that a few sources within $`10`$Mpc from the Earth would produce the observed ultra-high energy cosmic ray flux, and that the ambient magnetic field strength in the Local Supercluster $`B0.10.5\mu `$G. Work is in progress to quantify the number of sources needed and the distance scale for various values of the magnetic field strength. Ongoing and future ultra-high energy cosmic ray experiments , by increasing the statistics at the highest energies, will soon provide much tighter bounds on the number of UHECR sources.

## Acknowledgements

G.S. would like to thank Luis Anchordoqui, Pasquale Blasi, Glennys Farrar, Haim Goldberg, Tsvi Piran, and Tom Weiler for detailed discussions of this subject.


text:
# Explosions and Outflows during Galaxy Formation

## INTRODUCTION

The release of energy that occurs during galaxy formation can have important consequences. We present 3D gas dynamical simulations of the effect of energy release by supernovae (SNe) on the evolution of the halo in which the explosions take place, the surrounding large-scale structure, and the IGM.

Structure formation from Gaussian random noise is highly anisotropic, favoring pancakes and filaments over quasi-spherical objects. However, pancake fragmentation results in the formation of quasi-spherical halosalv01 ; alv02 ; mar01 ; val97  with density profiles similar to the universal profilenfw97  found in CDM simulations. This suggests that pancake fragmentation may be used to study galaxy formation. This provides a good compromise between simulations of structure formation in CDM models, with limited resolution, and those of isolated virialized objects, which ignore cosmological initial and boundary conditions. We use our $`\mathrm{ASPH}/\mathrm{P}^3\mathrm{M}`$ method to simulate the formation of a halo at the intersection of two filaments in the plane of a cosmological pancake which collapses at scale factor $`a=a_c`$, in an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ universe with baryon fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}=0.03`$ (see exp01 ; exp02  for further description). These simulations also describe early galaxy formation in a flat, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The explosion is induced at scale factor $`a_{\mathrm{exp}}/a_c2`$, when the central gas density first exceeds $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}/\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}=1000`$, by boosting the thermal energy of this central gas to the level $`E_{\mathrm{exp}}=\chi _{\mathrm{halo}}`$, where $`_{\mathrm{halo}}`$ is the total thermal energy of gas in the halo, for four cases: $`\chi =0`$, 10, 100, and 1000.

## RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the pancake-filament-halo structure at $`a/a_c=3`$, with and without explosions. For all cases, the dark matter distribution is essentially the same as the gas distribution for $`\chi =0`$. The pancake and filaments ensure that a highly anisotropic explosion results, channelling the energy and mass ejection along the symmetry axis. The ability of explosions to eject metal-enriched gas depends on $`\chi `$. For $`\chi =10`$, relatively little gas is blown out of the halo, and is quickly re-accreted. For $`\chi >100`$, most of the halo gas is blown out. However, as shown in Figure 2, infall along the pancake plane continues despite the explosion and replenishes the ejected halo gas very efficiently, although the final gas fraction $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is below the cosmic mean value by an amount which increases with increasing $`\chi `$. Even the most energetic explosions fail to disturb the pancake and filaments.

Each dimensionless, scale-free simulation for a given $`\chi `$ can be applied to any particular halo mass $`M_{\mathrm{halo}}`$ at any epoch by adjusting the values of $`\lambda _p`$ (the wavelength of the primary pancake) and collapse redshift $`z_c`$ when converting to physical units. We can also use Milky Way (MW) star formation efficiencies and IMF to estimate a typical value $`\chi _{}(\lambda _p,z_c)`$ of the explosion parameter $`\chi `$, for each $`\lambda _p`$ and $`z_c`$. $`\chi 100`$ is required to eject gas and metals into the IGM. This matches MW efficiencies only for $`M_{\mathrm{halo}}10^7M_{}`$, for both cluster-normalized SCDM (i.e. $`\lambda _p<0.2\mathrm{Mpc}`$) and COBE-normalized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$) (i.e. $`\lambda _p<0.3\mathrm{Mpc}`$). However, gas replenishment by continued infall may enable a single halo to contribute multiple outbursts. Halos $`<10^{10}M_{}`$ form early enough to cause heavy element distribution prior to $`z=3`$. Only the smallest mass objects, however, can expect to do so if limited to MW efficiencies. Such small mass halos are also the ones which are most likely to form early enough that they may explode before the reionization of the IGM is complete, after which the enhanced IGM pressure inhibits gas ejection. Otherwise efficiencies greatly exceeding MW values are required.

A final determination of the success or failure of heavy element distribution by SN explosions in low-mass halos forming at high redshift will depend sensitively on the efficiencies of star formation and SN energy release, and the relative timing of these explosions versus universal reionization. Our results suggest that heavy element distribution at the observed level of $`10^3`$ solar in the IGM could have been accomplished most efficiently by low-mass objects prior to the completion of universal reionization. (NASA ATP grants NAG5-7363 and NAG5-7821, NSF grant ASC-9504046, and Texas Advanced Research Program grant 3658-0624-1999).


text:
# Intrinsic Percolative Superconductivity in Heavily Overdoped High Temperature Superconductors

\[

## Abstract

Magnetic measurements on heavily overdoped $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$, $`Tl_2Ba_2CuO_6`$, $`Bi_2Sr_2CuO_6`$ and $`Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8`$ single crystals reveal a new type magnetization hysteresis loops characterized by the vanishing of usual central peak near zero field. Since this effect has been observed in various systems with very different structural details, it reflects probably a generic behavior for all high temperature superconductors. This easy penetration of magnetic flux can be understood in the picture of percolative superconductivity due to the inhomogeneous electronic state in heavily overdoped regime.

\] The mechanism of high temperature superconductors ( HTS ) remains puzzling and one of the most attractive topics in condensed matter physics. An essential focus lies on the understanding to the parabolically shaped superconducting area in the generic electronic phase diagram containing several phases depending on the hole doping level: underdoped, optimally doped and overdoped. The contrasting properties in the normal state between an underdoped and an overdoped sample tempt to ascribe the superconductiviy to different condensation processes. For example, one picture suggests that the superconducting transition is a Bose-Einstein condensation in the underdoped region and the BCS type condensation in the overdoped region . The crossover from the non-Fermi liquid in the underdoped region to the approximate Fermi liquid behavior in the overdoped region may manifest that most of the doped holes join the conduction in the normal state. Recent data from the measurement on the penetration depth $`\lambda `$ , show that, however, the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ drops with the doping level p when $`p>0.19`$. This leads to a difficult point that in the heavily overdoped regime, the more charge carriers are doped, the less superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ will be. Therefore, the doped holes in the overdoped region seem to be separated into two parts, only part of them will condense into a lower energy state leading to the superconductivity.

In our previous papers , we have presented a preliminary evidence to show that the electronic state in the overdoped region may be inhomogeneous . According to this picture, superconducting condensation will occur first in some local region ( with less holes ) to form some tiny superconducting islands. The extra holes on these superconducting islands will be expelled to the surrounding area to form a hole-rich non-superconducting metallic sea and the bulk superconductivity will be established by the Josephson coupling or proximity effect between these islands. This picture is different from the Swiss-Cheese model proposed early by Uemura  which involves only a microscopic inhomogeneity. Therefore it warrants always further investigations until it is finalized with solid experimental evidence. If this picture is correct, one should be able observe the percolative superconductivity in the heavily overdoped region. In this Letter, for the first time, we present a new type magnetization hysteresis loop ( MHL ) characterized by the vanishing of the central penetration peak. This effect can be explained quite well by the picture based on the percolative superconductivity.

Single crystals measured for this work were prepared by the traveling solvent floating-zone technique ( LSCO, Bi-2201 ) and the self-flux method ( Tl-2201 and Bi-2212 ). Several single crystals have been investigated for this study. Our major conclusion here has been re-checked by using many crystals of LSCO, Tl-2201, Bi-2201 and Bi-2212. The data from Bi-2201 and Bi-2212 will not be shown here due to the length limit of this paper. All these single crystals have rather narrow superconducting transitions as observed from the temperature dependent magnetization measurement. The X-ray diffraction pattern ( XRD ) taken from these single crystals show very good crystallinity without any trace of a second phase. All these guarantee the generality of the major conclusion drawn in this paper. A Quantum Design superconducting quantum interference device ( SQUID, MPMS 5.5 T ) and an Oxford vibrating sample magnetometer ( VSM 3001, 8 T ) were used to measure the MHL.

For an uniform suerconductor in the superconducting state, the condensate of the superconducting electrons will expel the external field. When the external field $`H`$ is higher than the lower critical field $`H_{c1}`$, many quantized magnetic vortices will be formed and penetrate into the interior of the sample. The spatial distribution of the density of these vortices or called as flux profile is illustrated in the inset of Fig.1. The curve of M vs. H will deviate from the linear relation $`M=H/4\pi `$ ( Meissner state) at $`H_{c1}`$ for a perfect cylinder. While the magnetization M will continue to grow until the flux front meets at the center of the sample ( $`B_e=B_p`$ ). By further increasing the external field more and more magnetic

vortices will creep into the sample, the magnetization will start to drop. Therefore for any uniform superconductor, a penetration peak near zero field will appear due to the non-easy penetration of magnetic flux. As an example, in Fig.1 we show one MHL for an $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ single crystal near optimal doping. A clear penetration peak can be observed here. When the field drops down from a high value ( from both positive and negative side ), a huge magnetization peak will appear near zero field due to establishing a large superconducting current. This huge central peak envelops the penetration peak. One can imagine that the penetration peak and the central peak may disappear for a percolative superconducting system due to the difficulty of establishing a high current density near zero field.

As the magnetic flux fully penetrate into the sample, some vortex phases can be formed in some specific temperature and field region. For example, a picture based on the crossover from Bragg glass in low field region to the vortex glass in high field region  was proposed to interpret the second peak effect  ( narrow and sharp but almost temperature independent ) in Bi-2212 single crystals as shown in Fig.2. For $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ single crystals, a broad and temperature dependent second peak  has been observed which has received two major explanations. However,  for any underdoped or optimally doped high temperature superconductors no matter how low the doping level or superfluid density is, and no matter what kind of the shape of the sample, to our knowledge, on the MHL curve, there exists a central penetration peak due to the non-easy penetration of the magnetic flux.

For a heavily overdoped HTS, the situation could be different according to the picture mentioned above. Thus we have intentionally investigated the magnetic flux

penetration process for such samples. In Fig.3(a), a typical MHL measured at 9 K for an overdoped LSCO ( x = 0.24 ) is shown. Clearly the central peak becomes too small to be observable. From an enlarged view shown in the inset to Fig.3(a) one can still see a very tiny central peak. If comparing this MHL to that measured for $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$, Bi-2212 and underdoped LSCO ( x = 0.092, $`T_c`$ = 26 K, shown in Fig.3(b)), one can clearly see that the central peak becomes very small or disappears for the overdoped LSCO ( x = 0.24 ) sample.

For our present overdoped LSCO single crystal ( x = 0.24, $`T_c`$ = 25 K ), it is known that $`t_c=T_c/T_c^{opt}`$ = 25 K / 38 K = 0.66, thus the sample is close to the heavily overdoped region. In Fig.4(a) and (b), we present the MHLs for a Tl-2201 single crystal ( $`T_c`$ = 35 K ) with $`t_c=T_c/T_c^{opt}`$ = 35 K / 95 K = 0.37, thus it is in the heavily overdoped regime. In the low temperature region, a penetration peak is observed at a rather low field. This penetration peak at a low field is resulted from the relatively strong coupling between the tiny superconducting islands in low temperature region. When the temperature is increased, this first peak disappears quickly ( as shown in Fig.4 (b)) and a second peak at a higher field develops. This again shows the easy penetration of magnetic flux in the heavily overdoped region.

Next we present further evidence by showing the dynamical flux penetration process. According to our picture, the bulk superconducting state is established by the Josephson coupling between the tiny superconducting islands. In short time scale the high slope of flux gradient $`dB(x)/dx`$ corresponding to a large supercurrent can be maintained since the state relaxes only a little from the initial state ( t = 0, the moment the field sweeping is just stopped ). A long time relaxation process will drive the system more close to the static state so that the central

penetration peak will become more and more invisible. In order to check this idea, we have measured the time dependent magnetization from 0.01 s to 3600 s. From these data we construct a portion of the MHL measured at different time scales. As shown in Fig.5, at a short time the magnetization near zero field shows a plateau with a trace of a small central peak. However, it relaxes quickly versus time leading to the vanishing of the central peak. One can expect that at a shorter time scale, the central peak will become more clear.

There are several possibilities for explaining the vanishing of central peak on MHL. The first naive argument would be that this effect is due to the chemical inhomogeneity. However, this argument stands weakly against the very pure and neat structural data from XRD, TEM and other analyses. It is also inconsistent with the common observation of this effect in various system with very different structural details. For example, in LSCO single crystals there is a structural phase transition from orthorhombic to tetragonal at a certain temperature.

While in Tl-2201, Bi-2201 and Bi-2212 systems no such transition is expected. In addition, the doping to the overdoped region in LSCO and Bi-2201 system is by cation substitution, while in Tl-2201 and Bi-2212 is through post-annealing in oxygen leading to rather different structural deformations. When a optimally doped Bi-2212 sample is post-annealed in high pressure $`O_2`$ ( 100 atm. 500$`{}_{}{}^{}C`$ ), $`T_c`$ drops from 95 K to 72 K and the central peak becomes much smaller. Similar data were published recently  although no clear reasons have been given. It would be very interesting to see whether this central peak will vanish completely when further doping Bi-2212 to heavily overdoped regime. Since this effect has been found in four systems: LSCO, Tl-2201, Bi-2201 and Bi-2212, we anticipate that whenever a HTS is driven to the heavily overdoped region one should be possible to see this effect. Work on the Ca doped $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ ( another typical overdoped sample ) is under way.

The second argument would be that this effect is induced by very low superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ although the superconducting state is uniform . This argument gets, however, no support from the data measured for any underdoped HTS sample which has also a very low $`\rho _s`$. As mentioned already, this easy penetration effect has never been observed in underdoped HTS samples. Therefore even for a superconductor with very low superfluid density, one should be able to observe a penetration peak when the superconducting state is uniform.

This effect can get an explanation based on the electronic phase separation in heavily overdoped HTS sample. The resulting phase consists many tiny superconducting islands surrounded by the hole-rich metallic but non-superconducting regions. The bulk superconducting state is established by the Josephson coupling or proximity effect between these islands. It has been found that the superconducting criticality for the underdoped and the overdoped sample is the same  reflecting probably the same condensation processes, e.g., both are BEC in the two doping limits. A schematic show for this picture is given in the inset to Fig.5. In the low field region, the magnetic flux ( probably the Josephson vortices ) will easily penetrate into the center of the sample through these weak coupling channels. Therefore the central peak will become too small to be observable. Since the decoupling transition coincides with the irreversibility line , we would not expect any irreversible flux motion within the superconducting islands. This may manifest that the islands are too small to allow the formation of vortex lattice. In this case, we can expect that the islands have a size between several times of coherence length and 1000 $`\AA `$. When field is increased, one can observe an increase of the magnetization. This may be induced by the gradual formation of a vortex solid state. However, it is important to note that this vortex solid state, if exists, is formed by the Josephson vortices rather than the normal vortices. This deserves certainly a further check.

In conclusion, by measuring the MHLs for several heavily overdoped high temperature superconductors ( LSCO, Tl-2201, Bi-2201 and Bi-2212 ), for the first time we have observed a new type MHL characterized by the vanishing of central penetration peak. This effect has never been observed on underdoped or optimally doped samples and can be attributted to the percolative superconductivity due to inhomogeneous electronic state in heavily overdoped region.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC 19825111) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China ( project: NKBRSF-G1999064602 ). We acknowledge helpful discussions with Prof. Duan Feng at Nanjing university, China, Dr. Thierry Giamarchi ( Paris ) and Dr. Xiao Hu ( Trsukuba, Japan ).


text:
# Cluster Abundance and Large Scale Structure

## Abstract

We use the presently observed number density of large X-ray clusters and linear mass power spectra to constrain the shape parameter ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), the spectral index ($`n`$), the amplitude of matter density perturbations on the scale of $`8h^1`$Mpc ($`\sigma _8`$), and the redshift distortion parameter ($`\beta `$). The non-spherical-collapse model as an improvement to the Press-Schechter formula is used and yields significantly lower $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\beta `$. An analytical formalism for the formation redshift of halos is also derived.

One of the most important constraints on models of structure formation is the observed abundance of galaxy clusters. Because they are the largest virialized objects in the universe, their abundance can be simply predicted by and thus used to constrain the linear perturbation theory. In the light of the new observations and the improvement in modeling cluster evolution, we revisit this application caalss , which has been extensively explored in the literature.

Based on the maximum-likelihood analysis, we first use the observed linear mass power spectra $`P(k)`$ by Peacock & Dodds PD  (PD, combination of galaxy surveys) and by Hamilton, Tegmark, & Padmanabhan HTP  (HTP, based on PSCz Saunders2000 ; see Figure 1), to estimate the spectral index $`n`$, the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the amplitude of perturbations $`\sigma _8`$ in the parameterization of the standard model $`P(k)\sigma _8^2k^nT^2(k/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ caalss . The results are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, with $`\sigma _{8(\mathrm{I})}=0.78\pm 0.26`$ for IRAS galaxies. The degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`n`$ is clear, motivating us to find the theoretically expected ‘degenerated’ shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0.247\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{exp}(1.4n)=0.220_{0.031}^{+0.036}`$, which has a much more constrained likelihood. These results are consistent with the current constraints from CMB maxiboom .

Following a similar formalism as in Ref. LC , we then derive the probability distribution function $`p_{z(i)}(z)`$ of cluster formation redshift $`z`$ caalss  for different models of mass function $`n_i(M)`$, where $`i=`$PS (Press & Schechter PS ), ST (Sheth & Tormen ShethTormen ), or LS (Lee & Shandarin LeeShandarin1 ), the last two of which incorporate non-spherical collapse . With specified $`n_i(M)`$, $`p_{z(i)}(z)`$, $`\sigma _8`$, and the previously estimated $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$), we can project the present cluster abundance of a given mass $`M`$ into the space of formation redshift $`z`$, and then use the virial mass-temperature relation to associate this abundance with the virial temperature $`T`$ that corresponds to the given $`M`$ and $`z`$. An integration over $`T`$ and $`z`$ will give us a prediction of cluster abundance, which is a function of $`\sigma _8`$. A comparison of this with the observation Henry1  will give the normalization of $`\sigma _8`$. Combined with the $`\sigma _{8(\mathrm{I})}`$ estimated earlier, it further yields the constraint on the redshift distortion parameter $`\beta _\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.6}\sigma _8/\sigma _{8(\mathrm{I})}`$, which quantifies the confusion between the Hubble expansion and the local gravitational collapse Kaiser . Our results can be fitted by $`\sigma _{8(i)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0})=c_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}^\alpha `$, where $`i=`$PS, ST, LS or ST+LS, and $`\alpha \alpha (\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0})=0.30.17\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}^{c_2}0.13\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ (see Figure 2 left), and $`\beta _{\mathrm{I}(j)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0})=d_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}^{d_20.16(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0})}`$, where $`j=`$PS or ST+LS (see Figure 2 right). The parameter values of these fits are given in table 2.

It is clear that the $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\beta _\mathrm{I}`$ resulted from non-spherical-collapse models (ST and LS) are systematically lower than those based on the PS formalism, mainly owing to the larger mass function on cluster scales. A detailed investigation of the uncertainties in our final results shows that the main contributor is the uncertainty in the normalization of the virial mass-temperature relation. Therefore further improvement in this normalization will provide us with more stringent constraint on both $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\beta _\mathrm{I}`$. In addition, since we saw significant corrections in the resulting $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\beta _\mathrm{I}`$ when switching from the PS formalism to the more accurate non-spherical-collapse models, we urge the use of these models in all relevant studies, especially when we are entering the regime of precision cosmology. We acknowledge the support from NSF KDI Grant (9872979) and NASA LTSA Grant (NAG5-6552).


text:
# Bounds on the neutrino flux from cosmic sources of relativistic particles

## 1 Introduction

Surveying the sky with new instruments and methods has many times prompted discoveries in the history of physics. A well-known example is the sky survey obtained by Tycho Brahe during 1576-1596, unprecedented in terms of accuracy, scope, and sensitivity at his time, which lead to Kepler’s 1601-1619 discovery of the elliptical planetary orbits and the three laws describing them. This discovery paved the way to Newton’s 1664 theory of gravitation based on the notion of an absolute metric space. Another example is the work of Charles Messier who compiled a catalogue of nebular objects during 1771-1784 to increase the finding probability for comets. Edwin Hubble proved in 1925 that among these sources were indeed galaxies gravitationally unbound to the Milky Way initiating extragalactic astronomy and observational cosmology.

Electromagnetic waves, covering the electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves to gamma rays, play the leading role in modern astronomy due to their easy detection and diagnostic potential. Other carriers of information are stable particles emitted from cosmic sources, such as protons, ions, electrons, and neutrinos. The cosmic ray protons, ions, and electrons can be detected with great sensitivity, and studies of their interactions in the Earth’s atmosphere have lead to a large number of discoveries in elementary particle physics, the latest of which is the discovery of neutrino mass from the deficit of large zenith-angle muon neutrinos (Fukuda et al. 1998). Cosmic rays are useless as astrophysical probes, however, due to the omnipresence of interstellar and intergalactic fields which deflect them away from the direction of the sources. The exploration of the high-energy Universe therefore relies on radio astronomy, which is sensitive to the synchrotron radiation from accelerated electrons, and gamma-ray astronomy, which probes hadronic interactions of accelerated baryons and inverse-Compton scattering and bremsstrahlung from accelerated electrons. However, the mean-free-path for gamma rays decreases to less than the distance to the Galactic Center at energies above a few hundred TeV due to pair creation, and most of the Universe remains unseen. Ultimately, photons do not penetrate the cosmic photon-matter barrier making the first 10,000 years in the history of the Universe invisible.

Neutrino astronomy (Gaisser et al. 1995, Halzen 2000, Learned and Mannheim 2000) can provide an un-obscured view to the Universe, and neutrino detection is eased at high energies due to

1. the increasing neutrino-matter interaction cross section and muon range,
2. the large natural water (or ice) reservoirs transparent to the Cherenkov light produced in charged current interactions, which can be used for neutrino-induced muon and shower detection,
3. the steeply decreasing local foreground fluxes, and
4. the fascinating physics potential at high energies (e.g., the neutralino with a mass of the order of the electroweak symmetry breaking scale $`\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}123`$ GeV is one of the most favored candidates for the prime component of cold dark matter and annihilations such as $`\chi \overline{\chi }W^+W^{},b\overline{b}`$, and $`Z\gamma `$ would lead to observable neutrinos).

However, until the time of writing, no extraterrestrial $`>100`$ MeV neutrino has been discovered presumably due to the effective areas in the running experiments being still too small for a detection. In order to set the scale for experimentally reaching a zone of discovery, theory attempts to provide a first estimate of the expected total high-energy neutrino intensity due to conventional astrophysical sources, as has been done e.g. by Stecker et al. (1996), Mannheim (1995), Protheroe & Johnson (1996), Waxman and Bahcall (1998), and Mannheim et al. (2000). Rarely in the history of science has such a first estimate been close to reality. For example, X-ray astronomy was considered a useless enterprise in the 50s, when it was known that stars had surface temperatures not exceeding $`10^4`$ K. With X-ray astronomy came the discovery of accreting stars, unexpected by most astrophysicists, which release gravitational rather than nuclear energy at an enormous rate. Nevertheless, the attempt seems well justified, since a measured flux greatly deviating from the predicted range of fluxes would readily indicate a theoretical deficit prompting new developments. In the following sections, possible routes to bounding the allowed neutrino flux for models of extragalactic neutrino production are outlined.

## 2 Accretion power bound

The dominant sources of relativistic particles in the Universe are supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. Since bright galaxies generally contain supermassive black holes in their center with a mass proportional to the mass concentrated in their stellar bulges (Rees and Silk 1998, Gebhardt et al. 2000), it is possible to make a cosmic census of all such black holes by using the well-known galaxy luminosity function. Moreover, since the mass in black holes was acquired through accretion, one can estimate the total accretion power released in the Universe (Fabian 1999, Mannheim 1999).

Heavy elements with present-day mass fraction $`Z=0.03`$ were produced in early bursts of star formation by nucleosynthesis with radiative efficiency $`ϵ=0.007`$ yielding the present-day omnidirectional stellar-light intensity

$$I_{\mathrm{ns}}\frac{c}{4\pi }\frac{\rho _{}Zϵc^2}{1+z_\mathrm{f}}$$
(1)
where $`\rho _{}`$ denotes the mass density of baryonic matter and $`z_\mathrm{f}`$ the formation redshift corresponding to the era of maximum star formation (the ratio between the energy released by stars and by other sources with the same formation history is independent of its details). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ denote the baryon density in terms of the critical density of the Universe and $`h=H_{}/100`$km s-1 Mpc-1 the dimensionless Hubble constant, then the intensity obtains the value

$$I_{\mathrm{ns}}1.4\times 10^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}h^2}{0.01}\right)\left(\frac{1+z_\mathrm{f}}{4}\right)^1\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1,$$
(2)
and this is in agreement with the observed intensity of the integrated extragalactic background spectrum from the far-infrared to the ultraviolet. Bright galaxies containing supermassive black holes in their centers which are actively accreting over a fraction of $`t_{\mathrm{agn}}/t_{}10^2`$ of their lifetime produce an accretion-light intensity

$$I_{\mathrm{accr}}\frac{ϵ_{\mathrm{accr}}M_{\mathrm{bh}}}{ZϵM_{}}\frac{t_{\mathrm{agn}}}{t_{}}I_{\mathrm{ns}}3.3\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1$$
(3)
adopting the accretion efficiency $`ϵ_{\mathrm{accr}}=0.1`$ and the black hole mass fraction $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}/M_{}=0.005`$. Most of the accretion power emerges in the ultraviolet where the diffuse background is unobservable owing to photoelectric absorption by the neutral component of the interstellar medium. However, a fraction of $`I_\mathrm{x}/I_{\mathrm{bh}}20\%`$ taken from the average quasar spectral energy distribution (Sanders 1989) shows up in hard X-rays consistent with the observed hard X-ray background bump $`I_\mathrm{x}6.0\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ (Gruber 1992). Non-thermal emission shows up only in the radio-loud fraction $`\xi _{\mathrm{rl}}20\%`$ of all AGN. Among the radio-quiet AGN, hard X-ray emission is common, but turns over steeply below 100 keV with no signs for a nonthermal component. The kinetic power of the jets in radio-loud AGN responsible for the nonthermal emission roughly equals the accretion power (Rawlings and Saunders 1991). Hence one obtains for the nonthermal intensity due to extragalactic jets

$$I_\mathrm{j}=\left(\frac{\xi _{\mathrm{rl}}}{0.2}\right)I_{\mathrm{accr}}6.7\times 10^5\left(\frac{\xi _{\mathrm{rl}}}{0.2}\right)\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1.$$
(4)
This energy is released in relativistic particles, magnetic fields, and pdV thermodynamic work against the ambient medium into which the jets propagate. The gamma ray (cosmic ray, neutrino) energy released by the jets amounts to the present-day intensity

$$I_\gamma \xi _{\mathrm{rad}}I_\mathrm{j}6.7\times 10^6\left(\frac{\xi _{\mathrm{rad}}}{0.1}\right)\left(\frac{\xi _{\mathrm{rl}}}{0.2}\right)\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1$$
(5)
which is remarkably close to the intensity $`7.6\times 10^6`$ GeV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 of the extragalactic gamma ray background observed between 100 MeV and 30 GeV using the spectrum from Sreekumar et al. (1998) and a radiative efficiency of $`\xi _{\mathrm{rad}}=10\%`$. Note that the intensity in the observed gamma ray background is close to the bolometric gamma ray intensity, since pair attenuation and cascading must lead to a turnover of the background spectrum above $`2050`$ GeV for extragalactic source populations (Salamon and Stecker 1998).

It is therefore concluded, that if neutrinos tap a significant fraction of the the total nonthermal accretion power available in the Universe, then their bolometric intensity cannot exceed the intensity of the extragalactic gamma ray background, even if gamma rays could not escape from the sources.

Since the observed black holes account precisely for the extragalactic X-ray background, hidden supermassive black holes and neutrinos from them (Berezinsky and Dokuchaev 2000) are unlikely to exist: they would have to lie outside of bright galaxies, and they would have to be heavily obscured at all times to avoid shining up in X-rays. It is also possible to invoke a scenario with hidden black holes which reside in an advection-dominated accretion mode from which only neutrinos escape.

## 3 Extragalactic gamma ray background bound

A more restrictive bound might apply for sources, from which the gamma rays co-produced with neutrinos during pion decay escape. The physical conditions inside typical nonthermal sources are characterized by a low matter density, indeed, since this is the prerequisite for efficient particle acceleration. The observed gamma rays are likely to be the result of electromagnetic cascading, taking place during intergalactic travel or still inside the sources. For typical extragalactic distances of the order of Gigaparsecs, gamma rays above 100 GeV are expected to be absorbed in collisions with low-energy photons from the metagalactic radiation field produced by galaxies. The resulting electron-positron pairs re-radiate gamma rays by inverse-Compton scattering off microwave background photons primarily in the MeV-to-GeV band, adding to the primary radiation in this band. Therefore the observed extragalactic gamma ray background intensity (Sreekumar et al. 1998) represents an upper limit to the maximum electromagnetic energy release due to pion production applying proper corrections for the kinematic branching between neutrinos and gamma rays (Rachen and Mészáros 1998), e.g. $`L_\gamma =2L_\nu `$ for jets in active galactic nuclei and $`L_\gamma =L_\nu `$ for jets in gamma ray bursts (due to the different slopes of the target photon spectra). Hidden sources, for which the escaping electromagnetic flux is reprocessed thermally to below the 100 keV range, are possible, but their total intensity must still remain below the accretion-related bound outlined in the previous section - unless these hidden sources would be related to an energy reservoir different from the supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies.

## 4 Cosmic ray bound

The bound discussed in the previous section applies to extragalactic particle accelerators, from which there is no contribution to the observed cosmic rays due to escaping nucleons. If, however, ultrarelativistic nucleons escape and contribute to cosmic rays, the observed cosmic ray intensity can be used to constrain models of of neutrino production.

Even in sources, in which the accelerated particles are fully confined (by magnetic fields), there is a flux of escaping neutrons produced in the common isospin flip interactions. Relativistic neutrons at ultrahigh energies have decay lengths $`ł_\mathrm{n}10(\gamma _\mathrm{n}/10^9)`$ kpc and leave the acceleration site and the host galaxy without adiabatic losses. The neutrino yield per escaping nucleon is highest comparing with other escape mechanisms, e.g. it could be lower if there were additional prompt protons escaping from the accelerator which are not accompanied by neutrinos. By the logic inherent to an upper limit, the discussion is restricted here to the case of neutron-origin cosmic rays.

An extragalactic flux of cosmic rays from evolving sources would be mostly protonic due to the photo-disintegration of heavy nuclei (Stecker and Salamon 1999). The observed upper limit on extralactic protons can be converted to an upper limit on extragalactic neutrinos by virtue of the production and decay kinematics. This has been worked out in detail by Mannheim, Protheroe, and Rachen (2000) using a propagation code developed by Protheroe and Johnson (1996) and assuming an evolution of the comoving emissivity of the putative cosmic ray/neutrino sources given by

$$(dP_{\mathrm{gal}}/dV_c)Q(E,z)(1+z)^{3.5},$$
(6)
which has the same redshift dependence as the cosmic star formation rate or the AGN emissivity (Boyle and Terlevich 1998). The cosmic ray intensity at Earth at energy $`E`$ due to neutron decay is given by

$$I(E)\underset{z_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{z_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}M(E,z)\frac{(1+z)^2}{4\pi d_L^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}V_c}{\mathrm{d}z}\frac{\mathrm{d}P_{\mathrm{gal}}}{\mathrm{d}V_c}Q[(1+z)E,z]dz$$
(7)
where $`d_L`$ and $`V_c`$ are luminosity distance and co-moving volume, and $`M(E,z)`$ are “modification factors” for injection of protons at redshift $`z`$ as defined by Rachen and Biermann (1993); for neutrinos, $`M(E,z)=1`$. The modification factors for protons depend on the input spectra, and are calculated numerically using a matrix method (Protheroe and Johnson 1996). The trial functions for the spectra emitted by extragalactic photo-production sources with target spectral index $`\alpha =1`$ (typical for conditions in jets from active galactic nuclei) are

$$Q_{\nu _\mu }(E)=83.3Q_\mathrm{n}(25E)$$
(8)
and

$$Q_\mathrm{n}(E)E^1\mathrm{exp}[E/E_{\mathrm{max}}]$$
(9)
with variable $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The construction of the upper limit now proceeds by first choosing a value for $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and finding the maximum source emissivity which does not overproduce either the experimental upper limit on cosmic ray protons or the observed extragalactic gamma ray background (comparing integrated fluxes because of electromagnetic cascading which destroys the proportionality between the differential spectra). Second, the neutrino intensity is computed for the maximum allowed emissivity at $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and third, the envelope curve for a set of $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values then defines the upper limit (see Mannheim et al. 2000 for more details). The resulting upper limit is largely robust with respect to the specific spectral shape generated by a source distribution.

Below neutrino energies of $`10^5`$ GeV the constraint due to the observed cosmic rays becomes sharper than that due to the extragalactic gamma ray background. The upper limit decreases with energy reaching a minimum at around $`10^9`$ GeV. At higher energies, the upper limit increases for technical reasons: the observed cosmic rays show an excess above the so-called GZK cutoff which would require an emissivity increasing with energy in order to compensate the photo-hadronic energy losses due to propagation through the microwave background.

## 5 Neutrinos due to cosmic ray storage in clusters of galaxies

It was shown in Sect. 2 that the intensity in relativistic particles available through accretion is $`6.7\times 10^5`$ GeV cm-2 s-1 sr-1. The supermassive black holes giving rise to radio jets preferentially lie in clusters of galaxies which contain an intracluster medium of gas density $`n_\mathrm{c}10^3`$ cm-3 which acts as a target for the relativistic particles from the jets diffusing through the intracluster medium. The optical depth of this medium with respect to pion production is $`9\times 10^5`$, and, using $`I_\gamma =I_\nu `$, the corresponding minimum neutrino intensity due to cosmic ray storage is of the order of $`I_\nu 3\times 10^9`$ GeV cm-1 s-1 sr-1. Outside of their sources, the stationary proton distribution should reflect the source distribution. For relativistic shocks, this distribution is expected to be $`dN/dEE^{2.2}`$ (Kirk et al. 2000), and the lower limit in Fig. 1 is normalized by the bolometric condition $`_1^{10^{11}}E𝑑N=I_\nu `$ ($`E`$ in GeV). The corresponding value $`I_\gamma =I_\nu `$ is consistent with upper limits on the gamma ray flux from clusters of galaxies and is in agreement with the much more detailed model of Colafrancesco and Blasi (1998).

## 6 Discussion

The presence of high-energy cosmic rays in extragalactic sources is inevitably associated with gamma rays and neutrinos. In principle, both cosmic ray nucleons and gamma rays could be absorbed in hidden sources, observable only in neutrinos. However, the observed gamma-ray background can be attributed to the nonthermal fraction of the gravitational binding energy released during accretion of ambient matter onto supermassive black holes, and there is no other known energy reservoir available for hidden sources. If these putative sources tap a fraction of the nonthermal accretion energy of supermassive black holes, then this fraction must be very small, or there must exist heavily obscured supermassive black holes in great numbers outside of galactic centers which have escaped the cosmic census so far. Thus, an intensity in excess of the accretion bound would indicate this new population of black holes, or might indicate a new weak-channel dissipation process of the cold dark matter in the Universe.

The observed extragalactic gamma ray background is probably due to unresolved faint gamma ray point sources (associated with rotating supermassive black holes), since the known $`100`$ resolved sources above 100 MeV alone produce a cumulative flux amounting to $`0.15`$ of the total diffuse flux. We do not know much about the opacity for gamma rays in the sources, but their spectra generally do not seem to indicate a spectral turnover up to GeV energies. This translates into an opacity constraint for protons with respect to the photo-production on the same target photons and implies that these sources should typically be thin to the emission of cosmic ray nucleons up to $`10^8`$ GeV (corresponding to neutrino energies $`10^6`$ GeV). Since the optically thin limit approaches the gamma ray limit at energies of $`10^5`$ GeV, just a little effect due to large-scale magnetic fields raising the transition energy between the two limits to $`10^6`$ GeV (as argued in Mannheim et al. 2000, chapter V.) would likely render the gamma ray limit as the only conservative upper limit over the entire energy range. Future gamma ray observations could enhance the relevance of the cosmic ray bound, if it can be shown that the gamma ray spectra show no signs of intrinsic absorption up to energies much higher than GeV.

Some sources have been detected up to TeV without showing signs of internal absorption (albeit the steep multi-TeV spectra could indicate pair creation above TeV). These sources could be strong sources of neutrons (protons) up to $`10^{11}`$ GeV and the observed cosmic ray flux provides an upper limit to the allowed neutrino flux at $`10^9`$ GeV almost two orders of magnitude below the gamma ray limit. As shown in Mannheim (1995), a source population such as BL Lacertae objects, likely to produce a distribution of $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values, and saturating the cosmic ray bound at ultrahigh energies would nevertheless produce a significant fraction of the entire extragalactic gamma ray background (the bolometric gamma ray bound in a differential plot may be misleading in this case, since it is contructed for very hard trial spectra).

No gamma ray source is known to be definitely thin to the emission of cosmic rays above $`10^{11}`$ GeV. In principle, however, such a population could exist and could provide hard spectra of cosmic rays compensating the photo-production energy losses during passage of the microwave background with an emissivity strongly increasing with redshift. In this very unlikely case, the rising cosmic ray bound technically reflects the fact, that an excess of cosmic ray events has been found above the so-called GZK cutoff energy of $`5\times 10^{10}`$ GeV.

## 7 Conclusions

There are two arguments in favor of an extragalactic high-energy neutrino background bounded from above by the known intensity of the extragalactic gamma ray background and from below by the known matter column density of clusters of galaxies: naturalness and the likelihood of an extragalactic origin of the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays. It is natural to assume that a significant fraction of the nonthermal power produced by black holes is channeled into protons, since the transport of electrons out of the compact source region is strongly damped by radiative losses. The observed near isotropy and protonic character of the extended air showers at ultrahigh energies argues in favor of an extragalactic origin, and the gamma ray spectra from extragalactic jets are in accord with the assumption that protons are accelerated in them to ultrahigh energies (albeit there are competing explanations based on the assumption of electron acceleration, for thorough discussions see Mannheim 1998 and Wilson et al. 2000). The picture certainly needs experimental clarification by showing that extragalactic neutrinos with an intensity marked by the ”zone of discovery” (the grey zone in Fig. 1) really exists. If a stronger intensity were found, this could imply a new population of completely obscured black holes outside of bright galaxies or a signature of relics from the Early Universe. If a weaker intensity were found, then extragalactic jets would not produce the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, and accelerated protons would not be responsible for the observed gamma rays.

I thank Raymond Protheroe and Jörg Rachen for their invaluable contributions to this research, and Wlodek Bednarek for stimulating discussions (in particular for pointing out the possible relevance of advection-dominated blackk hole accretion). Support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.

## References