text:
# Intensity Distributions of Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

Major advances in the study of gamma-ray bursts have resulted both from the construction and analysis of carefully selected burst samples, and from fortuitous discoveries of key properties of individual bursts. The BATSE burst sample, with precisely defined detection thresholds, showed that the peak flux distribution and the isotropic angular distribution were inconsistent with an origin in the Galactic planemee92  and marginally inconsistent with a Galactic halo progenitor population, and thus before 1997 most of the burst community concluded by a process of elimination that bursts occur at cosmological distances. On the other hand, beginning in 1997 the arcsecond localization of a few bursts coincident with faint galaxies became the definitive confirmation that bursts are indeed a cosmological phenomenon; these bursts were chosen largely on the basis of the available telescopes and the willingness of observers with access to these telescopes to devote their precious observing time to following these bursts. (Note that the possibility still remains that some bursts—such as bursts with durations under $`1`$ s—originate from less distant sources.) Thus some of the major advances in the study of bursts have resulted from the statistical analysis of well-constructed burst samples, while others (often the more spectacular breakthroughs) have followed observations of individual bursts selected through the vagaries of the available telescopes. Here I discuss the interplay of statistical analysis and serendipitous discovery in the determination of bursts’ intrinsic intensity. I argue that observations of individual bursts established the qualitative characteristics of burst intensities but that determining the quantitative properties requires well-defined criteria for choosing the bursts which should be studied. In particular, a multi-wavelength effort involving different telescopes is required for determining properties such as a burst’s intensity and redshift: an X-ray burst detector (e.g., Beppo-Sax’s Wide Field Camera) first localizes the burst to $`3`$ arcminute; an X-ray telescope (e.g., Beppo-Sax’s Narrow Field Instrument) then localizes the afterglow to about an arcminute; an imaging optical telescope localizes the optical afterglow to less than an arcsecond; and finally, optical spectroscopy determines the burst redshift through the detection of either absorption lines in the afterglow spectrum or emission lines from the host galaxy. The most restrictive intensity threshold for mounting any component of this campaign must be defined and reported to construct a well-defined statistical sample.

## 2 Constant Candle Bursts

After the statistical analysis of the BATSE peak flux and spatial distributions favored a cosmological origin, the burst community by and large adopted the “minimal cosmological model”bah98  wherein bursts were standard candles and the shape of the intensity distribution (e.g., for the peak photon flux) resulted from the cosmological curvature of space. Although this paradigm was expected to be overly simplistic, it was the basis for Schaefer’s conclusionsch92  that the predicted host galaxies were missing from the best burst localizations then available. Schaefer’s assertion was contestedlar96 , but the statistical analysis of Band and Hartmannbah98  verified that the *expected* host galaxies were indeed absent. Band and Hartmann considered the galaxy detection thresholds in each burst error box as well as the presence of the host and unrelated background galaxies. However, testing the cosmological paradigm which motivated Schaefer’s search for the host galaxies became moot with the observed coincidence of *faint* galaxies with afterglows localized to an arcsecond. As Schaefer had reported, and Band and Hartmann corroborated, the minimal cosmological model was indeed incorrect, not because bursts are not cosmological, but because the model was too “minimal:” the deviation of the cumulative intensity distribution from the $`3/2`$ power law expected for a homogeneous population in three-dimensional Euclidean space does not result solely from the cosmological curvature of space, and bursts are farther than derived by the minimal model. Band, Hartmann and Schaeferbhs98  used the statistical methodology of Band and Hartmann to find the burst energy for which the host galaxy detections (or upper limits) were consistent with the expected galaxy luminosity function. They found a standard candle total burst energy of $`10^{53}`$ erg. The observed redshifts and energy fluences did give some burst energies of this magnitude; however, because a range of burst energies spanning $`3`$ decades was observed, these observations also demonstrated that bursts are *not* standard candles in terms of the apparent total energy.

Thus the statistical analyses of Band and Hartmannbah98  and Band, Hartmann and Schaeferbhs98  were appropriate for answering questions such as whether the minimal cosmological model was valid and what is the standard candle energy. However, these questions are answered more directly by a few observations of randomly selected bursts: only two bursts with significantly different energies demonstrate that bursts are not standard candles; only one bright burst with a faint host galaxy (or with $`z>1`$) shows that the intensity distribution cannot be explained solely by cosmological curvature; and a few burst energies give the typical energy scale.

## 3 The Intensity Distribution

What is the distribution of the total energy emitted by a gamma-ray burst? We only observe the energy emitted in our direction, which can be expressed as the *apparent* total energy, the energy emitted if the burst actually radiated gamma-rays isotropically. The apparent total energy is the actual energy divided by the beaming fraction, the fraction of the sky into which the gamma-rays are actually emitted; both the total energy and the beaming fraction are relevant for understanding burst physics. Indeed, Frail et al.fra01  calculated the beaming fraction for a burst sample based on afterglow evolution, and found a narrow distribution of the total energy centered around $`10^{51}`$ erg.

Different measures of burst intensity have been used, such as the peak energy luminosity, the total gamma-ray energy, the peak photon flux, the total number of photons emitted, or the total afterglow energy. Note that bursts can be standard candles for at most one of these intensity measures. The intensity measure studied is a matter of theoretical prejudice and ease of calculation (the data may not be available to calculate some measures). Many studies have used the peak photon flux because burst detectors, such as BATSE, trigger on the peak count rate, and consequently the detection threshold for the peak flux is fairly sharp. However, I prefer the total energy emitted; the observable is a burst’s energy fluence. In the current theoretical scenario (see Piranpir00  for a review of current burst theories) the gamma-ray emission results from internal shocks when regions in a relativistic outflow with different Lorentz factors collide. The total gamma-ray energy emitted should be related to the energy of the outflow while the peak luminosity is a consequence of a particular internal shock, which will result from the burst-specific distribution of Lorentz factors within the outflow. Thus I suspect that the emitted total energy is fairly representative of the energy released while the peak luminosity is more contingent on the details of the energy release.

In studying the burst intensity distribution, my collaborators and I have assumed specific functional forms. Thus Jimenez, Band and Piranjim01  fit lognormal distributions to the total apparent energy, the peak gamma-ray luminosity, and the total X-ray afterglow energy, while recently I fit both lognormal and simple power law distributions to the total apparent energy.ban01  When normalized to unity, these distributions are the probability $`p(I)`$ that a burst has a given intensity $`I`$. However, the probability $`p_{\mathrm{obs}}(I)`$ of *observing* a burst with a given intensity is that part of the intensity distribution above the threshold for including the burst in our sample. For example, a high redshift burst will be detected, and thus included in our sample, only if it was drawn from the high end of the intensity distribution. In both studies likelihood functions were constructed from the probabilities $`p_{\mathrm{obs}}(I)`$ of obtaining each member of the sample. The parameters of the distribution function were determined by maximizing the likelihood, and the parameters’ confidence ranges were determined by integrating over the likelihood surface.

These studies considered different burst samples. Both Jimenez et al.jim01  and my recent studyban01  used a sample of 9 bursts with spectroscopic redshifts and BATSE spectra. The energy fluences were calculated by fitting the GRB spectral functionban93  to the BATSE spectra, and then integrating the fits over the 20–2000 keV energy band and the burst duration. In my studyban01  I also considered the 17 burst sample of Frail et al.fra01  which adds bursts observed by Beppo-SAX, Ulysses, KONUS and NEAR to the 9 BATSE bursts. For these two samples the detection thresholds are unknown since the criteria for attempting to localize the bursts and determine their redshifts have not been reported. Finally, in my study I used the 220 BATSE bursts with redshifts determined through the conjectured correlation between light curve variability and peak burst luminosityfen01 ; this sample has a well-defined threshold for including a burst.

Jimenez et al.jim01  extended their sample of bursts with spectroscopic redshifts by including bursts with only a host galaxy magnitude. A redshift probability distribution can be derived from a host galaxy magnitude using an empirical galaxy redshift distribution and assuming a model for the rate at which bursts occur in galaxies. Galaxy surveys such as the Hubble Deep Field weight each detected galaxy equally, yet in most burst scenarios bursts occur preferentially in massive or luminous galaxies. Jimenez et al. tested various weighting schemes using a sample of 10 bursts with both host galaxy magnitudes and spectroscopic redshifts. The test consisted of calculating a likelihood using the redshift probability distributions evaluated at the observed spectroscopic redshifts. The redshift probability distribution used in this test should be modified to include only the redshift range over which the observations could have determined the redshift: one of the few spectral lines detectable in the spectra of faint galaxies must have been redshifted into the telescope’s bandpass. Once again a detection threshold is required for the statistical analysis of a burst sample. We found that weighting the empirical galaxy redshift distribution (derived from the Hubble Deep Field) by the host galaxy’s luminosity at the time of the burst was favored. This result is relevant to progenitor scenarios (e.g., the galaxy luminosity for $`z>1`$ may be proportional to the star formation rate, consistent with the progenitors being massive, short-lived stars), although a proper analysis requires sophisticated modeling of a galaxy’s luminosity history.

In my study of the burst energyban01  I found that the lognormal and power law distribution functions are both acceptable descriptions of the data because the average of the cumulative probability is consistent with the expected value of 1/2 within the uncertainty resulting from the sample size. The Bayesian odds ratio demonstrated that neither function was favored over the other (odds ratio of $`1`$) for the two small burst samples with spectroscopic redshifts, but the lognormal function is favored (odds ratio of $`10^4`$) for the large sample with redshifts derived from the variability-luminosity correlation. The three samples give significantly different best-fit parameter values, which may result from the small sample sizes, the poorly determined detection thresholds for the spectroscopic redshift samples, and the uncertain validity of the variability-luminosity correlation. For example, for the central energy of the lognormal distribution I find: $`E_0=1.3\times 10^{53}`$ erg (with a 90% confidence range of 0.016–3.2$`\times 10^{53}`$ erg) for the 9 burst BATSE sample; $`E_0=5.2\times 10^{53}`$ erg (0.016–1.0$`\times 10^{53}`$ erg 90% confidence range) for the 17 burst Frail et al.fra01  sample; and $`E_0=0.12\times 10^{53}`$ erg (0.02–0.23$`\times 10^{53}`$ erg 90% confidence range) for the 220 burst variability-luminosityfen01  sample. For all three samples the logarithmic width is nearly the same (the standard deviation of $`\mathrm{ln}E`$ is $`2`$).

The likelihood contours for the 2 parameters of the lognormal distribution have a ridge of high likelihood running from the peak towards lower central energy $`E_0`$ and larger logarithmic width $`\sigma `$. Similarly, the low energy cutoff for a simple power law cannot be determined—we only know that it is below the lowest energy observed. Thus for both distribution functions the likelihood does not rule out the possibility that the actual energy distribution is wider than observed, with the low end unobservable because of the detection threshold. Only a larger burst sample sensitive to fainter bursts will determine the extent of the actual energy distribution function.

Implicit in this statistical methodology are assumptions about the burst sample. I assume that the energy distribution does not evolve with redshift; this can eventually be tested by subdividing a larger sample. Further, I assume that there is no correlation between a burst’s energy and the ability to determine its redshift; a burst’s intrinsic intensity is assumed to be unrelated to environmental factors which promote or suppress the afterglow necessary to localize the burst.

As mentioned above, an accurate determination of the energy distribution requires the fluence threshold for including a burst in the sample. In general, the statistical determination of a burst property’s distribution requires an understanding of the thresholds for all observational steps. In the case of the energy distribution, the most restrictive threshold is the determination of the redshift. A decision was made that: a) the burst was bright enough to attempt an afterglow detection; b) the afterglow was sufficiently well-localized to find a host galaxy; and c) the afterglow or the host galaxy are bright enough for spectroscopic observations. Thus, clear criteria are needed for the systematic ground-based observations which will follow-up the large number of well-localized bursts anticipated from HETE-II and SWIFT. Only with an understanding of the detection thresholds will burst property distributions be determined quantitatively.

I thank Dieter Hartmann for his comments on this paper. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-36.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently a new measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon became available, which suggests a possible 2.6 standard deviation from the Standard Model (SM) expectation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{th}=(43\pm 16)10^{10}`$. The theoretical prediction depends on the uncertainties in the vacuum polarization and the light-by-light scattering, see e.g. the discussion in . However, even with a conservative estimate of the theoretical errors, one has a positive difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ of the order of the weak contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment, which opens a window for ”new physics”. The most popular explanation is given in the framework of SUSY theories -, since the contribution of superpartners to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is of the order of the weak contribution and allows to explain the desired difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. It requires the Higgs mixing parameter to be positive and the sparticles contributing to the chargino-sneutrino $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu )`$ and neutralino-smuon $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ loop diagrams to be relatively light.

The positive sign of $`\mu _0`$ is also preferred by the branching ratio of the b-quark decaying radiatively into an s-quark - $`bX_s\gamma `$\- . Last year the observed value of $`bX_s\gamma `$was close to the SM expectation, so in this case the sparticles contributing to the chargino-squark $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm \stackrel{~}{q})`$ and charged Higgs-squark $`(H^\pm \stackrel{~}{q})`$ loops have to be rather heavy in order not to contribute to $`bX_s\gamma `$.

However, it was recently suggested that in the theoretical calculation one should use the running c-quark mass in the ratio $`m_c/m_b`$, which reduces this ratio from 0.29 to 0.22 . The SM value for $`bX_s\gamma `$increases from $`(3.35\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ to $`(3.73\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ in this case. This value is 1.7 $`\sigma `$ above the most recent world average of $`(2.96\pm 0.46)\times 10^4`$, which is the average from CLEO ($`(2.85\pm 0.35_{stat}\pm 0.22_{sys})\times 10^4`$) , ALEPH ($`(3.11\pm 0.80_{stat}\pm 0.72_{sys})\times 10^4`$)  and BELLE ($`(3.36\pm 0.53_{stat}\pm 0.42_{sys}(\pm _{0.54}^{0.50})_{model})\times 10^4`$) . For the error of the world average we added all errors in quadrature.

As will be shown, the small deviations from the SM for both $`a_\mu `$ and $`bX_s\gamma `$require now very similar mass spectra for the sparticles.

In the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM) with supergravity mediated breaking terms all sparticles masses are related by the usually assumed GUT scale boundary conditions of a common mass $`m_0`$ for the squarks and sleptons and a common mass $`m_{1/2}`$ for the gauginos. The region of overlap in the GUT scale parameter space, where both $`a_\mu `$ and $`bX_s\gamma `$are within errors consistent with the data, is most easily determined by a global statistical analysis, in which the GUT scale parameters are constrained to the low energy data by a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization.

In this paper we present such an analysis within the CMSSM assuming common scalar and gaugino masses and radiatively induced electroweak symmetry breaking. We use the full NLO renormalization group equations to calculate the low energy values of the gauge and Yukawa couplings and the one-loop RGE equations for the sparticle masses with decoupling of the contribution to the running of the coupling constants at threshold. For the Higgs potential we use the full 1-loop contribution of all particles and sparticles. For details we refer to previous publications.

In principle, one can also require $`b\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification, which has a solution at low and high values of the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the neutral components of the two Higgs doublets, denoted $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2^0/H_1^0`$. From Fig. 1 one observes that if the third generation Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale are constrained by the low energy top, bottom and tau masses, they become equal for $`\mu <0`$ at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$, while for $`\mu >0`$ they never become equal, although the difference between the Yukawa couplings is less than a factor three. Since $`\mu >0`$ is required by $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu >0`$ (see below), we do not insist on Yukawa coupling unification and consider $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to be a free parameter, except for the fact that the present Higgs limit of 113.5 GeV from LEP requires $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >4.3`$ in the CMSSM.

We found that the allowed area of overlap between $`bX_s\gamma `$and $`a_\mu `$ can be increased considerably for positive values of the common trilinear coupling $`A_0`$ at the GUT scale. For $`A_0>0`$ the present Higgs limit becomes more stringent than for the no-scale models with $`A_0=0`$, as will be shown.

## 2 $`𝒂_𝝁`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ in the CMSSM

The contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon from SUSY particles are similar to that of the weak interactions after replacing the vector bosons by charginos and neutralinos. The total contribution to $`a_\mu `$ can be approximated by

$$|a_\mu ^{SUSY}|\frac{\alpha (M_Z)}{8\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}\frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{SUSY}^2}\mathrm{tan}\beta \left(1\frac{4\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{SUSY}}{m_\mu }\right)14010^{11}\left(\frac{100GeV}{m_{SUSY}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ,$$
(1)
where $`m_\mu `$ is the muon mass, $`m_{SUSY}`$ is an average mass of supersymmetric particles in the loop (essentially the chargino mass). In our calculations we use the complete one-loop SUSY contributions from  with zero phase factors and the additional logarithmic suppression factor as in eq.(1). The calculated value of $`a_\mu `$ is shown in Fig. 2 as function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Clearly, it is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and its sign depends on the sign of $`\mu _0`$111Our sign conventions are as in Ref. .. Only positive values of $`\mu _0`$ are allowed for the positive deviation from the SM and in addition the sparticles have to be rather light. However, light sparticles contribute also substantially to the $`bX_s\gamma `$decay rate. In the past this posed a conflict. However, if one uses in the $`bX_s\gamma `$calculations the running mass for the charm quark, as suggested recently by Gambino and Misiak, the SM prediction is increased by 11%. In this case the newest world average on $`bX_s\gamma `$is $`1.7\sigma `$ below the SM, as mentioned in the introduction. Such a deviation is most easily obtained for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$and not too heavy sparticles, as shown in Fig. 3. In the upper part the scale uncertainty of the low energy scale $`\mu _b`$ is displayed by the width of the theoretical curves, while in the lower part the dependence on the trilinear coupling $`A_0`$ is shown. The scale $`\mu _b`$ was varied between 0.5$`m_b`$ and 2$`m_b`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`40`$ only positive values of the Higgsmixing parameter at the GUT scale $`\mu _0`$ are allowed in agreement with the preferred sign of $`\mu _0`$ by the anomalous magnetic moment. For intermediate sparticle masses and $`\mu _0>0`$ large values of $`A_0`$ and small values of the low energy scale ($`\mu _b0.5m_b`$) bring the calculated values of $`bX_s\gamma `$closest to the data, as can be seen from the left hand side of Fig. 3. Note that for heavy sparticles (right hand side of Fig. 3) the effect of the trilinear coupling is small, because the stop mixing is small, if the left and right handed stops are much heavier than the top mass.
Fig. 4 shows the values of $`bX_s\gamma `$and $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ as function of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=35. For $`bX_s\gamma `$the ratio $`m_c(\mu )/m_b^{pole}=0.22`$ was used, while for the NLO QCD contributions the formulae from Ref.  were used. The calculated values have to be compared with the experimental values $`BR(bX_s\gamma )=(2.96\pm 0.46)\times 10^4`$ - and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =(43\pm 16)10^{10}`$ , which shows once more that $`bX_s\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ prefer a relatively light supersymmetric spectrum.

To find out the allowed regions in the parameter space of the CMSSM, we fitted both the $`bX_s\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ data simultaneously. The fit includes the following constraints: i) the unification of the gauge couplings, ii) radiative elctroweak symmetry breaking, iii) the masses of the third generation particles, iv) $`bX_s\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, v) experimental limits on the SUSY masses, vi) the lightest superparticle (LSP) has to be neutral to be a viable candidate for dark matter. We do not impose $`b\tau `$ unification, since it prefers $`\mu _0<0`$, as shown in Fig. 1, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ requires $`\mu _0>0`$, as shown in Fig. 2. Yukawa unification for $`\mu _0>0`$ can only be obtained by relaxed unification of the gauge couplings and non-universality of the soft terms in the Higgs sector .

The $`\chi ^2`$ contributions of $`bX_s\gamma `$ and the anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu `$ in the global fit are shown in Fig. 5 for $`A_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$. As expected, the $`\chi ^2`$ contribution from $`bX_s\gamma `$ is smallest for heavy sparticles, if $`bX_s\gamma `$is calculated with $`m_c/m_b=0.29`$, while the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ is obtained for intermediate sparticles, if $`m_c/m_b=0.22`$ is used. With the newly calculated $`bX_s\gamma `$values, one can see, that $`bX_s\gamma `$and $`a_\mu `$ prefer a similar region of the $`m_0,m_{1/2}`$ plane. Fig. 6 shows the combined $`\chi ^2`$ contributions from $`bX_s\gamma `$and $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ in the $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$ plane, both in 3D and 2D, for $`A_0=0`$ (top) and $`A_0`$ free (bottom). In the latter case the lower $`2\sigma `$ contour from $`bX_s\gamma `$ moves to the lower left corner, but for the preferred value $`A_03m_0`$, which is the maximum allowed value in the fit in order to avoid negative stop- or Higgs masses and colour breaking minima, the Higgs bound moves up considerably. The total allowed region is similar in both cases, as shown by the light shaded areas in the contour plots. The $`2\sigma `$ contours from the individual contributions are in good agreement with previous calculations , but in these paper a simple scan over the parameter space was performed without calculating the combined probability. In addition, $`A_0=0`$ was assumed.

We repeated the fits for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and 50, as shown in Fig. 7. For smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the allowed region decreases, since $`a_\mu `$ becomes too small. At larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values the region allowed by $`a_\mu `$ and $`bX_s\gamma `$increases towards heavier sparticles, as expected from Eq. 1, but it is cut by the region where the charged stau lepton becomes the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP), which is assumed to be stable and should be neutral. A charged stable LSP would have been observed by its electromagnetic interactions after being produced in the beginning of the universe. Furthermore, it would not be a candidate for dark matter. The increase of the LSP-excluded area is due to the larger mixing term between the left- and right handed staus at larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

We conclude that the $`a_\mu `$ measurement strongly restricts the allowed region of the parameter space in the CMSSM, since it excludes the $`\mu _0<`$ solution, which was the preferred one from $`b\tau `$ Yukawa unification. In addition, it prefers large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with relatively light sparticles, if the present deviation from the SM of $`2.6\sigma `$ persists.

At large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ a global fit including both $`bX_s\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ as well as the present Higgs limit of 113.5 GeV leaves a quite large region in the CMSSM parameter space. Here we left the trilinear coupling to be a free parameter, which affects both the Higgs limit constraint and the $`bX_s\gamma `$constraint, but in opposite ways, so that the preferred region is similar for the no-scale models with $`A_0=0`$ and models which leave $`A_0`$ free.

The 95% lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ is $`300`$ GeV (see Figs. 6+7), which implies that the lightest chargino (neutralino) is above 240(120) GeV. The 95% upper limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ is determined by the lower limit on $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ and therefor depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$(see Fig. 2). For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=35(50) one finds $`m_{1/2}610(720)`$ GeV, which implies that the lightest chargino is below 500(590) GeV and the lightest neutralino is below 260(310) GeV.

## Acknowledgements

D.K. would like to thank the Heisenberg-Landau Programme, RFBR grant # 99-02-16650 and DFG grant # 436/RUS/113/626 for financial support and the Karlsruhe University for hospitality during completion of this work.


text:
# Some Aspects of Brane Inflation

## I Introduction

By now, the inflationary universe  is generally recognized to be a likely scenario that leads to the big bang. So far, its predictions of the flatness and the scale-invariant power spectrum of the density perturbation that seeds structure formations are in good agreement with observations . Future data will test inflationary predictions to a very high accuracy. In fact, there is widespread hope that the enormous growth in scale during inflation may provide a kind of Planck scale microscope, allowing us one day to probe stringy and/or brane world effects from precision cosmological measurements .

In conventional inflationary models, the physics lies in the inflaton potential. Although there are constraints from observations, such as enough number of e-foldings, the amplitude of the density perturbation etc., there are very few theoretical constraints on the underlying dynamics of the inflaton field. As a result, this scalar field potential can take a large variety of shapes. In hybrid inflation  or other variations, additional fields and/or parameters are introduced, allowing even more freedom. However, the problem in a conventional 4-dimensional theory is the difficulty of finding an appropriate inflaton potential. In general, a potential that yields the correct magnitude of density perturbation and satisfies the slow-roll condition is not well-motivated and requires some fine-tuning. Generically, such fine-tuning is not preserved by quantum corrections.

Recently, motivated by the idea of brane world , the brane inflationary scenario was proposed, where the inflaton is identified with an inter-brane separation: $`𝚽=M_s^2𝐫`$. Inflation ends when the branes collide, heating the universe that starts the big bang. In this scenario, the inflaton potential has a geometric interpretation. In particular, higher dimensional gravity (or more generally, bulk modes or closed string states) dictates the form of the inflaton potential. For example, the inflaton potential may simply be the Newton’s potential between branes. This visualization of the brane dynamics allows one to implement inflation physics pictorially. Suitable inflaton potentials naturally appear in the brane world scenario, and their forms are robust under quantum corrections. In this paper, we demonstrate further this unusual feature of brane inflation. If the fundamental string scale is substantially above a few TeV, brane inflation will be a valuable testing ground for the brane world scenario.

The motion of the branes is dictated by interbrane (which can be brane-brane, brane-orientifold or brane-antibrane) forces. Moreover, a velocity-dependent term in the potential is present generically. So when branes move, this term may become important. This velocity-dependent term is calculable in string theory; the precise values of the parameters that appear in this term depend on the details of the model. In fact, one might expect such a velocity-dependent term from the post-Newtonian approximation in higher dimensional gravity. In this paper, we also examine the impact of such a velocity-dependent force on the slow-roll and the power spectrum of the density perturbation. We find that the effect on the tilt of the spectral index of the density perturbations may be small. However, such a term is likely to have an observable effect on the ratio of the tensor to scalar perturbations. Moreover, the scale dependence of the spectral index is also modified. Therefore, a global analysis of data from various measurements may allow us to distinguish these effects from that of the conventional inflationary scenario.

## II Dynamics of the Inflaton

Our starting part is the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ for the canonically normalized inflaton $`\varphi `$ of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(V(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}Z(\varphi )_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\mathrm{}\right)$$
(1)
where $`V`$ is the effective potential. The precise form of $`V(\varphi )`$ will be specified later on. Note that the field $`\varphi `$ in the brane world is related to the separation $`r`$ between the branes by $`\varphi =M_s^2r`$, where $`M_s`$ is the string scale. To lowest order $`Z(\varphi )=1`$. There are also higher order corrections to $`Z(\varphi )`$. In the usual inflationary scenario, the deviation of $`Z(\varphi )`$ from unity is due to quantum effects. Typically, it takes the form of $`Z(\varphi )1+cg^2\mathrm{log}(\varphi )`$, where $`c`$ is a constant and $`g`$ is the coupling constant. Here, we will consider a different type of contribution to $`Z(\varphi )`$ which is motivated by brane world physics (or higher dimensional gravity).

In an expanding universe, $`ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)d\stackrel{}{x}^2`$, then,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )=d^4x\left(a^3V(\varphi )+\frac{1}{2}a^3Z(\varphi )\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{2}aZ(\varphi )(\varphi )^2\right)$$
(2)
For inflation to take place, there is some choice of $`\varphi `$ so that the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ satisfies the slow-roll conditions:

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_P^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2<<1`$ (3)
$`|\eta |`$ $`=`$ $`|M_P^2{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}|<<1`$ (4)
where prime indicates derivative with respect to $`\varphi `$. The spatially inhomogeneous terms will be redshifted away by inflation, so they are ignored at this stage. For slow-roll, we also expect

$$\frac{1}{2}Z(\varphi )\dot{\varphi }^2<<V(\varphi ).$$
(5)
as long as $`Z(\varphi )`$ is not too far from unity. The slow-roll conditions imply that (5) is satisfied. The equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ is

$$Z\left(\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }\right)\frac{1}{2}Z^{}\dot{\varphi }^2+V^{}=0$$
(6)
where the Hubble constant is given by, during the slow-roll epoch,

$$H^2=\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{V}{3M_P^2}$$
(7)
With the condition $`\frac{1}{2}Z^{}\dot{\varphi }^2<<V^{}`$, we have:

$$\dot{\varphi }\frac{V^{}}{3HZ(\varphi )}$$
(8)
The fluctuation $`\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ results in a position-dependent time delay in the evolution of $`\varphi `$, which in turn gives rise to the density fluctuation. A crucial step in this time-delay formalism  is the observation that in the de Sitter case, $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ obeys the same time dependent differential equation when the scale is outside the horizon. This allows us to write $`\delta \varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\delta \tau (\stackrel{}{x})\dot{\varphi }(t)`$, where $`\tau (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is time-independent. The fourier modes $`|\delta _k|`$ of the density perturbation $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ can then be expressed in terms of the quantum fluctuations $`\delta \varphi _k`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ (see Appendix):

$$|\delta _k|=H\frac{\delta \varphi _k}{\dot{\varphi }}$$
(9)
where $`k`$ is the comoving wavenumber. In a more general setting, we can apply the gauge-invariant formulation  to calculate unambiguously the density perturbation.

We note that after the scale crosses the horizon (hence the $`\varphi `$ term for $`\delta \varphi `$ is unimportant), $`\delta \varphi `$ obeys the same equation as $`\dot{\varphi }`$ in brane inflation, even the velocity-dependent potential is included. In the de Sitter case, $`\delta \varphi _k`$ is given by $`\delta \varphi _k=H/2\pi `$. Then

$$|\delta _k|=\frac{3H^3Z}{2\pi V^{}}$$
(10)
since the velocity of the inflaton is modified. We can consider a more general case where the factor $`Z`$ is raised to a power.

In the absence of velocity-dependent potential, the ratio of tensor to scalar fluctuations is predicted by the inflationary scenario . Here, we note that the velocity dependent potential affects only the scalar fluctuation but not the tensor perturbation. The reason is that the scalar and tensor fluctuation have different origins. The scalar fluctuation comes from the quantum fluctuation of a brane mode, and hence from Eq.(8) and the fact that $`\delta \varphi _k`$ is not modified (see Appendix), the amplitude $`\delta _S^2`$ is increased by a factor of $`Z^2`$. (We denote $`\delta _k`$ for the scalar perturbation by $`\delta _S`$). On the other hand, the tensor fluctuation arises from the fluctuation of the bulk (or closed string) modes which is independent of $`Z`$, hence the fourier modes of the tensor perturbations $`\delta _T`$:

$$\delta _T^2\frac{H^2}{M_P^2}\frac{V}{M_P^4}$$
(11)
is not affected by (8). Therefore, we expect the prediction of  to be modified:

$$\frac{\delta _T^2}{\delta _S^2}=12.4ϵ\frac{\delta _T^2}{\delta _S^2}=12.4\frac{ϵ}{Z^2}$$
(12)
As a result, the ratio of tensor to scalar perturbations by itself does not give a measurement of $`ϵ`$. As an illustration, let us take $`Z0.7`$, the ratio of tensor to scalar perturbations is increased by a factor of $`2`$.

Let us now consider the effect on the density perturbation power spectrum index $`n`$ due to the new factor $`Z`$ from the velocity-dependent term. There is a weak $`k`$ dependence due to the fact that different scales cross the horizon at different times, and hence at different values of $`\varphi `$. In particular, scale with the smallest $`k`$ crosses the horizon first, and hence the corresponding $`\varphi `$ is larger. Whether the spectrum is tilted to the blue or to the red depends on the form of $`Z`$.

By definition, the spectral index

$$n1=\frac{d\mathrm{log}|\delta _k|^2}{d\mathrm{log}k}$$
(13)
where $`n`$ is in general a function of $`k`$. We can equivalently express the spectral index $`n`$ in terms of the number of e-foldings $`N`$ when the scale $`k`$ crosses the horizon. One can show that

$$n1=2\eta 6ϵ+2\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z}{d\mathrm{ln}k}$$
(14)
Since $`d\mathrm{ln}k=d\mathrm{ln}(aH)d\mathrm{ln}a=Hdt`$,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{1}{Z}\frac{dZ}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{1}{Z}\frac{dZ}{d\varphi }\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{1}{Z}\frac{dZ}{d\varphi }\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{H}=\frac{1}{Z}\frac{dZ}{d\varphi }\left(\frac{M_P}{Z}\sqrt{2ϵ}\right)=\sqrt{2ϵ}\left(M_P\frac{Z^{}}{Z^2}\right)$$
(15)
Let us define the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$:

$$\lambda =M_P\frac{Z^{}}{Z},\kappa =M_P^2\frac{Z^{\prime \prime }}{Z}$$
(16)
Unlike the slow-roll parameters, $`\lambda `$, $`\kappa `$ are not required to be smaller than $`1`$. We have assumed that $`|\frac{1}{2}Z^{}\dot{\varphi }^2|<<V`$ in deriving the equation of motion, this implies

$$|\sqrt{2ϵ}\lambda |<<Z$$
(17)
Since $`Z`$ is of order $`1`$, and $`ϵ<<1`$, it is easy to satisfy the above condition. To summarize:

$$n1=2\eta 6ϵ\frac{2}{Z}\sqrt{2ϵ}\lambda $$
(18)
Therefore, whether the velocity-dependent term tilts the spectrum to the red or to the blue depends on the sign of $`\lambda `$. If $`Z`$ has the same functional depenence on $`\varphi `$ as $`V`$, then $`\lambda \sqrt{ϵ}`$. Hence, the velocity-dependent term has the same $`k`$ dependence as $`ϵ`$. This is the case if $`V`$ is due to higher dimensional gravity, where the post-Newtonian approximation  implies that

$$Z(\varphi )1V(\varphi )/M_s^4,$$
(19)
where $`M_s`$ is the higher dimensional Planck mass or the string scale. Since $`V>0`$ to provide inflation, $`Z<1`$, an important property of brane inflation. If $`Z`$ is too small (not close to unity), higher terms in the effective action must be included. In string theory, when branes are moving with respect to each other, there is a velocity-dependent potential of the form $`𝒱=C\dot{\varphi }^p/\varphi ^q+constant`$, where $`C`$ is a model-dependent constant, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are positive integers. We expect that $`p`$ is even by time reversal invariance. In general, if supersymmetry is broken, the $`p=2`$ term is non-vanishing. If, on the other hand, $`Z(\varphi )`$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ takes different functional form, then the contribution of the velocity-dependent potential to the spectral index can be bigger or smaller than $`ϵ`$.

Another quantity of interest is the $`k`$ dependence of $`n`$. It is also modified to:

$$\frac{dn}{d\mathrm{ln}k}=\frac{1}{Z}\left(2\xi +16ϵ\eta 24ϵ^2\right)+\frac{1}{Z^2}\left(4ϵ\kappa 8ϵ\lambda ^2+2\eta \sqrt{2ϵ}\lambda 4ϵ\sqrt{2ϵ}\lambda \right)$$
(20)
where

$$\xi =M_P^4\frac{V^{}V^{\prime \prime \prime }}{V^2}$$
(21)
Typically, $`\xi `$ is the dominant contribution. Here, we note that even though the effects of $`Z`$ is small in the spectral index $`n`$, it can have a measurable effect on $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$.

To express the above in terms of $`N`$, we first need an expression of $`\varphi _N`$ as a function of $`N`$. It takes $`N`$ e-foldings for $`\varphi _N`$ to reach $`\varphi _{end}`$.

$$N=_{t_N}^{t_{end}}H𝑑t=_{\varphi _N}^{\varphi _{end}}H\frac{d\varphi }{\dot{\varphi }}=_{\varphi _N}^{\varphi _{end}}\frac{3H^2Zd\varphi }{V^{}}=\frac{1}{M_P^2}_{\varphi _N}^{\varphi _{end}}\frac{V}{V^{}}Z𝑑\varphi $$
(22)
The value of $`\varphi _{end}`$ is determined when the slow-roll condition breaks down. Typically, $`ϵ<\eta `$, as we will see in the examples, and so the slow-roll condition breaks down when $`\eta 1`$.

## III Brane Inflation

In the brane inflationary scenario , the inflaton potential is generated by the interaction between branes. This is naturally realized in Type I string theory since its classical vacua contain D-branes and orientifold planes . When the theory is compactified, the RR charges carried by the D-branes are canceled by that of the orientifold planes, which must sit at orbifold fixed points. An ordinary orientifold plane $`𝒪`$ (corresponding to the worldsheet parity transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) carries negative RR charges as well as negative tension (NS-NS charges). When the D-branes are on top of an orientifold plane, the total energy density and RR charges cancel. On the other hand, an anti-orientifold plane $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ carries positive RR charge and negative tension, and so it cancels the energy density as well as RR charges of anti D-branes. An $`𝒪_+`$ plane corresponding to a frozen $`D_8`$ singularity  in F theory (and hence does not generate gauge symmetry) carries positive RR charge and positive tension. More generally, there are four different types of orientifold planes (which carry positive/negative tension, and positive/negative RR charges respectively) corresponding to four different orientifold projections . If the internal manifold is smooth so there are no orientifold planes where the curvature is localized, F theory provides a proper description of such vacua.

We consider brane inflation when the extra dimensions are compactified, so that the four-dimensional Planck scale is finite. In the early universe, the branes and the orientifold planes do not have to be exactly on top of one another. For parallel and static $`D`$-branes, and before supersymmetry is broken, there is no force between the branes. However, if supersymmetry is broken, we expect a static potential between the branes. This is the case, for example, when branes are not exactly parallel. In general, the interbrane separations are parametrized by a matrix-valued scalar field $`𝚽`$. The diagonal values of $`𝚽`$ correspond to the location of the branes. The problem is usually quite involved if branes are intersecting at angles (e.g., the brane configuration in ), as briefly discussed in . It is convenient to simplify the problem by considering a single brane or a stack of branes moving together. A simplistic potential has the form

$$V(r)=\left(T_1+T_2\right)\pm M_s^{6d_{}}r^{2d_{}}\left(1+\underset{i}{}e^{m_ir}\underset{j}{}e^{m_j^{}r}\right)$$
(23)
where $`d_{}`$ is the number of dimensions transverse to the branes, $`m_i`$ and $`m_j^{}`$ are the masses of the NS-NS and the RR states respectively. Here, $`T_{1,2}`$ are the tension of the two stacks of branes (and/or orientifold planes) respectively. For simplicity, we consider $`3`$-branes, although the analysis can be trivially generalized to arbitrary $`p`$-branes. The $``$ sign corresponds to $`T_1T_2>0`$. The $`+`$ sign corresponds to branes with $`T_1T_2<0`$ since the potential between the branes is repulsive if they have opposite tensions. Note that there is no (light) open strings ending on orientifold planes. So there is no brane mode associated with brane-orientifold plane separations. So here, one should view a negative $`T_1`$ as due to a brane sitting on top of an orientifold plane. For $`d_{}=2`$, the potential is not inverse-power like but logarithmic. In any case, for sufficiently large $`r`$, the potential $`V(r)`$ is flat. Very crudely, the magnitude of the density perturbation is $`\delta \rho /\rho =|\delta _k|M_s/M_P`$. In the brane world scenario, both $`M_s`$ and the effective Planck scale $`M_P`$ during inflation can take a wide range of values. To obtain the correct magnitude, typically $`M_s10^{12}`$ GeV. If $`M_s`$ is much smaller, then the size of compactification must vary such that the effective Planck scale during inflation is substantially smaller than that at present. The dynamics of such a radion mode is discussed in Ref. Here we shall simply take $`M_s10^{12}`$ GeV.

One may also consider (non-supersymmetric) models with both branes and anti-branes . The potential for small brane-anti-brane separation $`𝐫𝐫_i`$ has the form

$$V(𝐫)=A\frac{B_i}{|𝐫𝐫_i|^m}$$
(24)
where $`m=d_{}2`$. This is the case considered in Ref. For generic values of $`A`$ and $`B_i`$ given by string theory, the slow-roll conditions cannot be satisfied due to the physical requirement that $`r=|𝐫𝐫_i|<r_{}`$, where $`r_{}`$ is the extra dimension compactification size, and the relative large value of $`B`$. (We note here that for $`d_{}=2`$, a priori, it is possible to have $`\eta <1`$. Unfortunately, the allowed values of $`\eta `$ will give rise to a tilt too large to be in agreement with the observational results $`|n1|<0.1`$.) However, depending on the distribution of branes and orientifold planes, there are regions in the extra dimensions in which the potential may be sufficiently flat. For example, if the branes are close to an orientifold plane, the tension is screened; to the anti-brane, the brane-orientifold plane system behaves like a dipole, so $`B_i`$ is essentially the dipole moment and $`m=d_{}1`$ (or more generally, higher moment if the dipole moment vanishes). In this case, $`B_i`$ can be made as small as one wants to satify the slow-roll conditions, and the analysis in Ref is applicable. In reality, the separation between the brane and the orientifold plane (that is, the dipole moment $`B_i`$) should also be treated as a dynamical field.

When the brane separation $`r`$ is comparable to the the compactifaction radius, the contribution of the image charges (dipoles) become important:

$$V(𝐫)=A\underset{i}{}\frac{B_i}{|𝐫𝐫_i|^m}$$
(25)
where the sum is over all the branes and orientifold planes in the covering space. In general, the value of $`m`$ can even be different for different clusters of branes and orientifold planes. A few comments on this potential are in order. First of all, the sum may be divergent, for example, when all $`B_i`$ have the same sign as in . One should regulate the above sum so that it is finite. After the regularization, the sum becomes finite but can still be non-zero if the sum of tensions of the branes do not cancel. The non-zero constant can renormalize the value of $`A`$, thereby changing the predictions of the power spectrum.

Following Ref, let us suppose that at $`𝐫=𝐫_0`$, the force from various branes and orientifold planes cancel. We expand $`V(𝐫)`$ for small $`z|𝐫𝐫_0|`$, The linear term vanishes since the force is zero at $`𝐫_0`$. In general, the $`z^2`$ term is non-zero. However, in some special cases, the compactification implies certain discrete symmetries which forbid the quadratic terms to contribute. For example, in the case of $`𝐙_4`$ orientifold, the orbifold symmetry requires the compactified dimensions be a product of two-dimensional square lattices. For concreteness, let us take $`𝐫_0`$ to be the center of the lattice, and the potential has the form

$$V(r)=ACz^4+\mathrm{}$$
(26)
During inflation, $`z`$ may start out small, described by $`V(z)`$ (26), but end up with small $`𝐫𝐫_i`$, described by V(r) (24). This means that the correct potential $`V(r)`$ should have the form:

$$V(r)=\nu M_s^4\left[1\frac{\zeta }{4}\frac{z^4}{r^m}f(r)\left(1+\underset{i}{}e^{m_ir}\underset{j}{}e^{m_jr}\right)\right]$$
(27)
where $`\nu `$ is a dimensionless number of order $`1`$, and $`f(r)`$ is a smooth function. The precise form of $`f(r)`$ depends on the distribution of the branes. In reality, since the compactification (the lattice) breaks spherical symmetry, V(r) is a function of the vector $`𝐫`$ (and not simply $`r`$). This is similar to hybrid inflation since there are $`d_{}`$ number of fields. The set of inflatons can wander around before falling onto one of the branes. In other words, different paths that the inflaton fields follow will yield different numbers of e-foldings. This resembles hybrid inflation.

This potential interpolates from $`V(z)`$ at small $`z`$ to $`V(r)`$ when the anti-brane is close to the brane. Finally, when $`r`$ is even smaller, the stringy modes begin to contribute. Therefore, inflation ends sharply since the exponentials are no longer small. When a stack of $`N_p`$ $`p`$-branes and a stack of $`N_a`$ anti-$`p`$-branes annihilate, we may end up with (for $`N_p>N_a`$) a stack of $`(N_pN_a)`$ $`p`$-branes, or if $`N_p=N_a`$, we may end up with $`(p2)`$-branes (depending on the details of the situation).

As the form of the potential changes as the branes move (since they are at different locations), different physical scales sample a different form of the inflation potential since they cross the horizon at different time. The density perturbation spectrum can be tilted rather differently for small and large scales. The precise form depends on the distribution of the branes, as well as the path that the branes follow.

As the branes are in relative motion, generically supersymmetry is broken. Therefore, in addition to the static potential, there is a velocity-dependent potential  (see also  for a detail discussion). Generically, the velocity-dependent potential has the same form as the static potential. Assuming that the density perturbation were generated before the stringy modes become important, $`Z(\varphi )`$ takes the form

$$Z=1\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{4}\frac{z^4}{r^m}f(r)$$
(28)
Following the general analysis in the previous section, we see that its contribution to the tilt is of the same order as $`ϵ`$.

## IV Examples

### A An Interpolating Potential

Let us study the effects on density perturbation from (27). In general, $`md_{}2`$ since there is cancellation between positive and negative tension objects. In particular, $`m=d_{}1`$ for dipoles. For simplicity, we consider $`m=d_{}2`$.

We can see from Eq.(12) that the amplitude of the tensor to scalar perturbations is modified by a factor of $`1/Z^2`$, whose value is model-dependent.

Let us consider a potential of the form

$$V(r)=\nu M_s^4\left(1\frac{\zeta }{4}\frac{z^4}{r^{d_{}2}}\right)$$
(29)
For small $`r`$, $`z\sqrt{d_{}}r_{}/2`$, and so $`V(r)AB/r^{d_{}2}`$. To compare with :

$$\zeta =2\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}}\right)^4\alpha \beta g_sM_s^{2d_{}}r_{}^4$$
(30)
where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling, and $`\beta `$ is given by

$$\beta =\pi ^d_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d_{}}{2}1)$$
(31)
On the other hand, for small $`z`$, $`rr_{}/2`$ and hence

$$V(r)A\frac{C}{4}z^4$$
(32)
where

$$C=\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}r_{}}\right)^{d_{}2}\zeta =2\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}r_{}}\right)^{d_{}+2}\alpha \beta g_sM_s^{2d_{}}$$
(33)
Let us define

$$\gamma =4\beta \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}}\right)^{d_{}+2}$$
(34)
Suppose we can approximate the potential by (32) all the way to the end of slow-roll, then

$$\eta =3\gamma \left(\frac{z}{r_{}}\right)^2$$
(35)
The slow-roll ends when $`z_{end}=r_{}/\sqrt{3\gamma }`$. For example, if $`d_{}=6`$, $`z3.6r_{}3\sqrt{d_{}}r_{}/2`$. Therefore, before the end of slow-roll is reached (and before tachyonic instability is developed since it was assumed that $`M_Sr_{}>>1`$ in ), the approximation (32) breaks down. Moreover, since the branes almost collide at the end of inflation, there is not enough time for the branes to reheat. One should use the full inflaton potential (29).

It is useful to define $`y=2z/(\sqrt{d}r_{})`$, so that $`y_{end}<<1`$ implies that the approximation (32) is valid. The slow-roll parameter $`\eta `$ is given by

$$\eta 4\beta \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}}\right)^d_{}\frac{y^2}{\left(1y\right)^d_{}}\left[\left(3+\left(d_{}4\right)y\right)\left(1+\left(\frac{d_{}}{4}\frac{3}{2}\right)y\right)+y\left(1y\right)\left(\frac{d_{}}{4}\frac{3}{2}\right)\right]$$
(36)
The slow-roll parameter $`ϵy^6`$ and so $`ϵ<<\eta `$. Hence, we will ignore it in what follows. As discussed, the velocity-dependent term has the same form as the static potential, and so its contribution to the spectral index is also negligible.

The number of e-foldings is

$$N=\frac{1}{4\beta \left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{d_{}}}\right)^d_{}}_{y_N}^{y_{end}}\frac{(1y)^{d_{}1}dy}{y^3\left(1+(\frac{d_{}}{4}\frac{3}{2})y\right)}$$
(37)
The tilt in the spectral index as a function of $`N`$ for $`d_{}=6`$ is depicted in Figure 1. With the full potential (29), the value of $`z_{end}`$ at the end of slow-roll is smaller than the naive answer $`r_{}/\sqrt{3\gamma }`$. Therefore, there is enough time to reheat, without having to invoke tachyonic instability. However, the initial condition of $`z_N`$ at $`N=60`$ is also smaller with the full potential. Hence the branes has to be closer to $`z0`$ in the beginning of inflation.

### B Inverse Power Potential

A potential of the form

$$V(\varphi )=\nu M_s^4\left(1\frac{c}{\varphi ^m}\right)$$
(38)
was considered in  when branes and anti-branes collide. The slow-roll parameters,

$$ϵ=\frac{1}{2}M_P^2\frac{m^2c^2}{\varphi ^{2m+2}},\eta =M_P^2\frac{m(m+1)c}{\varphi ^{m+2}}$$
(39)
As discussed, $`m`$ does not have to be $`d_{}2`$; for dipoles, $`m=d_{}1`$. Here, we can phenomenologically model the behavior of the potential with an arbitrary $`c`$ since its precise value depends on the brane distribution. The slow-roll condition breaks down when $`\eta 1`$:

$$\varphi _{end}\left(M_P^2cm(m+1)\right)^{1/(m+2)}$$
(40)
Let us consider a velocity-dependent potential:

$$Z=1\frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\varphi ^m}$$
(41)
then

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_P^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mc}}{\displaystyle _{\varphi _N}^{\varphi _{end}}}\varphi ^{m+1}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\varphi ^m}}\right)𝑑\varphi `$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m+1}{m+2}}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _N}{\varphi _{end}}}\right)^{m+2}1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}}{\varphi _{end}^m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m+1}{2}}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _N}{\varphi _{end}}}\right)^21\right]`$ (43)
The solution of $`\varphi _N/\varphi _{end}`$ does not change greatly with the velocity-dependent term,

$$\left(\frac{\varphi _N}{\varphi _{end}}\right)^{m+2}\left(\frac{m+2}{m+1}\right)N$$
(44)
Furthermore, $`ϵ<<\eta `$ and so the velocity-dependent term is also negligible. Therefore,

$$n1\frac{2}{N}\left(\frac{m+1}{m+2}\right)$$
(45)
where $`md_{}2`$. The spectrum is tilted to the red. If the lowest non-vanishing contribution to the potential comes from the dipole of a brane-orientifold plane system, $`m=d_{}1`$ which gives a slightly larger red tilt.

## V Discussion

In this paper, we have examined the density perturbation spectrum in the brane inflationary scenario. We have also studied the effect of a velocity-dependent potential. The form of the inflation potential as well as the velocity-dependent potential is strongly motivated from higher dimensional gravity (in particular, string theory). In the usual four-dimensional inflationary scenario, the deviation of $`Z(\varphi )`$ from unity is due to quantum effects and is usually small. In brane inflation, however, the velocity-dependent potential can give rise to a significant effect in $`Z(\varphi )`$. Generically, the effect on the spectral index is comparable with that from the slow-roll parameter $`ϵ`$ (from Eq.(18)). Therefore, in models where $`ϵ`$ is not small, this may be a measurable effect. Even though this effect on $`n`$ can be small in a generic model, the scale-dependence of $`n`$ has a stronger dependence on the velocity dependent term, as it scales $`dn/d\mathrm{ln}k`$ by a factor of $`1/Z`$ (see Eq. (20)). More importantly, the velocity-dependent potential can also modify the ratio of tensor to scalar fluctuations (see Eq.(12)). With a global analysis of data from various measurements, one should be able to distinguish these effects from those that can be obtained from a conventional inflationary scenario. We expect that a few percent deviation of $`Z`$ from unity may be measurable.

It seems that the power spectrum index in a generic inflationary scenario in the brane world has a red tilt of a few percent. The velocity dependent potential can further tilt the density perturbation spectrum to the red or to the blue, depending on the specific form of the potential. The blue tilt due to the velocity-dependent term does not require extra fields, in contrast to other inflationary models (e.g., hybrid inflation).

The velocity-dependent potential in the brane flationary scenario is similar to that appears in k-inflation . However, unlike k-inflation, in our scenario, inflation is still driven by the static potential. The additional velocity dependent term provides modifications of the usual slow-roll inflation. Furthermore, the kinetic term and the static potential in the brane inflation scenario are related by string theory or by post-Newtonian approximation (see Eq.(19)).

Potential of the type $`1/\varphi ^m`$ has been studied in the context of quintessence . It was argued in  that this type of potential appear naturally in supersymmetric theory. As we have described, this type of potential is also motivated when we study cosmology involving branes. Furthermore, the velocity dependent term has a close resemblance to that in k-essence . It would be interesting to explore whether the specific form of k-essence motivated by brane dynamics may offer an explanation for the present accelerating universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

The research of G.S. was supported in part by the DOE grant FG02-95ER40893, the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences Dean’s fund, and the NSF grant PHY99-07949. The research of S.-H.H.T. was partially supported by the National Science Foundation. G.S. would like to thank the M-theory workshop at ITP, Santa Barbara, and the Theory Division at CERN for support and hospitality during the final stage of this work.

## Quantum Fluctuations

In this appendix, we derive the equation for the quantum fluctuation $`\delta \varphi `$ in the presence of a non-trivial $`Z(\varphi )`$, and show that at late time, $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ obey the same differential equation with respect to time. We used this fact to derive Eq.(9) analogous to the original derivation of .

To study quantum fluctuations, we split $`\varphi `$ into the classical piece $`\varphi _c`$ (which satisfies (6)) and the quantum piece $`\delta \varphi `$:

$$\varphi =\varphi _c+\delta \varphi $$
(46)
The classical piece is homogeneous, whereas the fluctuations satisfy:

$$Z\left(\delta \ddot{\varphi }+3H\delta \dot{\varphi }\right)+Z^{}\left(\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }\right)\delta \varphi \frac{Z}{a^2}^2\delta \varphi +V^{\prime \prime }\delta \varphi =0$$
(47)
where we have dropped the subscript $`c`$ for the classical part of $`\varphi `$. We note that for scales outside the horizon (hence the gradient term is negligible), $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ obeys the same time-dependent differential equation. By expanding $`\delta \varphi `$ in fourier modes:

$$\delta \varphi (x,t)=\frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{2k}}\left(a_𝐤\delta \varphi _𝐤(t)e^{i𝐤𝐱}+a_𝐤^{}\delta \varphi _𝐤^{}(t)e^{i𝐤𝐱}\right)$$
(48)
The equation of motion for $`\delta \varphi _𝐤`$ is

$$Z\left(\delta \ddot{\varphi }_k+3H\delta \dot{\varphi }_k\right)+Z^{}\left(\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }\right)\delta \varphi _k+\left(Z\frac{k^2}{a^2}+V^{\prime \prime }\right)\delta \varphi _k=0$$
(49)
It is convenient to rewrite it in terms of $`u_𝐤=a\delta \varphi _𝐤`$. In the conventional case, $`Z(\varphi )=1`$,

$$u_𝐤^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+a^2V^{\prime \prime }\right)u_𝐤=0$$
(50)
where prime denotes derivative with respect to conformal time $`\eta =H^1e^{Ht}`$. For de Sitter space, the solution is

$$u_𝐤(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\pi \eta }H_{3/2}(k\eta )$$
(51)
which reduces to $`u_𝐤\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}e^{ik\eta }`$ for $`k>>aH`$ and $`u_𝐤a`$ for $`k<<aH`$.

In the presence of a velocity-dependent potential,

$$u_𝐤^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\frac{a^2}{Z}V^{\prime \prime }\frac{a^2V^{}Z^{}}{Z^2}\right)u_𝐤=0$$
(52)
For scales inside the horizon, when the fluctuations are generated, the dominant term is still $`k^2`$. Therefore, $`u_𝐤`$ is still given by the Bunch-Davies vacuum,

$$u_𝐤=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}e^{ik\eta }$$
(53)
Hence the quantum fluctuations $`\delta \varphi _𝐤`$ is still given by the de Sitter temperature,

$$\delta \varphi _𝐤=\frac{H}{2\pi }$$
(54)


text:
# The Orbit of the Brown Dwarf Binary Gl 569B

## 1 Introduction

Brown dwarfs (BDs), despite sometimes being labeled “failed stars”, are very interesting objects. According to our current understanding, BDs may represent the extreme low-mass end of star formation in which the mass is too small to sustain thermonuclear fusion. This stellar-substellar transition (also defined as the minimum mass at which the internal energy provided by nuclear burning quickly balances the gravitational contraction energy) is expected to occur around 0.075 $`M_{}`$ (Baraffe et al. 1998) for objects with solar metallicities. This value is slightly lower in recent models, which predict a transition mass of 0.072 $`M_{}`$ (Chabrier & Baraffe 2000). Objects with masses below this limit never reach the stable hydrogen burning main sequence, but instead cool down as they age (Burrows et al. 1997; Chabrier et al. 2000) so that their surface temperatures and luminosities strongly depend on age as well as mass. As these cooling curves rely on poorly tested theoretical models, it is highly desirable to calibrate them with direct measurements.

Obtaining dynamical masses for very low-mass (VLM, $`M\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}M_{}`$) stars and BDs from binaries is a challenging prospect, as so far there are no known eclipsing binary VLM stars or BDs. However, there are a number of known wide, non-eclipsing VLM and BD binaries (Kirkpatrick et al. 2001; Gizis, Kirkpatrick & Wilson 2001; Leinert et al. 2001; see also Reid et al. 2001a and references therein) that have been observed with a range of instruments and techniques, including ground-based infrared and optical imaging, speckle interferometry, adaptive optics (AO), and the Hubble Space Telescope. These binary systems promise to yield highly accurate dynamical masses, although they tend to have long periods and hence will require patience.

In the absence of direct mass measurements for VLM/BD objects, one has to rely on indirect methods that may constrain mass ranges but that do not provide high-precision mass values. One very useful such technique is the lithium test (Magazzù, Martín & Rebolo 1993). Lithium is an element that is easily destroyed under the conditions prevalent in stellar interiors at temperatures slightly below those required for hydrogen burning. Objects more massive than $`0.060M_{}`$ have their primordial lithium abundances depleted as long as they are fully convective. The lithium test has been used to confirm BD candidates in the Pleiades (e.g., Basri, Marcy & Graham 1996) and in the field (e.g., Martín, Basri & Zapatero Osorio 1999; Kirkpatrick et al. 1999; Tinney, Delfosse & Forveille 1997).

Gl 569A is a nearby ($`d`$ = 9.8 pc), chromospherically active late-type (M2.5V) star. Forrest, Skrutskie & Shure (1988) first reported a possible BD companion with a separation of 5″ from the primary. Based on a low resolution spectrum Henry & Kirkpatrick (1990) classified this object as an M8.5 dwarf with a mass of $`0.09\pm 0.02M_{}`$. More recently, Martín et al. (2000a) resolved the companion into two separate objects (Gl 569Ba and Bb) using AO observations with the Keck II telescope. They estimated the orbital period of the Ba-Bb binary to be around 3 years, and the total mass of the binary pair to be in the range $`0.090.15M_{}`$. Herein we present the results of extensive follow-up observations of this interesting pair, including improved photometry as well as near-IR spectroscopy and astrometry of the resolved binary components. We use the photometry to accurately place the objects in the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram, the spectroscopy to derive spectral types, and the astrometry to derive the total mass of the system from its orbital parameters.

## 2 NIR photometry and astrometry

### 2.1 The composite pair: Gl 569Bab

Broad-band near-infrared photometry of the composite pair Gl 569Bab is available in the literature (Forrest et al. 1988; Becklin & Zuckerman 1988). However, the measurement uncertainties claimed by the authors are too large for an accurate placement of these objects in the HR diagram or for direct comparison with theoretical evolutionary models. With the objective of improving the photometric data, we have collected $`J`$ and $`K_{short}`$ direct images of the system Gl 569A and Gl 569Bab with the near-infrared camera (Hg Cd Te detector, 256 $`\times `$ 256 elements) mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the 1.5-m Carlos Sánchez Telescope (CST, Teide Observatory) on 2001 February 8. The observations were performed through the “narrow-optics” of the instrument, which provides a pixel projection of 0.4″ onto the sky. The atmospheric seeing conditions during the night of the observations were fairly stable around 1″, which allowed us to easily separate the M2.5-type star from the pair Gl 569Bab. This latter object was not resolved into its two components. The total integration times were 5 s and 40 s in $`J`$ and $`K_{short}`$ filters, respectively. A five-position dither pattern was used to obtain the images; each image consisted of 4 ($`J`$) or 8 ($`K`$) co-added exposures of 0.25 s ($`J`$) and 0.5 s ($`K`$) respectively. The dither pattern was repeated twice for the K-band observations.

Dithered images were combined in order to obtain the sky background, which was later substracted from each single frame. Gl 569Bab is clearly detected in individual images, and we have obtained aperture photometry on each of them using PHOT in IRAF.111IRAF is distributed by National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation. Instrumental magnitudes were placed on the UKIRT photometric system using observations of the standard star HD 136754 (Casali & Hawarden 1992), which was imaged with the same instrumental configuration just before and immediately after our target. Both the science target and the standard star were observed at similar air masses. The photometric error of the calibration was $`\pm `$0.03 mag in both filters. $`K_{short}`$ displays a different bandpass compared to $`K_{UKIRT}`$; the transformation between these two filters is not well defined yet, albeit for objects as red as Gl 569Bab it has been estimated at $`K_{short}`$ – $`K_{UKIRT}`$ = 0.035 (Hodgkin et al. 1999, and references therein). We have applied this correction to our photometry as well as the relations given in Leggett, Allard & Hauschildt (1998) to convert UKIRT data into the CIT photometric system. The final average magnitudes derived for Gl 569Bab are given in Table 1, where the photometric errors listed correspond to typical 1 $`\sigma `$ uncertainties of single measurements.

The astrometry of Gl 569Bab relative to the bright primary Gl 569A as measured on the CST data (MJD = 51948.202) is the following: angular separation of 4.″890 $`\pm `$ 0.″040, and position angle of 30$`\pm `$ 3. We note that these values differ from those published in Forrest et al. (1988) by more than 2 $`\sigma `$, providing evidence of the orbital motion of Gl 569Bab around the M2.5-type star in the time interval of roughly 15 years.

### 2.2 Adaptive Optics Imaging of Gl 569Ba-Bb pair

Gl 569Bab was observed on 7 occasions between 1999 August and 2001 May with the Keck II AO system (Wizinowich et al. 1988). The first 3 observations made use of the KCAM camera with a NICMOS-3 infrared array. The later observations made use of the slit-viewing camera (SCAM) associated with the NIRSPEC instrument (McLean et al. 1998). SCAM uses a PICNIC Hg Cd Te array. For both cameras the pixel scale was 0.0175″ and the field of view was $`4.48\mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.48}`$″, except for the 2001 May observation when the SCAM pixel scale was changed to 0.0168″. Exposures were generally obtained in the $`K^{}`$-band, except for 2000 Febuary when the observations were taken in the $`J`$-band. Exact exposure times varied, but typically consisted of 30 coadded 2-second exposures. We used a 1% transmission neutral density filter in the beam to prevent saturating the bright primary star. Flat-field correction was performed using twilight exposures, while sky subtraction made use of images of an adjacent field observed immediately after Gl 569B. Corrected seeing varied between 0.05″ and 0.08″. For three of the observations the primary star (Gl 569A) was also in the field of view, providing an in-field astrometric reference. For the other observations the primary was either not observed or was saturated. No photometric standard stars were observed in any of the epochs, so we cannot provide absolute photometric calibrations for the AO observations. Figure 1 shows the resulting images of the pair Gl 569Bab at six different epochs. This figure clearly demonstrates that this system is resolved into a binary and that orbital motion is evident.

We used the DAOPHOT package (in IRAF) for data reduction and analysis. The point spread function of the objects in each frame were fitted with an elliptical Gaussian function, providing relative astrometry (Table 2) and photometry. The relative photometry of Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb was derived by computing the ratio of the amplitudes of the best fitting Gaussians (Table 1). Gl 569Bb is fainter by 0.51 $`\pm `$ 0.02 mag and 0.41 $`\pm `$ 0.03 mag in the $`J`$\- and $`K`$-bands, respectively. This makes this object redder in ($`JK`$) by 0.10 $`\pm `$ 0.04 mag. The error bars take into account the dispersion observed from image to image, and from one observing run to another. We do not find a significant relative photometric variability in any member of the pair within 3 $`\sigma `$ the uncertainties. With the relative brightness of the two components and the combined flux known, it is possible to derive the individual absolute magnitudes of Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb. We list in Table 1 the resulting decomposition for the $`J`$\- and $`K`$-bands. The corresponding error bars incorporate the photometric uncertainties of the combined system Gl 569Bab and the uncertainties of the relative photometry. We are confident that the latter is determined with a higher accuracy.

## 3 Low resolution NIR spectra

We have obtained low resolution spectra of Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb in the $`J`$\- (1.158–1.368 $`\mu `$m) and $`K`$-bands (1.992–2.420 $`\mu `$m) using the cross-dispersion spectrograph NIRSPEC and the AO facility at the Keck II telescope. The data were collected on 2000 June 20. The raw seeing and transparency conditions were very good during the observations, and the AO correction applied to the primary star Gl 569A provided well resolved images of the binary system Gl 569Bab (AO corrected seeing of 0.05″). NIRSPEC in its spectroscopic mode is equipped with an Aladdin InSb 1024 $`\times `$ 1024 detector with a pixel projecting 0.0185″ onto the sky. For the present study, we selected the low resolution spectroscopic mode which provides nominal dispersions of 2.8 Å/pix and 4.2 Å/pix in the $`J`$\- and $`K`$-bands, respectively. The 3 pixel-wide slit was aligned with the two components of the binary (PA $``$ 139 deg) so that both targets were observed simultaneously.

Total exposure times were 240 sec and 400 sec for the $`J`$-band and $`K`$-band spectra, respectively. The observing strategy employed was as follows: 6 ($`J`$) and 10 ($`K`$) individual integrations of 20 sec ($`J`$) and 10 sec ($`K`$) each at two different positions along the entrance slit separated by about 1.8″. This procedure was repeated twice in the $`K`$-band. In order to remove telluric absorptions due to the Earth’s atmosphere, the near-infrared featureless A0V-type star HR 5567 was observed very close in time and in air mass (within 0.05 air masses). Calibration images (argon arc lamp emission spectra and white-light spectra) were systematically taken after observing each source.

Raw data were reduced following conventional techniques in the near-infrared. Nodded images were subtracted to remove the sky background and dark current. The spectra of the sources and of the calibration lamps were then extracted using subroutines of the TWODSPEC package available in IRAF. The extraction apertures of Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb were selected so that cross-contamination was less than 10%. The extracted spectra of the sources were divided by their corresponding normalized extracted flat-fields, and calibrated in wavelength. The 1 $`\sigma `$ dispersion of the fourth-order polynomial fit was 0.4 Å and 1.0 Å in the $`J`$ and $`K`$ spectra, respectively. The hydrogen P$`\beta `$ absorption line at 1.2818 $`\mu `$m and the B$`\gamma `$ absorption line at 2.1655 $`\mu `$m in the spectra of HR 5567 were interpolated before they were used for division into the corresponding science spectra. We are confident that the science spectra have good cancellation of atmospheric features. To complete the data reduction, we multiplied the spectra of our targets by the black body spectrum for the temperature of 9480 K, which corresponds to the A0V class (Allen 2000).

### 3.1 Spectral types, atomic and molecular features

The resultant average spectra with a resolution of $`R`$ = 1500 in $`J`$ and $`R`$ = 1700 in $`K`$ are depicted in Fig. 2. The strongest molecular and atomic features are indicated following the identifications provided by Jones et al. (1996) and McLean et al. (2000). The spectra of both components, Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb, are indeed very similar. The composite spectrum of Gl 569Bab in the optical has been previously studied by Henry & Kirkpatrick (1990) and Kirkpatrick, Henry & McCarthy (1991), who derived a dwarf spectral type of M8.5. In addition, this object is listed in the Table 1 of Kirkpatrick et al. (1991) as a primary dwarf spectral standard. Our data agree with this measurement for the bright component Gl 569Ba, and also provide evidence that Gl 569Bb is not significantly cooler. This is fully consistent with the photometry presented above.

We have obtained equivalent widths of the strongest observed atomic absorptions of K i and Na i in the spectra; the measurements are given in Table 3. Due to the low resolution of our data, the majority of these lines are considerably blended with other spectral features, e.g. the K i line at 1.2435 $`\mu `$m is contaminated by a strong molecular band of FeH. The values in Table 3 have been extracted adopting the base of each line as the continuum. We find typical standard deviations in equivalent width close to 10% over the reasonable range of possible continua. Although this procedure does not give an absolute equivalent width, it is commonly used by different authors, and allows us to compare our values with those published in the literature. We have also measured the strengths of the H2O band at 1.330 $`\mu `$m and the CO band at 2.294 $`\mu `$m in a way similar to that described in McLean et al. (2000), Reid et al. (2001b) and Jones et al. (1994). Our measurements are listed in Table 3 with uncertainties of about 5%. All these values are comparable to those obtained from similar spectral type field stars, which suggests that neither Gl 569Ba nor Gl 569Bb have very discrepant metallicities or gravity.

We note that the equivalent widths of the K i lines and the H2O and CO absorptions in Gl 569Bb appear to be slightly larger than in Gl 569Ba, while the Na i lines in the $`K`$-band spectrum are smaller. This trend is observed for decreasing temperatures (Jones et al. 1994), and clearly indicates the cooler nature of Gl 569Bb. By fitting a polynomial spectral type-equivalent width relation to the data available for spectral standard stars (see Reid et al. 2001b), we conclude that the differences between Ba & Bb in our measurements are consistent with Gl 569Bb being half a subclass cooler. This would make Gl 569Bb an M9-dwarf ($`\pm `$0.5 subclasses).

### 3.2 Radial velocities

We used our low resolution near-IR spectra taken on 2000 June 20 (MJD = 51715.365) to compute the relative radial velocity of Gl 569Bb and Gl 569Ba via Fourier cross-correlation. Because the spectroscopic data have been corrected for telluric lines, we do not expect these lines to be a large source of uncertainty. Unfortunately, no spectra were taken of the primary star Gl 569A, so we cannot determine the relative radial velocity of the pair with respect it. The velocity dispersion of the data is rather poor (1 pixel $``$ 66 km s-1 in $`J`$ and $``$ 57 km s-1 in $`K`$). Nevertheless, the cross-correlation technique was able to achieve precisions of about 1/4 pixel, so we obtained a relative radial velocity accurate to about 15 km s-1. We verified this by cross-correlating individual spectra of each component against itself. The relative velocity (Gl 569Bb cross-correlated with Gl 569Ba) we measure is 25 km s-1 in $`J`$ and 6 km s-1 in $`K`$, with an average value of 15.5 km s-1. The peak-to-peak radial velocity variation of the system on the basis of the orbital solution presented in next section is around 14 km s-1; our measurement is consistent within the error bar with the expected value at the epoch of the observations. However, this error bar is rather large and prevents us from making further analysis (like the presence of invisible companions). The maximum peak of the cross-correlation function is in the range 0.93–0.97, which indicates the similarity and the high signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra.

## 4 Orbit determination and total mass of the pair

We determined the apparent orbit of the binary pair Gl 569Bab by fitting a Keplerian model to the relative astrometric data shown in Table 2. As the fit is non-linear in the orbital elements, we made use of a gradient-following fitting routine (Press 1992) to find the optimal (in a chi-squared, $`\chi ^2`$, sense) orbital parameter set. As there may be many local minima in the $`\chi ^2`$ manifold, and our gradient following routine moves strictly downhill, we ensured that it found the global minimum by starting it at a range of different locations in parameter space. The best-fit parameters are given in Table 4, and the visual orbit is shown together with the astrometry in Fig. 3. The $`rms`$ of the residuals is 0.0024″, and the residuals do not show any long-term drifts. Uncertainties (assuming normal errors) were estimated from the covariance matrix of the fit, scaled by the reduced chi-squared (0.96). However, as apparent in Fig. 4 the best-fit values for the semi-major axis and period are correlated, leading to a lower uncertainty in the total mass. The mass uncertainty was estimated by finding contours in parameter space where the $`\chi ^2`$ was increased by 2.3, 6.2 and 11.8 respectively, corresponding to the 1 $`\sigma `$, 2 $`\sigma `$ and 3 $`\sigma `$ contours. The 1 $`\sigma `$, 2 $`\sigma `$ and 3 $`\sigma `$ mass ranges are 0.114–0.135, 0.107–0.142 and 0.101–0.150 $`M_{}`$ respectively, while the best-fit values for the period and semi-major axis correspond to a total mass of 0.123 $`M_{}`$. From the relative photometry we infer that the mass ratio of the binary is close to, but not exactly, equal. Hence the 2 $`\sigma `$ upper mass limit of the secondary Gl 569Bb is less than 0.071 $`M_{}`$, i.e. below the hydrogen burning mass threshold, making it a likely brown dwarf.

It is important to note that although we were able to obtain reliable relative astrometry of the Ba-Bb pair (over a separation of $`0.1`$″), the uncertainties in plate scale and orientation and the saturation of the bright star in some images were such that we were unable to reliably measure the orbital motion of each component of the Ba-Bb pair with respect to a separate reference, i.e. Gl 569A (located $`5`$″ away). Hence, while we can determine the relative orbit of the Ba-Bb pair to a high degree of precision, we cannot astrometrically determine the mass ratio of the two components. Further studies are needed to confirm or discard the substellar nature of the primary Gl 569Ba. We will combine our photometry (absolute and relative), the total mass of the system and additional information available in the literature to compare the binary with the most recent evolutionary models.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 Color-magnitude diagram

Figure 5 depicts the location of the Gl 569Bab pair in the near-infrared color-magnitude diagram. To convert their observed magnitudes into absolute magnitudes we have used the astrometric parallax provided by Hipparcos (0.″10191 $`\pm `$ 0.″00167, Perryman et al. 1997), which is very similar to previous astrometric measurements (Heintz 1991). Also shown in this figure are the locations of very late-type dwarfs in the Pleiades cluster ($``$120 Myr, Basri et al. 1996; Martín et al. 1998; Stauffer, Schultz & Kirkpatrick 1998, we use a distance of 120 pc) which have photometry available in the literature (Festin 1998; Martín et al. 2000b), and of objects in the field. Absolute magnitudes and colors of M-type field standard stars have been taken from tables published in Kirkpatrick & McCarthy (1994) and Leggett et al. (1998). For L-type field dwarfs we have adopted the average near-infrared colors provided in Kirkpatrick et al. (2000), and have averaged absolute $`K`$ magnitudes for those objects with parallax available in the literature (see Reid et al. 2000, 2001b; Kirkpatrick et al. 2000).

Overplotted onto the observed data in Fig. 5 are the 0.5, 1.0 and 5.0 Gyr theoretical solar composition isochrones from the evolutionary models of the Lyon group (Chabrier et al. 2000; Baraffe et al. 1998) and from those of the Arizona group (Burrows et al. 1997). We have adopted solar metallicity in our studies because the photospheric abundance of the bright star Gl 569A has been determined to be very close to solar (\[Fe/H\] = –0.15, Zboril & Byrne 1998). Although the Lyon models do provide magnitudes and colors in the filters of interest, we preferred to compute them from the predicted luminosity and effective temperature at a given mass and age. This allows a direct comparison of the two sets of interior models and minimizes the effects of possible errors in the model atmosphere synthesis. We converted effective temperatures ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) into colors by using the temperature scales of Leggett et al. (1998) for M-dwarfs and of Basri et al. (2000) for late-M and L-dwarfs. These two temperature scales should be consistent and complementary with each other as the authors make use of the same atmosphere models to obtain their results. We derived absolute $`K`$ magnitudes from theoretical luminosities by using the bolometric correction as a function of spectral type (i.e. color, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) given in Leggett et al. (2000) down to mid-M classes, and in Reid et al. (2001b) for cooler types. To summarize, the second order polynomial fits (1700 $``$$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$ 3500 K) we used are as follows:

$`(JK)=6.4233.49\times 10^3T_{\mathrm{eff}}+5.41\times 10^7T_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ $`rms=0.04`$ mag

$`BC_K=5.7451.46\times 10^3T_{\mathrm{eff}}+1.57\times 10^7T_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ $`rms=0.06`$ mag

Isochrones in Fig. 5 are plotted for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$ 2900 K, which roughly corresponds to masses smaller than 0.1 $`M_{}`$ at ages around 1 Gyr.

From Fig. 5 we can see that the evolutionary models nicely reproduce the trend delineated by field objects, except for the reddest colors ($`JK`$$`>`$ 1.5) where models apparently predict brighter magnitudes. Of the two sets of isochrones, the Lyon 1–5 Gyr models seem to produce a better fit to the observed data in the field. The difference in color between Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb is consistent with the spectral types of the objects. Within 1 $`\sigma `$ the uncertainties of our $`JK`$ photometry, the location of the pair is well matched by isochrones in the age interval 0.2–1.0 Gyr. This indicates a young age for the multiple system, a result which is compatible with the elevated X-ray emission of the “single” M2.5-type primary (Pallavicini, Tagliaferri & Stella 1990; Huensch et al. 1999), with the system belonging to the young galactic disk as inferred from its kinematics (Reid, Hawley & Gizis 1995), with the large rotation rate measured for the star Gl 569A (Marcy & Chen 1992), as well as with the late-M spectral type–lithium–age relationships (Magazzù et al. 1993; see Bildsten et al. 1997).

Lithium is detected in M8–M9 Pleiades BDs (Rebolo et al. 1996; Stauffer et al. 1998), whereas older and slightly more massive objects have depleted it very efficiently. Thus, lithium non-detections in very late-M type objects necessarily imply ages older than the Pleiades. No lithium feature is observed in the composite optical spectrum of Gl 569Bab (Magazzù et al. 1993), thus implying that the binary is older than 0.12 Gyr. The $`R`$-band spectroscopic data shown in Magazzù et al. (1993) have poor signal-to-noise ratio, and are dominated by the bright and more massive component as it contributes twice as much flux as does the fainter component. We will discuss later how the age of the system can be constrained to a much smaller range using results presented in this paper.

We do not find from our near-infrared photometry strong evidence for the possible binary nature of Gl 569Ba as claimed by Martín et al. (2000a) on the basis of their $`H`$ vs $`HK`$ color-magnitude diagram as well as by Kenworthy et al . (2001) on the basis of their $`JK`$ colors. The relative position of the two components of the pair in Fig. 5 reasonably fits the location of field dwarfs even within 1 $`\sigma `$ the error bars. If Gl 569Ba is a binary itself, the smaller companion has to be at least a factor five less luminous. We have combined our AO $`K`$-band images to look for any possible companion. We place a 3 $`\sigma `$ limit at $`K`$ = 16.5 mag (0.015–0.02 $`M_{}`$) on the brightness of a possible companion at distances greater than 0.25″, and less than 2″– half the size of the AO detector. We cannot discard, however, the presence of extremely faint and less massive objects around any of the components which our AO observations have not been able to detect/resolve. Follow-up high resolution spectroscopy and/or very detailed analysis of the orbital motion of the pair may reveal the presence of close-in giant planets.

### 5.2 The HR diagram and substellarity

Figures 6 and 7 show the location of Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb in the HR diagram (luminosity as a function of effective temperature) and provide a comparison with state-of-the-art evolutionary models by the Lyon group (Chabrier et al. 2000) and by the Arizona group (Burrows et al. 1997). Solar-metallicity abundance isochrones of ages 120, 300, 500 Myr and 1 Gyr, and evolutionary tracks of masses in the interval 0.04–0.09 $`M_{}`$ are shown in these figures. We use the most recent determination of the substellar mass limit at 0.072 $`M_{}`$ to define the stellar-substellar borderline. Because this value is the smallest of those available in the literature (see e.g. Grossman, Hays & Graboske 1974; D’Antona & Mazzitelli 1994; Burrows et al. 1993), our conclusions on substellarity will be conservative. We indicate in the figures the substellar mass boundary and the location of the 50% depletion limit of lithium burning predicted by the two sets of models. We have obtained the luminosity and effective temperatures of our targets as explained above. The third-order polynomial fit that gives temperatures as a function of the observed ($`JK`$) color is the following:

$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=7744.69488.4(JK)+5509.9(JK)^21135.7(JK)^3`$ $`rms=50`$ K

This fit has been calculated for colors in the range 0.85–2.06 (spectral types M6–L6), and is based on the temperature calibrations provided by Basri et al. (2000) and Leggett et al. (2000). Bolometric corrections in the $`J`$\- and $`K`$-bands from Reid et al. (2001b) and Bessell, Castelli & Plez (1998), respectively, have been used to transform magnitudes into bolometric luminosities. The values we derive for the pair are listed in Table 1. The error bars in luminosity take into account the uncertainty of the distance modulus (Hipparcos) and the photometric uncertainties, leading to a total uncertainty of $`\pm `$0.07 dex. The error bars assigned to the effective temperatures come from the uncertainty in the colors alone. These are in general a factor 2 larger than the $`rms`$ of the polynomial fit describing the temperature calibration.

Models should be able to provide explanations to all physical properties so far known for Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb, i.e., photometry, the total mass of the pair and the destruction of lithium. From Fig. 6 we observe that the location of Gl 569Ba is consistent with severe lithium depletion, in agreement with available optical spectroscopic observations. According to the Lyon models, even the fainter companion Gl 569Bb has depleted its lithium. The likely age of the system is in the range 0.2–1 Gyr, but only with younger ages is it possible to reproduce the astrometric total mass derived for the pair. Therefore, the real constraint to the age of the system is given by the total mass rather than by the error bars in the figure. For the age of 300 Myr, the binary would be formed by objects of 0.069 $`M_{}`$ (Gl 569Ba) and 0.059 $`M_{}`$ (Gl 569Bb), in good agreement with the mean orbital solution. Both masses are below the stellar-substellar borderline and thus the two components would be brown dwarfs. For slightly older ages, individual masses would become larger, as would the total mass. On the basis of the largest possible astrometric total mass value at the 3 $`\sigma `$ level, the pair would be made up of an object on the substellar borderline with 0.078 $`M_{}`$ and a 0.070 $`M_{}`$-BD at the age of 500 Myr. We tabulate the possible masses of the pair as a function of age in Table 5; these estimations rely on the Lyon models.

The comparison with the Arizona models shown in Fig. 7 also yields very young ages (120–500 Myr) for the system, and thus also small masses for each of the components. To this point, theory and some observations seem to be consistent. However, the Arizona evolutionary models predict hotter temperatures (by about 100 K) around the substellar mass limit at a given age than do the Lyon models, and hence according to these models both Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb should have preserved a considerable amount of lithium in their atmospheres. Only by assuming the highest temperatures allowed by the error bars can the Arizona models account for the observed lithium depletion in Gl 569Bab. This would move the pair to a location between 300 Myr and 500 Myr in Fig. 7. In order to be consistent with the additional restriction of the astrometric total mass, ages in the interval 300–500 Myr are required; the resulting masses are 0.055–0.075 $`M_{}`$ for Gl 569Ba and of 0.048–0.068 $`M_{}`$ for Gl 569Bb.

Collecting evidence from the orbital solution, photometry, spectroscopy, and the comparison with evolutionary models, the most likely scenario of the binary Gl 569Bab is: two very late M-type BDs with masses of 0.055–0.078 $`M_{}`$ and 0.048–0.070 $`M_{}`$ in a close orbit, in turn orbiting an early M-type 0.5 $`M_{}`$ star, the whole system with an age in the range 250–500 Myr. Such young ages found in nearby objects are not surprising since it now seems that the Sun is located close to a region that was the site of substantial amounts of recent stellar formation (Zuckerman & Webb 2000).

Figure 8 portrays the mass-luminosity relationship for different ages as given by the evolutionary models. The two members of the pair are plotted with error bars indicating the uncertainty in luminosity and the likely mass range of each component. Masses that have depleted lithium by a factor 2 are also incorporated into the figure. According to the Arizona models, Gl 569Bb may have preserved lithium in its atmosphere, whereas this is quite unlikely based on the Lyon models. Therefore, lithium observations of this BD are needed in order to discriminate which model reproduces neatly the properties of the pair. In addition, precise radial velocity measurements of each component will lead to an accurate determination of the individual masses, and thus will also constitute a better constraint on the models. Nevertheless, models do not appear to be far from reproducing the observational properties of Gl 569Bab. Delfosse et al. (2000) show that the mass-luminosity relationship given by the Lyon models reasonably describes the low-mass stellar regime in the field. The pair Gl 569Bab has lower masses that belong to the substellar regime. Brown dwarfs around stars have been reported in the recent years (see Table 5 in Reid et al. 2001a for a compilation of the complete list), but to our knowledge none of them has been proved to be a binary itself. Gl 569Bab turns out to be the first confirmed resolved binary BD as a companion to a star.

The distance to Gl 569 implies a physical separation of 49 AU between the M2.5-type star and the substellar pair. This large separation and the high mass ratio ($`q`$$``$ 0.135 and 0.120) between the star and each of the BDs favors the fragmentation of a self-gravitational collapsing molecular cloud as the most plausible explanation for the formation of the system (Boss 2000; Bodenheimer 1998). Whether each component of the pair Gl 569Bab originated from a second fragmentation and collapse process of a small cloud core is not clear (the physical separation is 0.92 AU, and the mass ratio of the pair is $`q`$$``$ 0.89). The activity of the nascent low-mass star when it was gaining mass and becoming more luminous may have caused the disruption of the less massive collapsing core into two close substellar objects before the hydrostatic core could build up enough mass to eventually start hydrogen burning. Energetic outflows and jets up to thousands of AU in length have been detected in low-mass stars of very young star forming regions (e.g., Reipurth et al. 2000; Fridlund & Liseau 1998). We cannot discard the possibility, however, that the protoplanetary disk around the star might have also played an important role in the origin of the companions. Disks extending up to several hundred AU are known to exist around stars (Bruhweiler et al. 1997). Clearly, finding other similar systems will, in addition to providing additional dynamical masses, also contribute to our knowledge of the genesis of such interesting multiple low-mass binaries.

## 6 Conclusions

We have obtained new observations of the Gl 569Bab pair (low-mass binary companion at a wide separation from the M2.5-type star Gl 569A), which have allowed us to derive the spectral types of each component and the orbital parameters of the system. We find that the total mass of the low-mass binary is $`0.123_{0.022}^{+0.027}M_{}`$ (3-$`\sigma `$) with two detected components of M8.5 and M9 spectral types (half a subclass uncertainty) completing one eccentric ($`e`$ = 0.32 $`\pm `$ 0.02) orbit every 892 $`\pm `$25 days. We have also acquired new $`J`$ and $`K`$ near-IR photometry in order to locate Gl 569Ba and Gl 569Bb in the HR diagram and compare them with the most recent evolutionary models by the Lyon group (Chabrier et al. 2000) and the Arizona group (Burrows et al. 1997). The pair is likely formed by two solar metallicity young brown dwarfs with masses in the interval 0.055–0.078 $`M_{}`$ (Gl 569Ba) and 0.048–0.070 $`M_{}`$ (Gl 569Bb) at the young ages of 250–500 Myr. Our adaptive optics images taken with the Keck II telescope exclude the presence of any other resolved companion with $`K`$ magnitudes brighter than 16.5 (3 $`\sigma `$) at separations of 0.25″ up to 2″ from Gl 569Bab. This detection limit corresponds to masses around 0.015–0.02 $`M_{}`$ for the possible age range of the system. Further radial velocity and astrometric measurements will be very valuable to detect giant planets, as well as to provide individual masses for each of the members of the pair.

We thank N. Reid for valuable comments and discussion. Data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (the Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation); and at the Carlos Sánchez Telescope (CST) operated on the island of Tenerife in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. This research has made use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We are thankful to I. Baraffe and A. Burrows for providing us computer-readable files of their evolutionary models.