text:
# A possible cooling effect in high temperature superconductors

## Abstract

We show that an adiabatic increase of the supercurrent along a superconductor with lines of nodes of the order parameter on the Fermi surface can result in a cooling effect. The maximum cooling occurs if the supercurrent increases up to its critical value. The effect can also be observed in a mixed state of a bulk sample. An estimate of the energy dissipation shows that substantial cooling can be performed during a reasonable time even in the microkelvin regime.

Although the mechanism of high temperature superconductivity still remains unclear there is strong evidence that the order parameter in high temperature superconductors has nodes on the Fermi surface . Such a property is also peculiar to some superconductors with heavy fermions. In this paper we show that presence of nodes of the order parameter can lead to a cooling effect. The cooling is reached by adiabatically increasing the supercurrent around a superconducting ring or a cylinder.

Currently the lowest temperature of a solid ($`T1\mu K`$) is achieved by using a method of adiabatic nuclear demagnetization . Spontaneous magnetic ordering of the nuclear magnetic moments represents the low temperature limit for nuclear refrigeration. The ordering temperature due to nuclear dipole-dipole interaction is typically a fraction of a microkelvin and, therefore, to achieve temperatures lower than $`0.1\mu K`$ a new refrigeration technology is needed. In our cooling mechanism the conduction electrons are cooled during the adiabatic increase of the supercurrent instead of the nuclear spin system being cooled in the nuclear demagnetization process. Further development of the idea of cooling using the phenomena of superconductivity (superfluidity) could be promising to achieve the lowest temperature of solids.

Cooling effect in clean superconductors

Let us consider a superconducting ring (or a cylinder) made from a clean high temperature superconductor. For estimates one can assume the Fermi surface to be a cylinder and the order parameter has a simple $`d`$-wave form $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the polar angle in the $`ab`$ crystalline plane. Taking into account the real form of the Fermi surface might change numerical coefficients, but these details are not necessary for estimating the magnitude of the cooling effect. Let the $`c`$ -axis of the superconductor be parallel to the symmetry axis of the ring and the temperature of the system is $`TT_c`$, where $`T_c`$ is the superconducting transition temperature.

At low temperatures the main contribution to the electronic specific heat of the superconductor arises from quasiparticles that are activated above the gap in narrow vicinities of the nodes of the order parameter. The energy of these quasiparticles is given by

$$E(𝒑)=\sqrt{\xi (𝒑)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑)|^2},$$
(1)
and the electronic specific heat is :

$$C(T)=36\zeta (3)N_F\frac{T^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0},$$
(2)
where $`N_F`$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface for normal metal and $`\zeta (3)1.202`$ is the Riemann zeta function (throughout this paper, apart from formula (21), we use units in which $`k_B=1`$). Therefore, the entropy of the system has the form:

$$S(T)=_0^T\frac{C(T)}{T}𝑑T=18\zeta (3)N_F\frac{T^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}.$$
(3)
Let us now consider the same superconducting ring with a supercurrent uniformly distributed across the cross section of the ring. This situation is possible if the thickness of the ring $`d`$ is less than penetration depth of the magnetic field $`\lambda `$: $`d\lambda `$. In the presence of such superflow with a superfluid velocity $`𝒗_s`$, the quasiparticles can be considered quasiclassically with the energy :

$$E(𝒑,𝒗_s)=\sqrt{\xi (𝒑)^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒑)|^2}+𝒑_F𝒗_s,$$
(4)
where $`𝒑_F`$ is the component of the Fermi momentum in the direction perpendicular to the $`c`$-axis. Due to the existence of the supercurrent, quasiparticle states with negative energy appear for momentum directions within the vicinity of nodes of the order parameter. These states are occupied even at zero temperature. The presence of these states gives a term, linear in $`T`$, in the low temperature specific heat, which is dominant if $`p_Fv_sT`$ . After a space averaging over the ring this term can be written in the form $`C(T)=4\pi N_FTp_Fv_s/3\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. As a result, the entropy in the presence of the supercurrent is:

$$S(T)=\frac{4}{3}\pi N_F\frac{p_Fv_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}T.$$
(5)
Let us assume that at an initial moment of time there is no superflow along the ring, and the ring is thermally isolated. A magnetic field is then turned on adiabatically so that the magnetic flux through the ring $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ slowly increases in time. The induced electric field $`E\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/lc`$ ($`l`$ is the ring’s length) generates current inside the ring which consists, in general, of superconducting and dissipative parts. The dissipative part of the current $`I_{diss}`$ is proportional to $`E`$, and the energy dissipation can be estimated as

$$_{t=0}^{t_f}I_{diss}El𝑑t_{t=0}^{t_f}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_f^2}{t_f}.$$
(6)
The dissipation can be made negligibly small if the time $`t_f`$ to build up the magnetic field is big enough. In this process all the work which is produced by the induced electric field goes to increase the supercurrent around the ring; and the part of this work that dissipates into heat and changes the entropy can be made negligibly small. The necessary cooling time $`t_f`$ is estimated at the last section of this article.

The equation of entropy conservation in the adiabatic process of increasing the supercurrent has the form:

$$18\zeta (3)N_F\frac{T_0^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}=\frac{4}{3}\pi N_F\frac{p_Fv_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}T_f,$$
(7)
where $`T_0`$ and $`T_f`$ are the initial and the final temperatures of the ring. As a result, the final temperature $`T_f`$ after the adiabatic increase of the supercurrent is

$$T_f=\frac{27\zeta (3)}{2\pi }\frac{T_0^2}{p_Fv_s}=5.2\frac{T_0^2}{p_Fv_s}$$
(8)
This formula is applicable if $`p_Fv_sT_f`$. The maximum cooling occurs when the supercurrent (and the superfluid velocity) is equal to its critical value, that is $`p_Fv_s2\mathrm{\Delta }_0=4.28T_c`$ and

$$T_{f\mathrm{min}}\frac{T_0^2}{T_c}$$
(9)
So, to achieve substantial cooling, it is important to use a superconductor with high $`T_c`$. If, for example, $`T_0=1K`$ and $`T_c=100K`$, after the adiabatic increase of the supercurrent, the ring cools down to $`T_f=0.01K`$.

One should mention that we base our estimates on the assumption of uniform temperature distribution during the cooling process. However, the weight of quasiparticle states shifted from above the Fermi level to below depends on the angle the supercurrent makes with the nodal directions, which changes around the ring. This would provide a larger cooling effect at four points on the ring (at which $`𝒗_s`$ constitutes $`45^{}`$ angle with respect to $`a`$, $`b`$ axes) compared to elsewhere and in the ideal case of zero thermoconductivity the temperature distribution over the ring would be nonuniform with $`T_{max}/T_{min}=\sqrt{2}`$. However, finite thermoconductivity equalizes the temperature around the ring and nonuniform cooling would be very difficult to observe experimentally. Estimates show that nonuniform cooling can be detected if the cooling time is less than about $`R^2/v_F^2\tau _N`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the ring, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity and $`\tau _N`$ is the relaxation time in the normal state. For reasonable parameters we obtain that the necessary cooling time should be of the order of nanosecond. Real cooling time is much larger than nanosecond which guarantees approximately uniform temperature distribution during the cooling process. As a result the entropy dissipation due to the thermal current is negligible and does not modify our formulas.

Also we do not consider here the effect of fluxoid quantization which is negligible when the flux through the ring is much greater than the flux quantum. This gives a restriction on the superfluid velocity $`v_sv_Fa/R`$, where $`a`$ is the interatomic spacing. From the other hand, the critical superfluid velocity is of the order of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/p_Fv_Fa/\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ is the coherence length. So, we can omit the effect of fluxoid quantization in our problem if $`R\xi `$.

One should also note that value $`v_s2\mathrm{\Delta }_0/p_F`$ determines depairing current density $`j_{depair}`$. Because of the grain structure of high temperature superconductors the critical current density $`j_c`$ is usually much less than the depairing value. A misalignment of adjacent grains suppresses the order parameter at the grain boundary and results in Josephson tunneling behavior and a near-exponential decrease in $`j_c`$ with misorientation angle. If the current through the superconductor is increased to $`j_c`$, rather than $`j_{depair}`$, the estimate (9) for the cooling temperature should be multiplied by the factor $`j_{depair}/j_c`$. To reach $`j_c`$ close to the depairing value one should use materials with well-aligned grains, which can be achieved in thin films . For example, $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ films were obtained with the critical current density $`j_c40MA/cm^2`$, so that $`j_{depair}/j_c5`$ . It is worth to note that if the cooling is achieved by applying external magnetic field, rather than creating a supercurrent along the film, the grain structure would not be an obstacle. In such a way, the magnetic field induces screening supercurrent in each grain. The intragrain supercurrent is not limited by the small value of the Josephson critical current in weak links between the grains and can be close to $`j_{depair}`$.

It is interesting to estimate the value of the cooling effect for a bulk sample in a mixed state. In a magnetic field $`H`$ ($`H_{c1},H_{c2}T^2/T_c^2HH_{c2}`$) the entropy of a clean superconductor with line(s) of nodes is $`ST\sqrt{H/H_{c2}}`$ . So, an adiabatic increase of magnetic field from $`H_0`$ to $`H_f`$ cools down the sample to the temperature

$$T_f=T_0\sqrt{\frac{H_0}{H_f}}.$$
(10)
One should note that in conventional $`s`$ -wave superconductors the electronic contribution to the entropy is exponentially small (due to finite gap in the excitation spectrum) and thus not dominant at low temperatures. However, in a mixed state of $`s`$ -wave superconductors normal regions in the vortex cores give the linear temperature contribution to the electron entropy $`SN_FTH/H_{c2}`$, which can exceed the phonon contribution at low enough temperature $`T`$ (typically less then $`1`$K)

$$T\frac{T_D}{4}\left(\frac{T_D}{T_F}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{H}{H_{c2}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(11)
where $`T_D`$ and $`T_F`$ are Debye and Fermi temperatures accordingly. In this temperature region an adiabatic increase of applied magnetic field $`H`$ ($`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$) results in the cooling effect $`T_f=T_0H_0/H_f`$.

Effect of impurities

At very low temperatures (when $`T\gamma `$) the effect of impurity-induced bound states becomes significant. Let us consider the cooling effect at temperatures when the regime $`T\gamma T_c`$ is achieved. The energy scale $`\gamma `$ is the bandwidth of quasiparticle states bound to impurities . For an order parameter with a line of nodes, the bandwidth $`\gamma `$ and density of the quasiparticle states at zero energy $`N(0)`$ are finite for any nonzero concentration of impurities. The quantities $`\gamma `$ and $`N(0)`$ depend on the impurity concentration $`n_i`$ and the scattering phase shift $`\delta _0`$. For example, for scattering in the unitary limit ($`\delta _0=\pi /2`$) and the $`d`$-wave order parameter, $`\gamma \sqrt{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_u\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2\text{ }}`$, $`N(0)=8\gamma N_F\mathrm{log}\left(4\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\gamma \right)/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_u=n_i/\pi N_F`$. In the opposite limit (Born approximation with $`\delta _00`$) the bandwidth $`\gamma `$ is exponentially small $`\gamma 4\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}(\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_u\delta _0^2)`$ and, therefore, the regime $`T\gamma `$ can be very difficult to achieve experimentally. For most high temperature and heavy fermion superconductors the impurity scattering is strong (or an intermediate strength) rather than in the Born limit .

For $`T\gamma `$ and in the absence of superflow the electronic specific heat is given by $`C(T)=\pi ^2N(0)T/3`$. So, instead of (3), the entropy of the system is

$$S(T)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}N(0)T.$$
(12)
After the adiabatic process of creating the supercurrent around the ring with $`p_Fv_s\gamma `$, the entropy of the system is given approximately by the same expression (5) as for the clean superconductor. As a result, the equation of the entropy conservation gives the following formula for the final temperature:

$$T_f=\frac{\pi }{4}\frac{N(0)}{N_F}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{p_Fv_s}T_0$$
(13)
For maximum cooling ($`p_Fv_s2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$)

$$T_{f\mathrm{min}}\frac{\pi }{8}\frac{N(0)}{N_F}T_0$$
(14)
For scattering in the unitary limit we get:

$$T_{f\mathrm{min}}\frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{\gamma }\right)T_0\frac{\gamma }{T_c}T_0$$
(15)
In the case of a bulk superconductor in a mixed state the presence of impurities results in appearance of a crossover field $`H^{}`$ when square-root magnetic field dependence of the specific heat changes to a dependence of the form $`H\mathrm{ln}H`$ . If $`H>H^{}`$ the influence of impurities is negligible and the cooling effect is given by Eq. (10). However, if $`H_0<H^{}<H_f`$ then $`T_fT_0\sqrt{H^{}/H_f}`$.

Estimation of the energy dissipation

If there is a time-dependent current in a superconductor, the normal electrons give a finite amount of dissipation because the supercurrent is not a zero-impedance shunt at nonzero frequency $`\omega `$ (in a two-fluid model $`Im\sigma =n_se^2/m\omega `$). This dissipation increases the entropy of the system. Given an imposed ac current density $`j=j_0\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t\right)`$, the power dissipated per unit volume at low frequencies is :

$$\frac{dW_{diss}}{dt}=Re\left(\frac{1}{\sigma }\right)j^2\frac{Re\sigma }{\left(Im\sigma \right)^2}j^2=\frac{16\pi ^2\lambda ^4}{c^4}\omega ^2Re\sigma j^2,$$
(16)
where $`\sigma `$ is the conductivity of the superconductor, $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth. To estimate the change of the entropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ in the process of increasing the supercurrent from $`j=0`$ to $`j=j_0`$ one can integrate Eq. (16) in the limits $`0<t<t_f=\pi /2\omega `$. Generally speaking, the conductivity $`\sigma `$ can depend on the magnitude of the supercurrent in the superconductor. However for estimation one can take $`\sigma `$ to be equal to its maximum value (at a maximum value of the current). As a result, we obtain the following estimate for the change of the entropy per unit volume:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=_0^{t_f}\frac{1}{T}\frac{dW_{diss}}{dt}𝑑t$$

$$\frac{16\pi ^2\lambda ^4\omega ^2}{c^4T_f}_0^{t_f}\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega t\right)Re\sigma j^2𝑑t\frac{16\pi ^3\lambda ^4}{3T_ft_fc^4}Re\sigma j_0^2.$$
(17)
The energy dissipation gives rise to a heating of the superconductor and changes the final temperature $`T_f`$. To estimate the magnitude of this effect one should add $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ to the left side of Eq. (7). It is possible to obtain substantial cooling even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ is larger than the initial entropy. However, to make the cooling effective, one should increase the supercurrent slowly enough to ensure that the dissipation does not significantly change the entropy: $`\mathrm{\Delta }S4\pi N_FT_fp_Fv_s/3\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Taking into account $`j_0en_sv_s=mc^2v_s/4\pi e\lambda ^2`$, we see that dissipation can be omitted if the time of increasing the supercurrent from zero to its critical value satisfies the following condition

$$t_f\frac{Re\sigma }{2e^2N_Fv_F^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{T_f^2}.$$
(18)
The electrical conductivity for a superconductor with an order parameter that vanishes along a line of nodes has a universal limiting value which is independent of the concentration of impurities and the scattering phase shift . For the two dimensional $`d`$-wave order parameter and an isotropic 2D Fermi surface the universal value has the form : $`Re\sigma \left(\omega 0,T\gamma \right)e^2N_Fv_F^2\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}/\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is a universal transport time. However, the superflow modifies this result and necessarily increases the conductivity in the region interesting for cooling (i.e. when $`p_Fv_s\gamma `$).

To estimate the electrical conductivity in the presence of the superflow, one can use the same semiclassical approach as for the case of thermal conductivity . At $`\omega 0`$ and $`\gamma p_Fv_s`$ the final result is given by (cf. , ):

$$Re\sigma _{ij}=\frac{ne^2}{2mT}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega }\frac{\tau (\stackrel{~}{\omega },v_s)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2T}\right)}$$

$$\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\omega }𝒑_F𝒗_s|}{\sqrt{\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }𝒑_F𝒗_s\right)^2|\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )|^2}},$$
(19)
where $`\tau (\stackrel{~}{\omega },v_s)`$ is the relaxation time for quasiparticle scattering on impurities in the superconducting state, $`n`$ is the electron density. For the $`d`$-wave order parameter we obtain for $`Tp_Fv_s\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`Re\sigma _{ii}=ne^2\tau _N/m`$, in the Born approximation; $`Re\sigma _{ii}=ne^2\tau _N\left(1+|\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i|\right)p_F^2v_s^2/4m\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$, in the unitary limit, where $`\tau _N`$ is the relaxation time in the normal state, $`\varphi _i`$ is the angle between $`𝒗_s`$ and the $`i`$-axis, $`i=a`$, $`b`$. For the supercurrent close to its critical value we get the estimate $`Re\sigma ne^2\tau _N/m=e^2N_Fv_F^2\tau _N`$ which is $`\tau _N/\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2/\gamma ^21`$ times larger than the universal value. If we substitute this estimate into (18), we obtain the following limitation for the necessary cooling time

$$t_f\tau _NT_c^2/T_f^2.$$
(20)
In the unitary limit $`\tau _N=\pi \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0/4k_B\gamma ^2\mathrm{}T_c/k_B\gamma ^2`$ and the limitation can be rewritten as

$$t_f\frac{T_c^2}{\gamma ^2}\frac{\mathrm{}T_c}{k_BT_f^2}.$$
(21)
If, for example, $`T_c100K`$, $`\gamma =0.01T_c`$, $`T_0=0.01K`$, $`T_f10^4K`$ the estimate for the necessary cooling time is $`t_f12\mathrm{min}`$. In principle, the cooling time can be reasonable even in a submicrokelvin region. In this region unconventional superconductors with low $`T_{c\text{ }}`$ like heavy fermion systems can be used. One of the possible candidates is $`UPt_3`$, which has an order parameter with a line of nodes and $`T_c0.5K`$. If, for example, $`T_c=0.5K`$, $`\gamma =0.1T_c`$, $`T_0=10^6K`$, $`T_f10^7K`$ then from Eq. (21) we obtain $`t_f10h`$. One should note, however, that applicability of the method is limited by ultra low temperatures. At microkelvin temperatures the entropy of the quasiparticles near nodes is small as compared to the nuclear entropies and an estimate of the Korringa constant for $`UPt_3`$ from the value of pure $`Pt`$ ($`K=30mKs`$) shows that in $`10`$ hours the electrons are not thermally disconnected from the nuclear system.

To make effective refrigerating storage based on the method discussed here, it is not sufficient to use a single ring or a cylinder because the allowed width of the ring is confined by the penetration depth $`\lambda `$, which is usually a fraction of a micron. Instead of a single ring, one can make a coil from a superconducting wire or a tape so that the width of the tape is of the order of $`\lambda `$, but the total width of the coil can be made much larger. The superconducting current in the tape can be created by applying an external magnetic field to the coil or by applying voltage to the tape ends. Another possibility to obtain a cooling effect is to use a bulk sample in a mixed state.

In conclusion, we have shown that an adiabatic increase of the supercurrent through a superconductor with an order parameter with line(s) of nodes on the Fermi surface results in a cooling effect. For maximum cooling, the initial temperature $`T_0`$ decreases to $`T_0^2/T_c`$ for clean superconductors and to $`T_0\gamma /T_c`$ for $`T_0<\gamma `$. The effect can also occur in a mixed state of a bulk sample. To observe the cooling effect it is important to be in the low temperature region in which conduction electrons give the main contribution to the system’s entropy.

I would like to thank A. Fetter and K. Moler for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant No. DMR 99-71518, and by Stanford University.


format: text

text:
# Is the gas in cooling-flows multi-phase?

## 1 Introduction

A large fraction of the clusters which have been imaged with X-ray telescopes show clear evidence of a centrally peaked surface brightness profile. The gas properties derived by deprojecting the X-ray images of these systems imply central cooling timescales which are substantially smaller than the Hubble time. In the absence of heating mechanisms, or of other forms of support, the cooling gas must flow inwards and give rise to a phenomenon known as cooling-flow.

Further evidence in favor of cooler gas in the core of clusters has come from X-ray spectra. ASCA (e.g. Virgo/M87, Matsumoto et al.1996; Centaurus, Fukazawa et al. 1994) and BeppoSAX (e.g Perseus/NGC1275, Molendi 1997; Virgo/M87 Guainazzi & Molendi 1999) spectra of cooling-flow clusters show evidence of a temperature decrement in their cores. From spectral fitting of ASCA data with multi-phase models (see further on for a description of multi-phase models) evidence of intrinsic absorption in the soft energy band, from cold gas with typical column depths of a few 1021 cm-2, has been found (e.g. Allen 2000).

Early observations (e.g. Fabian, Nulsen and Canizares 1984) have shown that, although very peaked, the surface brightness profile is not as peaked as it should be if all the cooling gas were to flow to the center. This implies that the mass deposition rate $`\dot{M}`$ is not the same at all radii but scales linearly with the radius, $`\dot{M}r`$, (e.g. Peres et al. 1998). The above result has been explained in the context of inhomogeneous models (Nulsen 1986, Thomas et al. 1987). In these models the gas is considered to be highly multi-phase, i.e. at each radius different phases, characterized by different temperatures and densities, coexist with one another. The different phases are kept in pressure equilibrium, since the sonic timescale, on which pressure waves propagate, is shorter than the cooling timescale. The phases comove with typical velocities substantially smaller than the sound speed. A chaotic magnetic field, which is supposed to be present in the cores of cooling clusters, may help in threading the phases together. The same B field is invoked to suppress heat conduction which would otherwise rapidly bring the different phases to the same temperature. At temperatures of the order of 106 K the cooling timescale becomes shorter than the sonic timescale and the gas blobs which reach this temperature fall out of pressure equilibrium with the other phases. The cool blobs decouple from the flow which continues to move inwards.

Cooling-flows are frequent in clusters and must therefore be a persistent rather than an episodic phenomenon in the life of galaxy clusters. The amount of gas expected to cool from the X-ray temperatures throughout the lifetime of a cluster is of the order $`M=10^{12}M_{}(\dot{M}/100M_{}/yr)`$ (Sarazin 1988). This mass, although smaller by orders of magnitude than the total mass of a rich cluster, is by no means small, indeed it is comparable to the mass of the cD galaxy at the center of cooling-flow clusters. Searches longward of the X-ray band at optical (e.g. Donahue & Stocke 1994) infrared (e.g. O’Dea et al. 1994) wavelengths and at 21 cm (e.g. Dwarakanath, van Gorkom, & Owen 1994) have systematically come up with mass estimates of cold gas which are orders of magnitude smaller than the mass which is estimated to be cooling from the X-ray band. This point, plus the lack of direct evidence of the gas motion (X-ray instruments with spectral resolution orders of magnitude better than what we now have are required), have led some to view cooling-flows suspiciously and to look for alternative solutions. Many authors have suggested that the cooling might be balanced by a heating mechanism (e.g. Tucker & Rosner 1983, Binney & Tabor 1995, Ciotti & Ostriker 2001). However no stable heating process yet devised is able to counteract the effects of radiative cooling and account for observed X-ray images (e.g. Canizares et al. 1993).

With the coming into operation of the latest generation of X-ray observatories XMM-Newton and Chandra, new light is being shed on cooling-flows. Observations of three clusters: A1835 (Peterson et al. 2001), Sersic 159-03 (Kaastra et al. 2001) and A1795 (Tamura et al. 2001) with the RGS instrument on board XMM-Newton, have brought some unexpected results. The RGS spectra of the above systems all show a remarkable lack of emission lines expected from gas cooling below 1-2 keV. The most obvious interpretation is that gas is cooling down to 2-3 keV but not further. Moreover from the XMM-Newton EPIC observation of M87 (Böhringer et al. 2001) and the Chandra observation of Hydra A (David et al. 2001) evidence has been found against multi-phase gas in the cooling-flows of these two clusters.

In this paper we make use of the unprecedented combination of spectral and spatial resolution and high throughput of the EPIC experiment on-board XMM-Newton to make a systematic comparison between different spectral models for the cooling-flows in A1835, A1795 and M87/Virgo. Our goal is to test if the gas is strongly multi-phase, i.e. characterized by a broad range of temperatures extending down to $`0.1`$ keV, or not.

## 2 Observations and Data Preparation

We use data from three clusters observed in the CAL/PV phase, namely A1835, A1795 and M87/Virgo. Details on the observations, as well as results from the analysis of these clusters, have already been published in the recent A&A special issue. The A1835 results are reported in Peterson et al. (2001), the A1795 results in Tamura et al. (2001) and Arnaud et al. (2001), and the M87 results in Böhringer et al. (2001) and Belsole et al. (2001).

In this paper we do not make use of PN data. From a comparative analysis of PN and MOS spectra of 10 sources observed during the CAL/PV phase (Molendi 2001) we have found that the PN spectra give systematically softer best fitting spectral models than the MOS in the 0.5-1.0 keV range. If the parameters of the model adopted to fit simultaneously the PN and MOS spectra are forced to be the same, with the exception of the column density and the normalization, the best fitting PN column densities are systematically smaller than the MOS column densities. For the 5 out of 10 objects in our sample where no excess absorption is expected, we have found the best fitting column densities derived from the MOS to be always in good agreement with the line of sight galactic values, while the ones estimated from PN data are always substantially smaller. We conclude that, of the two instruments, the MOS has a more reliable calibration at soft energies. Since the soft X-ray emission plays a central role in this paper we have decided to limit our analysis to the MOS data.

We have obtained calibrated event files for the MOS1 and MOS2 cameras for all three observations with SASv5.0. Data were manually screened to remove any remaining bright pixels or hot columns. Periods in which the background is increased by soft-proton flares have been excluded using an intensity filter; we rejected all events accumulated when the count rate exceeds 15 cts/100s in the $`[1012]`$ keV band. We have accumulated spectra in concentric annular regions centered on the emission peak with bounding radii: 0-0.5 arcmin, 0.5-1 arcmin and 1-2 arcmin for A1835; 0-0.5 arcmin, 0.5-1 arcmin, 1-2 arcmin and 2-3 arcmin for A1795; 0.5-1 arcmin, 1-2 arcmin, 2-3 arcmin, 3-4 arcmin, 4-5 arcmin, 5-7 arcmin and 7-9 arcmin for M87. The 0-0.5 arcmin region of M87 has been excluded as it is highly contaminated by the emission of the nucleus and the jet. For all 3 clusters we have removed point sources. For M87 we have also removed the substructures which are clearly visible from the X-ray image (e.g. Belsole 2001). Spectra have been accumulated for MOS1 and MOS2 independently. The Lockman hole observations have been used for the background. Background spectra have been accumulated from the same detector regions as the source spectra.

The vignetting correction has been applied to the spectra rather than to the effective areas, similarly to what has been done by other authors who have analyzed EPIC data (Arnaud et al. 2001).

Spectral fits were performed in the 0.5-10 keV band for A1835 and A1795 and in the 0.5-4.0 keV band for M87. Data below 0.5 keV were excluded to avoid residual calibration problems in the MOS response matrices at soft energies. Data above 4 keV were excluded from the analysis of M87 because above this energy the spectra show a substantial contamination from hotter gas emitted further out in the cluster, on the same line of sight.

## 3 Spectral Modeling

All spectral fitting has been performed using version 11.0.1 of the XSPEC package. All spectral models include a multiplicative component accounting for the line of sight galactic absorption, which is fixed to the value derived from radio maps. The adopted numbers are $`2.3\times 10^{20}`$cm-2, $`1.2\times 10^{20}`$cm-2 and $`1.8\times 10^{20}`$cm-2 for A1835, A1795 and M87, respectively. The values for A1835 and A1795 come from the maps of Dickey & Lockman (1990) while the one for M87 is from a detailed study of the core of the Virgo cluster from Lieu et al. (1996). We note that the absorbing column depth towards the field which has been used for background, i.e. the Lockman hole, is smaller, $`N_H6\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2, than that found on the line of sight of the 3 clusters we are considering. In principle, this could lead to an underestimation of the background at soft energies and to a background subtracted source spectrum that is softer than the real one. However, for A1835, where the $`N_H`$ difference is largest, it will lead to a background variation of less than 15% at 0.5 keV and of only a few percent at 1 keV. The effect on the source spectra, which at energies between 0.5 and 1.0 keV, are always at least 20 times more intense than the background spectra, will therefore be contained to less than 0.75% at all energies and for all spectra. Moreover, in the case of M87 and A1795, where the $`N_H`$ difference leads to a background variation of less than 10% at 0.5 keV, the effect on the source spectra will be smaller than 0.5% at all energies and for all spectra.

We have compared our data with three different spectral models. Model A is a single temperature model (mekal model in XSPEC), this model has 3 free parameters: the temperature $`T`$, the metal abundance $`Z`$, which is expressed in solar units, and the normalization. Model B includes a single temperature component plus an isobaric multi-phase component multiplied by an absorber located at the source ( mekal + zwabs\*mkcflow in XSPEC), this model has 5 free parameters: the temperature $`T`$, the abundance $`Z`$ and the normalization of the single-phase component plus the normalization of the multi-phase component, which is expressed in units of the mass deposition rate, $`\dot{M}`$, and the column density of the intrinsic absorber, $`N_H`$. The other parameters of the multi-phase component are not free: the minimum temperature, $`T_{min}`$, is fixed at a value of 100 eV, the maximum temperature, $`T_{max}`$, and the metal abundance, $`Z_{mkcflow}`$, are linked respectively to the temperature, $`T`$, and the metal abundance, $`Z`$, of the single-phase component. Model B is commonly adopted to fit spectra from multi-phase cooling-flows (e.g. Allen 2000). This model was originally written to fit spectra from the entire cooling-flow region. Since we are applying it to annular regions the normalization cannot be interpreted as the mass deposition rate for the whole cooling-flow. However, the important point is that such a spectral component has the spectral shape expected form a multi-phase gas where the different phases are in pressure equilibrium with each other. Model C includes a single temperature component plus an isobaric multi-phase component (mekal + mkcflow in XSPEC). As for model B this model has 5 free parameters: the temperature $`T`$, the abundance $`Z`$ and the normalization of the single-phase component plus the minimum temperature, $`T_{min}`$, and the normalization of the multi-phase component, $`\dot{M}`$. The other parameters of the multi-phase component are not free: the maximum temperature, $`T_{max}`$ and the metal abundance, $`Z_{mkcflow}`$, are linked respectively to the temperature, $`T`$, and the metal abundance, $`Z`$, of the single-phase component. This model is similar to the one adopted to fit the RGS data of A1835 (Peterson et al. 2001). It may be regarded as a ”fake multi-phase” in the following sense. From ASCA (e.g. Virgo/M87 Matsumoto et al.1996; Centaurus, Fukazawa et al. 1994) and BeppoSAX (e.g Perseus/NGC1275 Molendi 1997; Virgo/M87 Guainazzi & Molendi 1999) and more recently Chandra (e.g. Hydra A, David et al. 2001) and XMM-Newton (e.g. A1835, Peterson et al. 2001) observations we know that clusters feature a temperature decrement within the cooling-flow region. Suppose now that the gas in cooling-flow clusters is not multi-phase but single-phase, than the spectra accumulated from annuli where the temperature gradient is large will appear as multi-phase not because the gas is truly multi-phase but because the observed spectrum comes from spatially distinct regions characterized by different temperatures. Model C should give a better fit to the data than model B if the gas is single-phase, because in this case the spectrum from a given annular region should be better described by a model with a minimum and a maximum temperature, which describe the minimum and maximum single temperatures within the given annular region, rather than from a model with a maximum temperature and a multi-phase component with practically no minimum temperature.

In the case of M87 which, having a low temperature of 1-2 keV, features very prominent emission lines of various elements, we have allowed for independent fitting of individual metals abundances. This has been achieved by substituting the mekal and mkcflow components with vmekal and vmcflow respectively. Individual element abundances for the vmcflow component, in models B and C, have been linked to the same elements abundances in the vmekal component.

On the basis of the above discussion it is relatively straightforward to make predictions as to what we should expect to find when comparing spectral fits obtained with models A, B and C. If the medium is truly multi-phase, models B and C should give better fits than model A everywhere within the cooling-flow region. Model B should give better results than model C. If the medium is single-phase then: for regions characterized by a narrow temperature distribution (i.e. at relatively large radii), models B and C should not provide substantial improvements with respect to model A; for regions characterized by a broad temperature distribution (i.e. in the innermost radial bins) models B and C should provide substantial improvements with respect to model A. Model C should give better fits than model B.

### 3.1 Results

In the bottom panels of Figures 1, 2 and 3 we plot the temperature profiles for A1837, A1795 and M87 respectively, as obtained from model A and, for those bins where model C provides a significantly better fit than model A, the minimum and maximum temperatures obtained from model C. In the top panels of the same figures we plot the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ between models A and B (filled circles) and models A and C (open circles) as a function of radius. The horizontal lines indicate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ values for which the statistical improvement of the model B or C fit with respect to model A are significant at the 99% level according to the F-test. Whenever a datapoint lies above this line the improvement is significant at more than the 99% level. The vertical line indicates the cooling radius (i.e. the radius at which the cooling time equals the Hubble time) as determined from deprojection analysis of ROSAT images by Peres et al. (1998) for A1795 and by Allen (2000) for A1835. For M87 all bins are within the cooling radius ($`r_c=20`$ arcmin, Peres et al. 1998).

In the case of A1835 (Figure 1), the outermost radial bin that we consider is completely outside the cooling region, thus the fact that neither model B nor model C provide a significant improvement with respect to model A is not at all surprising, as there is a general consensus that the gas outside the cooling region is single-phase. Indeed we have included in our analysis of A1835 and A1795 a radial bin outside the cooling region to use it as a sort of control point to verify that our statistical test is capable of confirming that the gas is single-phase outside the cooling radius. The middle bin in Figure 1 is partially in the cooling region and partially outside so the fact that the improvement is not significant is not particularly compelling. In the innermost bin we find that both models B and C give substantially smaller $`\chi ^2`$ than model A. In the case of model B the improvement is significant at slightly less than the 99% level while for model C it is significant at much more than the 99% level. The rather large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ between model B and model C is telling us that the spectrum for this region is better fitted by an emission model characterized by a minimum temperature of 2.9$`\pm 0.7`$ keV (nicely consistent with the one derived by Peterson et al. 2001 from the analysis of the RGS spectrum), than by a model characterized by a temperature distribution extending down to 0.1 keV where most of the softer emission, which is coming from the cooler phases, is hidden by an intrinsic absorber.

In the case of A1795 (Figure 2), as for A1835, the outermost bin is almost completely outside the cooling region, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for both model B and C with respect to model A is zero, meaning that the multi-phase component is rejected by the fitting procedure by pushing its normalization to zero. The bin with bounding radii 1 and 2 arcmin is completely inside the cooling region and for both model B and C the improvement with respect to model A is negligible. This is an important result as it is telling us that the spectrum from a region within the cooling radius, where the temperature profile is not very different from the temperature outside the cooling-flow, does not show any evidence of being produced by a multi-phase gas. The next bin shows a qualitatively similar result, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for both models B and C are not statistically significant at the 99% level. Finally in the innermost bin, where, because of projection effects, the spanned temperature range is largest, both models B and C show a significant improvement with respect to model A, but as for the innermost bin of A1835 the fit for model C is substantially better than the fit with model B. The minimum temperature derived from model C is 1.9$`\pm 0.5`$ keV, which is consistent with what has been found by Tamura et al. (2001) from the analysis of the RGS data. Note also how the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ values increase continuously with decreasing radius, as is expected if the gas is single-phase and the multi-phaseness comes from putting together distinct regions with different temperatures and from the fact that, because of projection effects, the spanned temperature range is larger at smaller radii.

M87 (Figure 3) is the nearest system we have investigated, indeed it is so near that the whole field of view is contained within the cooling radius. The temperature profile for this object (see Böhringer et al. 2001 and Figure 3) shows a small gradient for radii larger than $``$ 2 arcmin and a rapid decrease for smaller radii. The comparison of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ in this cluster, which in some sense is the most important, as it is the one where we can best separate different emitting regions, points very clearly in favor of the single-phase hypothesis. For the outermost bin (bounding radii 7-9 arcmin) neither model B nor model C provides a substantially better fit than model A, indeed in the case of model B the multi-phase component is rejected by the fitting procedure itself by pushing its normalization to zero. Note that this regions is well within the cooling radius of M87 ($``$ 20 arcmin). For all spectra at radii larger than 2 arcmin and smaller than 7 arcmin, model B does not give a better fit than the single-phase model, while model C does. From the bottom panel of figure 3 it is clear that the temperature range spanned by model C is always narrow, thus the comparison between models A, B and C is telling us that a model containing a multi-phase component characterized by a narrow temperature range gives a better description of the data than a single temperature model, while a model containing a multi-phase component characterized by a broad temperature distribution does not. At radii smaller than 2 arcmin, where the temperature profile suddenly steepens the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ shoot up. In the innermost two bins the implied statistical significance for both models is well over the 99% level and, as for the innermost bin of A1795 and A1835, model C gives a much better fit than model B.

To better understand why model C performs so much better than model B we have made a detailed comparison between the best fitting model B and C spectra for the innermost region of M87. requiring temperatures In Figure 4 we show the observed spectrum with the best fitting multi-phase components for models B and C convolved with the EPIC instrumental response. The two components are similar above 2 keV, where the effect of the intrinsic absorption (model B), or of a cutoff temperature (model C) is modest. At smaller energies the difference becomes more evident. In the region around 0.9 keV, where the Fe-L complex is dominant, the two spectra are very different, the model B component features a peak at 1 keV followed by a broad shoulder extending down to about 0.7 keV, this is due primarily to Fe-L lines from low ionization states requiring temperatures smaller than about 1 keV; the model C component, as the model B component, presents a peak around 1 keV, but the decrease towards smaller energies is much more rapid because the low ionization lines produced by gas at temperatures smaller than 1 keV are absent. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ between the best fits with model B and C over the entire spectral range considered is 113, with most of it, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=90`$, coming from the energy range 0.7-1.2 keV, where the multi-phase components differ as explained above. In Figure 5 we show the residuals of the best fits with model B and C, in this energy range. As can be seen model C is capable of reproducing the observed spectrum rather well, while model B is clearly in defect of the data between 0.9 and 1.0 keV and in excess between 0.7 and 0.9 keV, indicating that the multi-phase component in model B is characterized by an Fe-L shell quasi-continuum emission that it is too broad to correctly reproduce the data. More specifically, there is too much emission from low ionization lines predominantly emitted from gas with temperature smaller than $``$ 1 keV and too little emission from higher ionization lines mostly coming from gas with temperatures larger than $``$ 1 keV. Thus the key feature allowing us to discriminate between models B (dashed line) and C (solid line), in the case of M87, is the shape of the Fe-L shell blend.

The results of our spectral model comparison may be summarized as follows: for the outer regions, which are characterized by a narrow temperature distribution, neither model B nor model C provide an improvement with respect to model A ( with the exception of the regions between 2 and 7 arcmin in M87 where, due to the high statistical quality of the data, the fitting procedure can discriminate between a single temperature spectrum and a multi temperature spectrum characterized by a narrow temperature range); for the inner regions, which are characterized by a broad temperature distribution, models B and C provide an improvement with respect to model A and model C always gives better fits than model B. These results all point in the same direction, namely that the gas in cooling-flows does not show the broad temperature distribution expected from standard multi-phase models. The presence of a moderate temperature range, such as the one measured in the M87 spectra (see Fig. 3) could result either from a moderately multi-phase gas or alternatively from a single phase gas characterized by an azimuthal temperature gradient.

### 3.2 The intrinsic $`N_H`$

In Figure 6 we plot the intrinsic $`N_H`$ profiles for A1835 (top panel), A1795 (middle panel) and M87 (bottom panel) as derived from model B. If the physical scenario underlying model B were correct the intrinsic $`N_H`$ distribution should be characterized by a clear decrease with increasing radius for any realistic distribution of the intrinsic absorber, as the innermost emitting regions are viewed through all other regions and should therefore present the largest absorption. The intrinsic $`N_H`$ distributions for all our clusters show no such trend. The case of M87, where we have 7 bins and the errors are small, is particularly illuminating.

If we accept that model B does not provide a realistic description of the data, then the large absorption column depths inferred by previous analysis of cooling-flow spectra (Allen 2000 and references therein) and from fits with model B presented in this paper, must be considered as an artifact. Indeed if the gas is not strongly multi-phase, spectra for regions where the spanned temperature range is large can be fitted with a multi-phase model only if the soft emission predicted by the standard multi-phase model, which is not present in the observed spectra, is somehow hidden. This can of-course be achieved by introducing an absorption component. The good combination of spectral resolution, large spectral band and good spatial resolution of the EPIC cameras is allowing us, for the first time, to clearly discriminate between an absorbed, truly multi-phase spectrum (model B), and a ”fake” multi-phase spectrum characterized by a temperature range (model C).

We remark that model C, while certainly doing a better job than model B, does not provide the most appropriate description of the spectrum. A model in which the projection effects, which contribute to the multi-phase appearance of the gas are explicitly accounted for would certainly give a better description allowing the study of the temperature structure of the ICM. We defer the analysis of our data with such a model to future work.

### 3.3 Mass Deposition Rates

Our analysis shows that in the outer rings of all 3 clusters the spectrum is consistent with being single-phase, whereas inside 1 arcmin, 2 arcmin and 6 arcmin for A1835, A1795 and M87 respectively, model C provides a substantially better fit than model A. Model C also provides a better fit than model B, implying that the spectral shape in the soft band is always better modeled by a minimum temperature than by an intrinsic absorber. The minimum temperature is always larger than about 1 keV and, in the case of A1835 and A1795, it is consistent with that derived from the analysis of RGS data. Thus, for all cooling-flow cluster spectra investigated with XMM-Newton so far, either with EPIC or RGS, we find compelling evidence for a lack of emission from gas with temperatures smaller than 1-2 keV. If we interpret this result in the most simple and straightforward way, that is by assuming that gas does not cool below 1-2 keV, then some profound implications follow. Indeed, if the gas does not cool below a given temperature it will not be deposited in the form of cold gas. Thus any mass deposition probably occurs on scales smaller than the ones we have investigated and the mass deposition rates of cooling-flow clusters may be much smaller than previously thought. Under the above assumptions, the $`\dot{M}`$ derived with model B from the analysis in the innermost bin for all our clusters can be regarded as an upper limit to the total mass deposition rate, as we expect that most of the multi-phase component is actually due to the mixing of gas from physically distinct emission regions. In the case of A1835 we find $`\dot{M}=247.8\pm 133M_{}`$/yr which is to be compared with $`1150\pm 450M_{}`$/yr from the deprojection of ROSAT PSPC images (Allen 2000); for A1795 we find $`\dot{M}=27.6\pm 6.2M_{}`$/yr against $`450\pm 50M_{}`$/yr (Peres et al. 1998), and in the case of M87 $`\dot{M}<0.5M_{}`$/yr to be compared with $`40\pm 5M_{}`$/yr (Peres et al. 1998).

## 4 Discussion

In a recent paper Fabian et al. (2001) proposed three possible ways of reconciling the absence of emission lines in the RGS spectra of cooling-flow clusters with the presence of gas with temperatures smaller than 1-2 keV. In the following we discuss each of these possibilities in the light of our results on the EPIC data.

The first solution outlined by Fabian et al. (2001) is to hide the emission lines behind a patchy intrinsic absorber, possibly more concentrated towards the center of the cluster. From Figure 6 and the related discussion we have evidence that if such an absorber exists it probably operates on scales smaller than the ones we can investigate with EPIC. If that is the case then mass deposition will occur only in the innermost regions and not throughout the entire cooling-flow region.

Another possibility considered in Fabian et al. (2001) would be for the gas to be highly bimodal in its metal distribution with say 10% of the gas having a metallicity of 3 in solar units, and the remaining 90% having no metals at all. At temperatures below about 2 keV, when line cooling becomes important, the metal rich gas would cool at a much faster rate than the metal poor gas and lines from metals at temperature below about 2 keV would not be observed. We have tested this possibility by allowing the metallicity of the multi-phase component in model B to vary independently from the metallicity of the single-phase component. In none of our fits do we find the best fitting value of the metallicity of the multi-phase component to be significantly smaller than the one of the single-phase component, implying that the multi-phase gas is not metal poorer than the ambient gas. If this mechanism is operating, it must be doing so on scales smaller than the ones we have investigated and mass deposition should be confined to such scales.

The third possibility indicated by Fabian et al. (2001) is that the X-ray emitting gas may be cooling very rapidly by mixing with gas at $`10^3`$ K, which is known to be present within about 50-70 kpc of the center of some cooling-flow clusters. However, as pointed out by Crawford et al. (1999), line emitting gas at about $`10^3`$ K is not always found in the core of cooling-flow clusters, and in most clusters it extends to radii smaller than the cooling radius. In the case of A1795, the filaments extend out to about 20 kpc from the core (Hu et al. 1985), while the cooling radius is about ten times larger (Peres et al. 1998). Thus, at least in the case of A1795, it is unlikely that this mechanism could allow mass deposition to occur at radii larger than 20 kpc where, according to multi-phase models, most of the mass deposition should be taking place. Moreover, if this mixing of hot with cold gas mechanism does operate, it will most likely end up depositing cold gas in the cooling flow region. The physical scenario is one in which the cooling flow component should be characterized by a minimum temperature and should also present substantial absorption from the gas which has cooled from X-ray emitting temperatures. We have tested this possibility by introducing an intrinsic absorber acting on the cooling flow component in model C. By performing fits in the regions where model C gives substantially better fits than model A we find that the best fitting values of the intrinsic absorber are always small, typically a few times $`10^{20}`$ cm-2. In M87 where the statistics is best, for most regions the intrinsic absorber has a column depth smaller than $`10^{20}`$ cm-2. Such small values are inconsistent with the deposition of large amounts of cold gas over the putative lifetime of the cooling-flow.

If we accept that mass deposition in cooling-flow clusters is smaller and confined to smaller scales than previously thought then the long standing problem of the lack of evidence for large amounts of cold gas in cooling-flows, from observations carried out in bands other than X-rays, is solved. Investigations longwards of X-rays never found substantial amounts of gas because the gas was never there in the first place.

If there is no mass deposition at large radii it would seem reasonable to assume that all the cooling gas must flow to the center. However the surface brightness profile for such a cooling-flow cluster would be much more centrally peaked than is commonly observed (see Fabian 1994 and refs. therein). Indeed multi-phase models have been originally developed (Nulsen 1986) to explain why the surface brightness profile is not as peaked as would be expected if all the gas flowed to the center of the cluster. Perhaps the most obvious way out of this dilemma is to assume that a heating mechanism is countering the radiative cooling. Over the past 15 years many different heating mechanism have been proposed (e.g. Tucker & Rosner 1983, Binney & Tabor 1995, Ciotti & Ostriker 2001). However no stable heating process yet devised is able to counteract the effects of radiative cooling and account for observed X-ray images (Canizares et al. 1993). This has in turn led some workers to consider sporadic heating mechanisms. Several heating mechanisms of this kind have been presented in the past. Recently Soker et al. (2001), motivated by the analysis of Hydra A with Chandra data (David et al. 2000), have proposed heating by sporadic outbursts of the central radio source. The fact that A1835 and Sersic 159-03 do not have strong radio sources, in our view, argues against such a mechanism. Indeed we should look for a heating mechanism that can operate in all cooling clusters.

Before XMM-Newton and Chandra the lack of a stable heating process that could counteract the effects of radiative cooling and account for observed X-ray images was considered as a crucial point in favor of multi-phase models. Now that the new results emerging from the analysis of XMM-Newton and Chandra data question the standard cooling-flow picture, the hunt for a self consistent heating mechanism is again open.

Last, but perhaps not least, the term ”cooling-flow” cluster is most likely no longer appropriate, as it describes a phenomenon of smaller entity and impact than previously thought. We propose to substitute it with that of ”cool-core” cluster. The latter definition is less ambitious than the first, as it reflects only an observational fact rather than an inferred physical property, the flow, but has the undeniable advantage of being firmer.

We thank the many people who have contributed to building, calibrating and operating the EPIC instrument on-board XMM-Newton. We thank S. De Grandi and S.Ghizzardi for a critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# An isobar model for 𝜂 photo- and electroproduction on the nucleon

## 1 Introduction

Electromagnetic eta production on the nucleon, $`\gamma N\eta N`$, provides an alternative tool to study $`N^{}`$ besides $`\pi N`$ scattering and pion photoproduction. The $`\eta N`$ state couples to nucleon resonances with isospin $`I=1/2`$ only. Therefore, this process is cleaner and more suitable to distinguish certain resonances than other processes, e.g., pion photoproduction. It provides opportunities to access less studied resonances and the possible “missing resonances”.

Eta photoproduction at low energy is dominated by the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance, which is the only nucleon resonance with a substantial decay to the $`\eta N`$ channel. Therefore, $`\eta `$ photoproduction is an ideal process to study $`S_{11}(1535)`$ properties. In contrast, $`\pi N`$ scattering and pion photoproduction are always interweaved with the $`\eta N`$ channel threshold opening, and often produce inconsistent and/or controversial results.

Recently, precise experimental data of this process have been measured. These data include total and differential cross sections for $`\gamma N\eta N`$ from TAPS (MAMI/Mainz)  and GRAAL , as well as beam asymmetries from GRAAL  and target asymmetries from ELSA (Bonn) . In addition, there are two recent $`\eta `$ electroproduction data sets from Jefferson Lab .

## 2 Isobar Model

The isobar model used in this work is closely related to the unitary isobar model (UIM) developed by Drechsel et al. . The major difference is that in the UIM, which deals with pion photo- and electroproduction, the phases of the multipole amplitudes are adjusted to the corresponding pion-nucleon elastic scattering phases, while in the $`\eta `$ production the unitarization procedure is not feasible since the eta-nucleon scattering information is not experimentally available.

The nonresonant background contains the usual *Born terms* and *vector meson exchange* contributions, and can be obtained by evaluating the Feynman diagrams derived from an effective Lagrangian. In addition to the dominant $`S_{11}(1535)`$ nucleon resonance, we also consider resonance contributions from $`D_{13}(1520)`$, $`S_{11}(1650)`$, $`D_{15}(1675)`$, $`F_{15}(1680)`$, $`D_{13}(1700)`$, $`P_{11}(1710)`$, and $`P_{13}(1720)`$. For the relevant multipoles $`A_\mathrm{}\pm `$ ($`=E_\mathrm{}\pm ,M_\mathrm{}\pm ,S_\mathrm{}\pm `$) of resonance contributions, we assume a Breit-Wigner energy dependence of the form

$$A_\mathrm{}\pm (Q^2,W)=\stackrel{~}{A}_\mathrm{}\pm (Q^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}W_R}{W_R^2W^2iW_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}f_{\eta N}(W)C_{\eta N},$$
(1)
where $`f_{\eta N}(W)`$ is the usual Breit-Wigner factor describing the decay of the $`N^{}`$ resonance , and the isospin factor $`C_{\eta N}`$ is $`1`$. The total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ here is taken as the sum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi N}`$.

## 3 Results and Discussion

### 3.1 Photoproduction Results

We have fitted recent $`\eta `$ photoproduction data including total and differential cross sections from TAPS  and GRAAL , as well as the polarized beam asymmetry from GRAAL  with the isobar model described above. In Fig. 1, we compare our results of differential cross sections with the data from TAPS and GRAAL, and they are in very good agreement. In the low energy region the differential cross section is flat, indicating the $`s`$-wave dominance. As the energy goes higher, other partial waves start to contribute. Note that our result for $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}>1\text{GeV}`$ shows a sinking behavior at forward angles, which is not seen in the GRAAL data.

Our result for the total cross section is shown in Fig. 1, and compared with the TAPS and GRAAL data. Again, they are in good agreement except that the bump observed from the GRAAL data in the region $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1050 - 1100 MeV can not be reproduced from our model. However, note that the total cross section in the GRAAL data is obtained from integration of the differential cross sections, using a polynomial fit in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ for extrapolation to the uncovered region. We find that the discrepancy is due to the extrapolation of the GRAAL data in the forward angles and is not really supported by the data themselves.

In Fig. 1, it is shown that the background contribution is very small, and the total cross section is dominated by the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ at low energy. However, the contribution from the second resonance, $`S_{11}(1650)`$, can not be neglected. Even though a single $`S_{11}`$ resonance can fit the low energy data nicely (the dash-dotted curve in Fig. 1), it can by no means describe the higher energy region. Moreover, the single resonance fit yields incorrect resonance parameters. In fact, the decay width (159 vs. 191 MeV) and photon coupling (103 vs. $`118\times 10^3\text{GeV}^{1/2}`$) obtained in the single $`S_{11}`$ resonance fit are significantly smaller than the full results when both $`S_{11}`$ resonances are properly included.

One special feature in polarization measurements of $`\eta `$ photoproduction is that through the interference of the dominant $`E_{0+}`$ multipole with smaller multipoles, one can access small contributions from particular resonances.

The available beam asymmetry data were measured at GRAAL  from threshold to $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1.1 GeV. Higher energy data up to $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1.5 GeV are being analyzed and will be available soon . In Fig. 2, we compare our results with these data. An overall good agreement has been achieved. At low energies, we observe that the beam asymmetry has a clear $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ dependence as a result of interference between $`s`$\- and $`d`$-waves. From these low energy data, a branching ratio of $`\beta _{\eta N}=0.06\%`$ can be determined for the $`D_{13}`$(1520). When energies get higher than $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 930 MeV, the data develop a forward-backward asymmetry behavior, which becomes especially evident at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1050 MeV. The $`F_{15}`$(1680) is sensitive to this forward-backward asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as discussed by Tiator et al. . This is the reason why such a small branching ratio (0.06%) can be extracted for this resonance.

### 3.2 Electroproduction Results

When fitting recent electroproduction data from JLab , we fix all the parameters determined from the photoproduction data except the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2}^p(Q^2)`$. The result for the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ is shown in Fig. 3.

In order to avoid large model uncertainties arising from different values of partial and total widths of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ employed in other analyses, we choose not to compare the helicity amplitudes $`A_{1/2}^p(Q^2)`$ extracted from different analyses. Instead, we compare the model-independent quantity introduced by Benmerrouche et al. , $`\xi =\sqrt{\chi \beta _{\eta N}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}A_{1/2}`$, where $`\chi =kM/(qM_R)`$ is a kinematic factor. The $`\xi `$ quantity covers the uncertainty from $`\beta _{\eta N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ between different analyses and is almost independent of the extraction process. In Fig. 3 we compare our $`\xi `$ values with the ones extracted from the recent JLab data  and older data . It is seen that overall good agreement is achieved up to $`Q^2=4.0\text{(GeV/c)}^2`$.

## Acknowledgments

W.-T. C. would like to thank Universität Mainz for the hospitality extended to him during his visits. This work was supported in parts by the National Science Council of ROC under Grant No. NSC89-2112-M002-078, by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443), and by a joint project NSC/DFG TAI-113/10/0.


text:
# Reply to “Comment on ‘Long-range electrostatic interactions between like-charged colloids: steric and confinement effects’ ”

## Abstract

In his Comment (cond-mat/0104060) to \[Phys. Rev. E 60, 6530 (1999)\], Mateescu shows that while the effective interactions remain repulsive when the specific size of the micro-ions is taken into account via a Modified Poisson-Boltzmann equation, a similar conclusion cannot be reached for the situation of complete lateral confinement. This point is correct but has already been considered in a more general study \[Phys. Rev. E 62, R1465 (2000), where repulsion is generically obtained\]; moreover, we argue that it illustrates the irrelevancy of the notion of pair potential in completely confined configurations, as shown on a simple example.

In his Comment  to our work , E.M. Mateescu establishes that the situation of finite lateral confinement does not necessarily lead to a repulsive effective pair potential between like charged colloids in an electrolyte, thus invalidating one of the conclusions reached in . Although correct, this precise point has already been considered and incorporated in the more general analysis presented in  where we focussed on the limit of infinite lateral extension for the confining cylinder, and obtained rigorously a generic effective repulsion . Moreover, it is worthwhile to stress that the counter-example provided by Mateescu illustrates the inapplicability of the pair potential concept, as becomes clear below. Consider the situation of two colloids confined in a finite-length cylinder $`𝒞`$ with Neumann boundary conditions (vanishing normal electric field). The method of image charges allows to construct the equivalent infinite series of image colloids as depicted in Fig 1. If we assume the effective interactions repulsive in $`𝒞`$ (as in Fig 1), it is sufficient to notice that the boundary conditions on $`𝒞^{}`$ are also of Neumann type to obtain that the effective forces in the cylinder $`𝒞^{}`$ are attractive. Conversely, attractive interactions in $`𝒞`$ correspond to effective repulsions in $`𝒞^{}`$. This shows that with Neumann boundary conditions, any repulsive configuration can be mapped onto an attractive one in a closely related cell, and that the resulting effective attraction/repulsion is a spurious effect of image charges. Consequently, the situation of complete lateral confinement is irrelevant when discussing the sign of an effective pair potential.


text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

The help of the technical staff of the Laboratoire Souterrain de Modane and the participating laboratories is gratefully acknowledged. This work has been partially funded by the EEC Network program under contract ERBFMRXCT980167.


text:
# The RR Lyrae variables in M54 and the Sgr dwarf galaxy

## 1. Introduction

Our data consist of 54 B, 57 V and 52 I frames taken at the 1.54cm ESO-Danish telescope in July 1999. The data reduction was performed using the ISIS package (Alard 2000), which is based on the method of image subtraction. This technique is particularly powerful when searching for variability in crowded fields, both in terms of detection rate and in terms of photometric accuracy. As an example, in Fig. 1 we show for comparison the V light curves of 3 RR Lyrae variables that were measured by Layden & Sarajedini 2000 (hereafter LS2000) with traditional techniques (PSF-fitting) and by us with ISIS.

## 2. The RR Lyrae variables

With respect to the previous study by LS2000, the number of detected variable stars has increased from 117 to 211, in particular more small amplitude variables (RRc and long period RRab) have been found. M54 can now be classified as intermediate in the Oosterhoff groups.

The reddening can be estimated from the (V–I) colors at minimum light of the RRab-type pulsators and is E(V–I)=0.17 $`\pm `$ 0.02 mag. Assuming \[Fe/H\]=–1.55 for M54, and the relation Mv(RR) = 0.20 \[Fe/H\] + 0.98 (Fernley et al. 1998), we obtain a distance modulus (m-M)0 = 17.07 for M54, in a distance scale where the LMC has a true distance modulus 18.44.

The Fourier decomposition of the V light curves provides information on several physical parameters (e.g. metallicity, see below).

### 2.1. The metallicity distribution

We have obtained an improved CMD, where one can clearly identify the contributions of the Galactic disk and bulge contaminating components, the M54 Red Giant Branch (RGB), and the Sgr intermediate and metal-rich RGBs.

For the RGB stellar components the metallicity has been estimated by comparison with template RGB ridge lines of Galactic globular clusters at various metallicities (Saviane et al. 2000). For the RR Lyraes the metallicity has been estimated by Fourier decomposition of the V light curves (Kovacs & Jurcsik 1997). In Fig. 2 we show the metallicity distributions for the RGB stars of the Sgr field (about half a degree away from M54 - Bellazzini et al. 1999), the RGB stars in the field of M54, and the RR Lyrae variables in the field of M54.

$``$ The RGB stars in the Sgr field show two clear components peaking at \[Fe/H\] about –0.6 and –1.55 and the hint of a component at about –2.1.

$``$ In the field centered on M54 one can identify the same components as above, at \[Fe/H\] = –1.55 and –0.6, albeit with different relative proportions. The hint of the component at –2.1 is not seen, possibly because included in the decontamination from the Galactic disk/bulge contribution. A small but detectable intermediate Sgr population appears at about –1.2 .

$``$ The RR Lyrae stars belong to populations at three different metallicities, i.e. –1.55 (produced by M54 and the Sgr field), and –1.2 and –2.1 (produced by the Sgr field only). The metal-rich Sgr field population at –0.6, as expected, does not produce RR Lyraes.

The paper with the final results is in preparation.

## References

Alard, C. 2000, A&AS, 144, 363

Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.R., Buonanno, R. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 619

Fernley, J., Skillen, I., Carney, B.W. et al. 1998, MNRAS 293, L61

Kovacs, G., Jurcsik, J. 1997, A&A, 322, 218

Layden, A.C., Sarajedini, A. 2000, AJ, 119, 1760

Saviane, I., Rosenberg, A., Piotto, G., Aparicio, A. 2000, A&AS, 144, 5


text:
# Comment to the paper “Conformal transformations single out a unique measure of distance” Phys. Rev. D 47, 1437 (1993) by S. Cotsakis

## Abstract

We discuss the consequences of the incorrectness \[see the Erratum in Phys. Rev D 49, 1145 (1994)\] of that paper and add two related remarks. The scope of this comment is to encourage further research on: ”Which of the conformally equivalent metrics is the physical one?”

Universität Potsdam, Institut für Mathematik, Projektgruppe Kosmologie

D-14415 POTSDAM, PF 601553, Am Neuen Palais 10, Germany

PACS numbers: 04.20, 04.50

Cotsakis  considers the D-dimensional Lagrangian density

$$L_g=f\left(R\right)\sqrt{g}$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar. (One needs $`D>2`$ to ensure the validity of the following formulas.) With inclusion of matter one gets from eq.(1) the following field equation (which coincides with \[1, eq.(6)\])

$$hR^{ab}\frac{1}{2}fg^{ab}^a^bh+g^{ab}\mathrm{}h=T_M^{ab}\left(g\right)$$
(2)
where $`h=df/dR`$. Eq. (1) is a scalar density, so the divergence of its variational

derivative with respect to the metric (i.e., of the l.h.s. of eq.(2) ) automatically vanishes. So this takes place for the r.h.s. also, i.e. (cf. the erratum to )

$$_aT_M^{ab}\left(g\right)=0$$
(3)
whereas the original paper \[1, eq.(21)\] contains the superfluous expression

$$R^{ab}_ah$$
(4)
This has as consequence that the ”class of manifolds” mentioned at the end of p. 1438 is empty; so Cotsakis’ idea to decide between the different metrics by a concrete model sounds interesting, but his special example does not suffice to decide this, i.e., the question about which is the correct ”physical” metric remains to be answered yet.

Let us add two remarks to clarify the discussion. First, for calculating the divergence of the l.h.s. of eq.(2) one must notice that for an arbitrary scalar $`\psi `$, the expressions $`^a^b^c\psi `$ and $`^b^a^c\psi `$ do not coincide. Their difference is the product of the Riemann tensor with $`^d\psi `$. Applying this with $`\psi =h`$, one gets an expression which cancels the superfluous expression (4).

Second, the question which of the two metrics is the physical one, was already discussed in several papers, e.g. ref.. It holds A:  In the vicinity of flat space-time and also in the vicinity of the inflationary de Sitter space-time the conformal factor is approximately a constant, so that geodesic motion in the two metrics is almost the same. B:  Far away from these regions, in very strong fields, it is even not clear, whether geodesic motion takes place at all.

Acknowledgement. I thank Dr. U. Kasper for independently checking the arguments; he also observed that Cotsakis incorrectly applied Bochner’s theorem, because that theorem refers to a positive definite metric only, one should try to generalize it to indefinite metrics.

References

 S. Cotsakis, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1437 (1993), D 49, 1145(E) (1994).

 K. Maeda, J. Stein-Schabes, T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2848 (1989).

published in Phys. Rev. D 52, 6198 (1995). Received 27 August 1993, revised 30 June 1994.