text:
# HST Observations of the Nuclear Regions of the Toomre Sequence of Merging Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Observational studies of merging galaxies have shown a clear link between interactions and nuclear activity, while dynamical models have revealed the physics driving the radial inflows of gas. Unfortunately, neither ground-based observations nor current simulations are able to accurately follow the evolution of the gas once it reaches the inner few hundred parsecs of the galaxy. Whether the gas flow “hangs up” in the inner few hundred parsecs and forms stars, or continues to flow inward towards a putative AGN has a strong impact on the luminosity and evolution of the merger. Numerical simulations (e.g., Mihos & Hernquist 1996; Barnes & Hernquist 1996) suggest that the nuclear gas dynamics will depend on the structure of the host galaxies and on the dynamical stage of the merger.

To study the evolution of the nuclei in the course of a merger in greater detail, we have acquired HST observations of the galactic nuclei in the Toomre Sequence of merging galaxies (Toomre 1977). This is a sequence of eleven systems in progressively more advanced stages of merging, from galaxies in early stages of merging (NGC 4038/9 and NGC 4676) to late stage remnants (NGC 3921 and NGC 7252).

## 2. Data

We have taken 320 sec CR-SPLIT exposures of each galaxy nucleus using the WFPC2 F555W ($`V`$) and F814W ($`I`$) filters. The galaxy nuclei were placed on the Planetary Camera chip (0.046 arcsec pixels) to achieve the highest spatial resolution. We also took longer, 1200 sec exposures in the H$`\alpha `$ \+ \[N II\] lines, mostly through the Linear Ramp Filter (which has $``$ 10′′ $`\times `$ 10′′ arcsec useful field of view). The latter observations allow us to examine the ionized gas distribution.

We will also acquire HST STIS spectroscopic data of the same galaxy nuclei. The G750M grating will be used to obtain H$`\alpha `$ spectroscopy of the detected ionized gas disks. Three parallel slit positions will be used along the major axis of the gas disks. These two-dimensional mappings will allow us to discriminate between organized and chaotic motions in the gas (e.g. Mihos & Bothun 1998). We will also use the G430L grating to determine the stellar populations in the nuclear regions by comparing the observations to population synthesis models (e.g., Bruzual & Charlot 1996; Leitherer et al. 1999).

## 3. Project Goals

With the HST data we will be in a position to address several important questions regarding the structure and evolution of merger remnants:

1. The morphology of the gas distribution in the innermost kiloparsec of merging galaxies is poorly known. Does the gas settle in a resonance ring (e.g. Hernquist & Mihos 1995) or does it continue to flow all the way to the nucleus, forming a nuclear disk (e.g., Jaffe et al. 1999; van der Marel & van den Bosch 1998)?
2. Since the morphology of the circumnuclear gas distribution is often determined by dynamical resonances, we will look for bars near the nuclei of merging galaxies. Because the resonance locations are partly determined by the rotation curve, we will examine the shape of the rotation curve near the nuclei.
3. We will perform a systematic observational study to determine how the circumnuclear gas kinematics change as the merger advances. Specifically, we will assess whether the gas kinematics become more ordered or chaotic as the merger progresses.
4. Since large amounts of gas are speculated to flow into the nuclear region as the merger progresses, we will look for signatures of supermassive black holes in the nuclei and AGN activity.
5. We will inspect whether the stellar population resulting from a circumnuclear starburst follows the R1/4 law. We will also determine at which stage of the merger star formation activity peaks, and also the size of radial gradients of color and line strength in the nuclear starburst population.

## 4. Early Results

Example WFPC2 images are shown in Figures 1–3. Our preliminary analysis of these data has produced the following results:

1. We have detected nuclear H$`\alpha `$ gas disks in six of eleven systems (NGC 2623; Fig. 1, 3256, 3509A, 3921, 4038, 7252). It is perhaps significant that all the four latest stage mergers have nuclear gas disks.
2. All the five systems in our sample which consist of two clearly identified separate galaxies have one galaxy with a bright, point-like nucleus, whereas the other galaxy has lost the identity of its nucleus (e.g., NGC 7592A; Figure 2). This dichotomy may come from inclination/obscuration effects or differences in progenitor morphological types.
3. Bar-like configurations are seen in a few galaxies (e.g., NGC 6622; Fig. 3). Kinematical data will reveal whether they are highly inclined disks or genuine stellar bars.

### Acknowledgments.

Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant for project GO-8669 (P.I. van der Marel), awarded by the STScI which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

## References

Barnes, J., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 1996, GISSEL96 Population Synthesis Models

Hernquist, L., & Mihos, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 448, 41

Jaffe, W., Ford, H. C., Tsvetanov, Z., Ferrarese, L., & Dressel, L. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 182, Galaxy Dynamics, ed. D. Merritt, J. A. Sellwood & M. Valluri (San Francisco: ASP), 13

Leitherer, C. et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

Mihos, J. C., & Bothun, G. D. 1998, ApJ, 500, 619

Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641

Toomre, A. 1977, in The Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B.M. Tinsley & R.B. Larson (New Haven: Yale Univ.), 401

van der Marel, R. P., & van den Bosch, F. 1998, AJ, 116, 2220


format: text

text:
# The role of synchrotron self-absorption in the late radio emission from SN 1993J

## 1 Introduction

Radio emission from supernovae has been previously interpreted in terms of an optically-thin shell, whose emission is partially suppressed by external free-free absorption (e.g., Chevalier 1982a ; Weiler et al. wei89 (1989), wei90 (1990)). In this model – known as the standard interaction model (Chevalier 1982a ), hereafter SIM – a strong interaction between the expanding supernova ejecta ($`\rho _{\mathrm{ej}}r^n`$) and the circumstellar medium ($`\rho _{\mathrm{cs}}r^s`$) is expected. In the SIM, this interaction causes the formation of a self-similarly expanding ($`R_{\mathrm{sh}}t^m;m=(n3)/(ns)`$) shell-like structure (Chevalier 1982b , Nadyozhin nad85 (1985)), from which the observed synchrotron radio emission arises. In addition, it is assumed (Chevalier 1982a ) that (i) both magnetic energy density, $`ϵ_\mathrm{B}B^2`$, and relativistic energy density, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}N_0E^{2p}`$, evolve with time as the post-shock thermal energy density ($`\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}v_{\mathrm{sh}}^2`$); (ii) the synchrotron emission is optically thin; and (iii) the external absorbing medium has a power-law dependence $`s=2`$.

The discovery of SN 1993J (García gar93 (1993)) on March 28, 1993 in the galaxy M81, brought an unprecedented opportunity to test the SIM for supernovae. The early discovery of hydrogen lines in its spectra (Fillipenko & Matheson fil93 (1993)) classified this supernova as Type II. Marcaide and coauthors showed the radio emission to arise from a shell-like structure (Marcaide et al. 1995a ) that expands self-similarly (Marcaide et al. 1995b ), thus giving strong support to the SIM. Marcaide et al. (mar97 (1997)) also reported on the deceleration of the expansion ($`m=0.86\pm 0.02`$), and concluded that there is strong evidence for the circumstellar medium density profile to be of the form $`\rho _{\mathrm{cs}}r^s`$, with $`s=1.66`$, in good agreement with previous modeling of radio observations ($`s=1.5`$; Van Dyk et al. van94 (1994), Lundqvist lun94 (1994)) and with the modeling of both radio and X-ray observations, which require $`1.5s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.7}`$ (Fransson et al. flc96 (1996); hereafter FLC96). Attempts to fit the radio light curves of SN 1993J using the SIM have been unsuccessful so far, and have led several authors (Van Dyk et al. van94 (1994), Lundqvist lun94 (1994), FLC96, Marcaide et al. mar97 (1997)) to consider alternative power-law profiles for the circumstellar medium around SN 1993J, or to include synchrotron self-absorption as an additional absorbing mechanism (Fransson & Björnsson fb98 (1998), hereafter FB98).

## 2 Synchrotron radio emission from SN 1993J

In an attempt to gain insight into the physical conditions of SN 1993J, and also motivated by our VLBI monitoring of this unique radio supernova, we have written a numerical code (Pérez-Torres per99 (1999)) that computes the synchrotron radio emission from an expanding Type II supernova. Although our code will be fully described elsewhere, we briefly outline it here. We solve the synchrotron radiative transfer equation throughout the shell (including synchrotron emission and synchrotron self-absorption), and take into account both synchrotron and expansion losses. We assume a (modified) SIM scenario, in which the supernova synchrotron radio emission comes from the interaction shell that forms shortly after shock breakout. (The SIM scenario is modified in the sense that we do not assume the synchrotron emission to be optically thin.) We assume the emission to be due to the existence of relativistic electrons, $`N(E,r)`$, orbiting in a random magnetic field, $`B(r)`$. We assume an initially injected relativistic electron distribution with a power-law energy dependence, $`N(E,r)=N_0(r)E^p`$, and also assume a continuous reacceleration of those electrons.

In modeling the radio emission from SN 1993J, we take into account all available observational data: (i) the distance to SN1993J, $`D=`$ 3.6 Mpc (Freedman et al. fre94 (1994)); (ii) the supernova explosion date, $`t_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ = March 28.0, 1993 (Nomoto et al. nom93 (1993), Podsiadlowski et al. pod93 (1993), Bartunov et al. bar94 (1994)); (iii) the supernova deceleration parameter, $`m=0.86`$ (Marcaide et al. mar97 (1997)); (iv) the width of the radio emitting shell, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ = 0.3 $`R_{\mathrm{shock}}`$ (Marcaide et al. 1995b ; mar97 (1997)); (v) the index of the circumstellar density material, $`s=1.66`$ (Marcaide et al. mar97 (1997)). Finally, we assume (vi) the same external electron temperature profile as in FB98: $`T_e(r)=max[T_{15}\left(10^{15}\mathrm{cm}/r\right),2\times 10^5\mathrm{K}]`$, where $`T_{15}`$ is the electron temperature in the circumstellar medium at $`r=10^{15}`$ cm, which in our model is equal to $`1.7\times 10^6`$ K. The thermal electron density of the circumstellar medium (assumed to be fully ionized with abundances $`X=0.73,Y=0.23`$), is given by $`n_{cs}=1.27\times 10^8M_W\left(r/6.35\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}\right)^s\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where we have introduced the wind parameter $`M_W\left(\dot{M}/10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\right)\left(v_w/10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\right)^1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^1`$, and $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_w`$ are the mass-loss rate and velocity, respectively, of the presupernova wind. As in the SIM, we assume that both $`B`$ and $`N_0`$ evolve with time as the post-shock thermal energy density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{sh}}v_{\mathrm{sh}}^2`$. With $`m=0.86`$ and $`s=1.66`$ from our VLBI observations, we then obtain the following evolution laws for magnetic field and relativistic particles, respectively: $`Br^{1s/21/m}=r^{0.99},N_0r^{2\left(1s/21/m\right)}=r^{1.99}`$, that is, $`Br^1`$, and $`N_0r^2`$. These scalings correspond to those in model 4 of Chevalier (che96 (1996)), which give the slowest evolution of $`B`$ and $`N_0`$, and therefore of the radio emission from SN1993J. The other three models consider a dependence of $`Bt^1`$, or $`N_0t^2`$ or both.

We model the available radio data using the following parameters: (1) the spectral index of the injected electron distribution, $`p`$; (2) the initial magnetic field, $`B(r_0)`$; (3) the initial value of the injected function of relativistic electrons, $`N_0(r_0)`$; and (4) a low-energy cut-off for the relativistic electrons, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}(r_0)E_{\mathrm{min}}(r_0)/m_ec^2`$. We fit the above parameters at the reference radius $`r_0=6.35\times 10^{14}`$ cm, corresponding to the outer shell radius at our first epoch ($`t_0=2.34`$ days). We find that the multi-wavelength radio data for SN 1993J (Figure 1) are best reproduced by a model with $`p=3`$, $`B(r_0)=27`$ G, $`N_0(r_0)=6.7\times 10^7\mathrm{erg}^{\mathrm{p}1}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}(r_0)90`$.

We estimate the uncertainties in the parameters of our model by modifying each of the best-fit parameters (one at a time), and comparing via a least-squares fit the resultant emission with that predicted by our best-fit model. These calculations show the extreme sensitivity of our results to $`p`$, which needs to be kept very close to 3 (within a small few per cent) to obtain any meaningful fit to the radio light curves. The other three parameters are less well constrained, and a 20 % variation of each of their best-fit values result in reasonable fits. In addition, we have considered the existence of couplings between some of the parameters, especially $`N_0`$ and $`B`$. Further testing shows that factor of two variations in each of the three poorly-constrained parameters give very poor fits to the observations. Therefore, we adopt factor of two modeling errors for each of those three parameters.

### 2.1 Spectral evolution of SN1993J: evidence for synchrotron self-absorption

Our simulated spectra for SN 1993J agree well with the observed spectra (Fig. 2). The supernova spectrum changes from a mainly inverted spectrum at early epochs to a more typical optically thin spectrum at late epochs and for an increasingly wide wavelength range. As shown in Fig. 2, external free-free absorption is dominant at early times ($`t100`$ days), but synchrotron self-absorption becomes increasingly important with time for the long-wavelength radio emission. Thus, the standard interaction model is incomplete, at least for SN 1993J, in that it ignores synchrotron self-absorption, which according to our modeling is the most relevant absorption mechanism – as the supernova ages – for the longer wavelengths. At current epochs, our model predicts that the flux at $`\lambda 90`$cm is $``$120 mJy for the synchrotron self-absorption dominated scenario, and $``$200 mJy for the free-free absorption dominated scenario. This prediction – which would represent a direct test to discern the relevant absorption mechanism for SN 1993J – can be checked using $`\lambda `$90 cm observations of SN 1993J with a sensitive radio interferometer.

## 3 Results and Discussion

Our modeling results show that a combination of synchrotron self-absorption and external free-free absorption can reproduce well the evolution of the radio light curves of SN 1993J. Therefore, the ad hoc external inhomogeneous medium (“clumpy external absorption”) previously invoked by Van Dyk et al. (van94 (1994)) to model the radio light curves seems to be unnecessary. We have also considered the Razin-Tsytovich effect (the suppression of the emission below a certain wavelength due to the existence of a plasma) as an alternative mechanism to free-free absorption. However, the densities of thermal electrons required for the Razin-Tsytovich mechanism to be effective are unrealistically large. For example, at 11.5 days, we find that the number density of thermal electrons should be larger than $`1.3\times 10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for the Razin-Tsytovich effect to be important. This value is about an order of magnitude larger than needed to correctly model the X-ray luminosity at those epochs (FLC96). The same holds at late epochs, and we therefore rule out the Razin-Tsytovich effect as a plausible alternative to external free-free absorption. We point out here that the index of the circumstellar medium density profile, $`s=1.66`$, was obtained by Marcaide et al. (mar97 (1997)) under the assumption that external free-free absorption was the only absorption mechanism acting in SN1993J. Although there is increasing evidence that synchrotron self-absorption is also relevant for SN 1993J (Chevalier che98 (1998), FB98, this work), we note that at the early epochs used by Marcaide et al. (mar97 (1997)) free-free absorption is the dominant mechanism, while synchrotron self-absorption can be neglected (see Figure 2, epoch 11 days). We have tried to fit the light curves using either an standard index for the circumstellar wind ($`s=2`$), or a much flatter one ($`s=1.5`$) which would still satisfy the range of $`1.5s\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.7}`$ inferred from X-ray observations (FLC96). As Fig. 3 shows, an $`s=2`$ wind causes a fall-off of the observed emission which is far too rapid. On the contrary, a wind with $`s=1.5`$ makes the radioemission to fall-off too slowly. For the case $`s=2`$, we also investigated different scalings for $`B`$ and $`N_0`$; namely, we used the other three scalings mentioned by Chevalier(che96 (1996)). However, none of those scalings gives good fits because all of them make both $`B`$ and $`N_0`$ –and therefore the radio light curves– to decrease more rapidly than $`r^1`$ and $`r^2`$, respectively. This suggests that the index $`s`$ should be close to our nominal value of $`s=1.66`$. Since the decline rate of the radio light curves, i.e., their late time emission, is also affected by the parameter $`p`$, we have investigated models in which both $`s`$ and $`p`$ are allowed to vary. This search resulted in much poorer fits than our best one. We acknowledge, though, that the assumption of ad hoc scalings for both $`B`$ and $`N_0`$ could alleviate these poor fits, at the expense of more complicated models. We defer such detailed study to a further publication.

We investigated as well the effects of using different indices for the expansion ($`m`$), but do not find a reasonable fit to the supernova emission using either an undecelerated expansion of the supernova ($`m=1`$), or a heavily decelerated expansion ($`m=0.75`$).

The unexpected large (initial) magnetic field of about $`30`$G implied by our modeling agrees with the large magnetic field obtained by FB98, and seems to rule out any hypothesis based on a magnetic field due to a compression of the circumstellar wind field. Indeed, since it is very unlikely that the magnetic field energy density in the wind is larger than its kinetic energy density, i.e., $`B^2/8\pi \rho v_\mathrm{w}^2/2`$, we should expect a magnetic field not in excess of $`B`$ 3.4 mG at $`r3\times 10^{16}`$cm (if it arises from a compression of the magnetic field in the wind). This value of the magnetic field is in agreement with the values obtained from polarization observations of OH masers in supergiants (e.g., Cohen et al. cohen87 (1987), Nedoluha & Bowers nedo92 (1992)), which give magnetic field estimates at distances of $`3\times 10^{16}`$cm of $`110`$ mG. However, we find that the magnetic field is actually about 0.58 G, i.e., 170 times larger. From a strong supernova shock (factor of 4 compression), one would expect an increase of the field value of $`4^{1/s}`$ for a magnetic field that scales as $`Br^1n_{\mathrm{sh}}^{1/s}`$, clearly insufficient by almost two orders of magnitude. Therefore, the large magnetic field argues strongly in favor of turbulent amplification in the shell (e.g., Gull gul73 (1973), Chevalier 1982a , Chevalier & Blondin che95 (1995)). Furthermore, the assumption that the magnetic energy density evolves as the post-shock thermal energy results in a dependence of the magnetic field with radius of $`r^1`$. A component of the field behaving like $`Br^2`$, as suggested from magnetic flux conservation, does not give a reasonably good fit to the observations.

We find that the magnetic energy density in the shell is just a (small) fraction of the post-shock thermal energy density, $`ϵ_B/ϵ_{\mathrm{sh}}0.024`$, but nonetheless much larger than the relativistic electron energy density, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{rel}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{sh}}2\times 10^410^3`$. This points to a strong deviation from equipartition. We note, however, that the ions (whose emission we neglect as it is a factor $`m_p/m_e2000`$ less than that due to the electrons) might have a large contribution to the total energy density. We also find that the relativistic particle number density is a very small fraction of the particle thermal density. In fact, the ratio $`n_{\mathrm{rel}}/n_{\mathrm{sh}}=(N_0E_{\mathrm{min}}^{1p}/2n_{\mathrm{sh}})(18)\times 10^7`$ at any given epoch.

Special attention deserves the low-energy cutoff at early epochs that we consider to account for the flattening of the radio light curves at early epochs. We recall that our model assumes an initial injection of (highly) relativistic particles $`N(E,r)=N_0(r)E^p`$, which applies from $`E_{min}`$ up to $`E_{max}`$. The initial supernova explosion is the likely seed for such a population of relativistic electrons, which must be continuously reaccelerated. We show in Fig. 4 the light curves that we obtain when we do not consider a low-energy cutoff in the relativistic particle distribution, i.e., $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}=1`$. (The other parameters are fixed to their nominal values $`p=3`$, $`B(r_0)=27`$ G, and $`N_0(r_0)=6.7\times 10^7\mathrm{erg}^{\mathrm{p}1}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.) We note that although the optically thin part of the radio light curves remains unaffected, the optically thick part is heavily modified by the lack of a low-energy cutoff. In particular, the radio emission rises more rapidly. More importantly, the observed flattening of the light curves at the shortest wavelengths is not reproduced by such a model. Notice also that at long wavelengths (see the light curve at $`\lambda 21`$cm in Fig. 4) the radio emission is strongly absorbed at early times. This is the result of having decreased the minimum energy of the electrons; since the number of relativistic particles is proportional to $`E_{\mathrm{min}}^{1p}`$, we effectively increased the column density of the relativistic particles by a large factor. The effect is most easily seen at long wavelengths due to the dependence of the opacity with wavelength ($`\kappa _\nu \lambda ^{(\mathrm{p}+4)/2}`$). At this point, we also note that our model differs here from that presented by FB98, in that they assume a continuous injection of particles with $`\gamma 1`$. Bell (bell78a (1978)) showed that particles that are already relativistic can be accelerated in the presence of a shock. Since it is usually assumed that the acceleration of particles in SNe is due to the Fermi process (e.g. Ball & Kirk bal95 (1995) for SN1986J), we show here that our finding of a low-energy cutoff is consistent with such a process acting in SN1993J. The minimum energy of electrons that can be efficiently accelerated is $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{e}}=(m_p/m_e)(v_\mathrm{A}/c\mu )`$ (Eilek & Hughes eilek91 (1991); but see also Ellison et al. ellison2000 (2000), who argue that nonlinear effects in shocks can lead to acceleration of particles from a thermal pool), where $`m_p`$ and $`m_p`$ are the protron and electron mass, respectively, $`v_\mathrm{A}`$ is the Alfvén velocity, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`\mu `$ is the cosine of the pitch-angle. With the physical conditions deduced for SN 1993J, $`v_\mathrm{A}`$ varies from $`3200`$ km s-1 at t=2.3 days down to about 1200 km s-1 at t=3000 days. This gives $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}>20`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}>7`$ at 2.3 and 3000 days, respectively, which is consistent with our results.

It is plausible that Coulomb losses also play a role in the shape of the SN 1993J light curves at high frequencies and early epochs (see FB98, which use power-laws for the circumstellar wind density and the deceleration of the expansion of SN 1993J that are different from the experimental values obtained by Marcaide et al. mar97 (1997)). However, the neglect of Coulomb losses in our modeling is self-consistent, and does not affect the behavior of the radio light curves either at early or at late epochs. Indeed, the Lorentz factor, $`\gamma `$, of the electrons responsible for the emission at a given wavelength is $`\gamma 84\left(\lambda B\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^{1/2}`$ (cgs units), while the Lorentz factor below which Coulomb losses dominate over expansion losses is approximately $`\gamma _{\mathrm{Coul}}180\left(n_{\mathrm{sh}}/6.9\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3\right)\left(t/10\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{s}\right)^{1ms}`$, where we have neglected for simplicity the slowly-dependent term on the electron energy. From our modeling at $`t=10`$ days, we get $`B7.7`$G and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}61`$, so the observed emission at $`\lambda `$1.3 cm comes mainly from electrons with $`\gamma 200`$, while Coulomb losses are important for $`\gamma \gamma _{\mathrm{Coul}}180`$. Analogously, our modeling gives a magnetic field of $``$ 65 mG at current epochs ($``$2700 days), and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}12`$. We then obtain that the observed $`\lambda `$90 cm emission comes mainly from electrons with $`\gamma `$120, while Coulomb losses are relevant only for electrons with $`\gamma \gamma _{Coul}17`$, and thus do not affect the long wavelength radio emission from SN 1993J at late epochs. Therefore, we stress that our main result, namely the dominance of synchrotron self-absorption over external free-free absorption at late epochs is a robust result, and is not affected by the physical details that cause the flattening of the spectra at early epochs.

In summary, we have presented evidence of synchrotron self-absorption for the type II SN 1993J, based on a modeling of its radio light curves. We show that the radio light curves of SN 1993J are better characterized by synchrotron emission that is partially absorbed by a combination of synchrotron self-absorption (inside the shell) and external free-free absorption, rather than only by external free-free absorption, thus confirming previous modeling of the SN 1993J radio light curves (FB98). This result suggests that the “clumpy external absorption” previously invoked to model the radio light curves of SN 1993J might not be needed. We also find that the Razin-Tsytovich effect can be ruled out as well, as an alternative mechanism to external free-free absorption. We predict that synchrotron self-absorption is the main absorbing mechanism for the long-wavelength radio emission as SN 1993J ages. This prediction can be tested unambiguously using current technology and observations of SN 1993J at $`\lambda 90`$ cm. Moreover, follow-up observations of SN 1993J at $`\lambda 90`$ cm are also needed to further constrain the physical parameters of this unique supernova. As pointed out earlier (Chevalier che98 (1998)), if SN 1993J is not a bizarre supernova then synchrotron self-absorption is likely to play an important role in most, if not all, radio supernovae, especially as they age.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments on the manuscript. This work has been partially supported by the Spanish DGICYT Grants No. PB96-0782 and PB97-1164.


text:
# Flavor without Flavor Symmetry

(BA-01-25)

## Abstract

Non-trivial patterns of quark and lepton masses and mixings can arise without there being any underlying flavor symmetry that distinguishes among the three families. Two realistic examples are given.

There are two outstanding features of the quark and lepton spectrum. First, the masses of the fermions of each kind exhibit an interfamily hierarchy: $`m_3m_2m_1`$. Second, these hierarchies appear to be nearly aligned, at least in the case of the quarks, in the sense that $`u_3`$ is aligned with $`d_3`$, $`u_2`$ with $`d_2`$, and $`u_1`$ with $`d_1`$. That is to say, the mixing angles are very small. There is also some evidence that the lepton hierarchies are aligned, namely the fact that the lepton mixing angle $`U_{e3}`$ is very small. But the large mixing angle $`U_{\mu 3}`$ seen in atmospheric neutrino oscillations shows that the alignment is not as good for the leptons as for the quarks.

Attempts to explain the quark and lepton masses are usually based on either grand unification or flavor symmetry, or a combination of the two approaches. The way that flavor symmetry would explain the parallel hierarchies of the fermion masses is quite straightforward. If flavor symmetry distinguished the different families from each other, then the masses of the fermions of different families would typically arise at different order in flavor symmetry breaking. Moreover, the mixing of families would also be a flavor-symmetry-breaking effect. Consequently, if family-symmetry-breaking effects were small, one might expect both a hierarchical pattern of masses and small mixing angles, as observed.

Turning to grand unification, one finds that grand unified gauge symmetries are able to explain small mixing angles in a completely different way, which is most readily understood by considering the minimal $`SO(10)`$ model. In minimal $`SO(10)`$ all four Dirac mass matrices, those of the neutrinos, up quarks, down quarks, and charged leptons (which matrices we denote henceforth as $`N`$, $`U`$, $`D`$, $`L`$) are exactly proportional: $`N=UD=L`$. Obviously this means that the hierarchies in minimal $`SO(10)`$ are exactly aligned, and the CKM angles vanish. In realistic unified models the relation between the mass matrices is more complicated, but for models based on $`SO(10)`$ and some related groups the CKM angles do tend to be small.

The question arises whether grand unification can also explain the other main feature of the quark and lepton spectrum — the interfamily mass hierarchies — without flavor symmetry. If so, then it becomes attractive to dispense with flavor symmetry altogether. By flavor symmetry, we mean here any symmetry that distinguishes among the three families.

If there is no flavor symmetry, then how could one explain that some families have much larger mass than others? A simple possibility was suggested quite a long time ago  , namely that the different families may mix differently with superheavy fermions in real representations of the unified group. The idea can be illustrated very simply. Suppose that we consider an $`SO(10)`$ model  in which, in addition to the three families $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, there is a “vectorlike” family-antifamily pair $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$. We can imagine a $`Z_2`$ parity under which the ordinary families are odd and the vectorlike ones are even. We do not consider this a flavor symmetry because it does not distinguish among the three families. Suppose further that there are Higgs in the vector and adjoint representations of $`SO(10)`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$. If these are also odd under the $`Z_2`$, then only the following types of renormalizable Yukawa coupling are allowed:

$$W_{Yukawa}=M(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})+a_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H+b_i(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H.$$
(1)
The mass $`M`$ is of the GUT scale. The interesting point to note is that even though no symmetry has been imposed that distinguishes among the families, two of the light families get mass and one does not. The reason for this is that the two Yukawa coupling vectors, $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$, span only a two dimensional subspace of the full three dimensional family space. To be more concrete, one can without any loss of generality choose the axes in family space so that $`a_i=a(0,0,1)`$ and $`b_i=b(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. It is then clear that the first family has no Yukawa couplings at all and remains exactly massless. The other families get mass through mixing, as follows. The first two terms of Eq. (1) lead to a superheavy fermion mass term that can be written as $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}(M\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}+a\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3)`$. One sees that the superheavy spinor is a linear combination of the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3`$. The linear combination orthogonal to this is light and in fact is just the third family. In other words, the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ without an index actually contains in part the light fermions of the third family. Consequently, the third term in Eq. (1) generates weak-scale mass terms of the form $`b\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2)`$. That is, it generates 23, 32, and 33 elements of the light fermion mass matrices.

To summarize what is going on, the light fermions are only able to obtain mass through mixing with superheavy fermions. But not all the three families are able to mix in this way, since there are not enough superheavy fermions for them all to mix with. Thus, perforce, an interfamily mass hierarchy results even though all three families have exactly the same quantum numbers.

Let us examine the structure we have just described in more detail. One may write the VEV of the adjoint Higgs field as $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H=\mathrm{\Omega }T`$, where $`T`$ is a generator of $`SO(10)`$. Then, integrating out the vectorlike fields $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$, as shown in Fig. 1, one obtains the effective operator

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_{eff}& & [a_i\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i][b_j\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_j]/M\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& (a_3T\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3)(b_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+b_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H(\mathrm{\Omega }/M)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & T_{(16_3)}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Consider now fermions of type $`f`$, where $`f`$ can be (left-handed) up-type quarks, down-type quarks, charged leptons, or neutrinos. The left-handed anti-fermions are denoted $`f^c`$. There arises straightforwardly from the previous equation the following effective three-by-three mass matrix for the light fermions of type $`f`$:

$$f_i^cM_{ij}f_jM_f(f_1^c,f_2^c,f_3^c)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta T_f\\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta T_{f^c}& \mathrm{cos}\theta (T_f+T_{f^c})\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The factor $`M_f`$ has one value, which we shall call $`M_U`$, for up quarks and neutrinos, and another value, which we shall call $`M_D`$, for down quarks and charged leptons. The symbols $`T_f`$ and $`T_{f^c}`$ stand for the charges of the fields $`f`$ and $`f^c`$ under the $`SO(10)`$ generator $`T`$.

There are several interesting features of this structure that have been pointed out in earlier papers  . Not only is the first family singled out as massless despite there being no flavor symmetry that distinguishes one family from another, but the structure naturally accommodates a mass hierarchy between the second and third families as well. For example, if we assume that $`T_fT_{f^c}`$ and that $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ is somewhat small, then $`m_{f_2}/m_{f_3}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 1`$.

Another interesting feature of the this structure is that it naturally explains why the minimal $`SU(5)`$ relation $`m_bm_\tau `$ works well while the corresponding relation for the second family, $`m_sm_\mu `$, does not. The reason has to do with the way the $`SO(10)`$ generators appear in Eq. (3). Since the same Higgs doublet $`H_d`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$ couples to both $`d^cd`$ and $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, it follows that $`T_{d^c}+T_d=T_\mathrm{}^++T_{\mathrm{}^{}}=T_{H_d}`$. Consequently, the 33 elements of the mass matrices for the down quarks and charged leptons are approximately equal. However, the 23 and 32 elements are different for the two matrices since $`T_d`$ and $`T_{d^c}`$ are not equal to $`T_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{}^+`$.

Finally, the structure incorporates automatically a sort of Fritzschian form  for the heavier families, with a “texture zero” in the 22 element. This relates the smallness of $`V_{cb}`$ to the smallness of $`m_c/m_t`$ and $`m_s/m_b`$.

It is remarkable that the one effective Yukawa term given in Eq. (2) goes so far toward providing a satisfactory framework for describing the masses and mixings of the fermions of the second and third families. In several earlier papers attempts were made to construct models of the quark and lepton masses and mixings on the basis of exactly this term. The first attempt was , where the second and third families were described using only the operator of Eq. (2). However, the resulting fits were not satisfactory. There are four dimensionless quantities ($`m_\mu /m_\tau `$, $`m_s/m_b`$, $`m_c/m_t`$, and $`V_{cb}`$) that had to be fit using two parameters, namely $`\theta `$ and a parameter specifying the $`SO(10)`$ generator $`T`$. (Since $`T`$ must commute with the Standard Model group, it must be a linear combination of weak hypercharge and the generator $`X`$ in $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, or equivalently a linear combination of $`BL`$ and $`I_{3R}`$. Thus, only a single parameter is needed to specify T.) It turned out that at least one quantity got very badly fit for all choices of parameters. In the same paper, a better fit was sought by extending the model in the obvious way to the group $`E_6`$. One more parameter was thereby introduced, since in $`E_6`$ two parameters are needed to specify the generator $`T`$. It seems almost prophetic in light of recent results that the best fit obtained in the $`E_6`$ model had very small $`m_s`$ and a large mixing between $`\mu _L^{}`$ and $`\tau _L^{}`$, i.e. a large contribution to the leptonic mixing $`U_{\mu 3}`$. Unfortunately, the values of $`m_s`$ obtained were too small even compared to the recent lattice results, and the value of the $`\mu \tau `$ mixing angle was not large enough to account for the atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

In  a realistic model was obtained by introducing structures that went beyond Eq. (2) to account for the heavy two families. It was assumed that $`T=(I_{3R})+ϵ(BL)`$, $`ϵ1`$, which gave an appealingly simple explanation of the Georgi-Jarlskog relation; however, the ratio $`m_c/m_t`$ remained a problem, since with this choice of $`T`$, the matrices in Eq. (3) give the minimal $`SO(10)`$ result $`m_c/m_tm_s/m_b`$. A way of suppressing $`m_c/m_t`$ was found in  that, although elegant, was somewhat involved.

In  and  a very successful model of quark and lepton models was constructed that also included the operator in Eq. (2). (For a similar model see .) However, to give a satisfactory account of the heavy two families, two other operators in addition to that in Eq. (2) were needed. Nevertheless, this did not lead to a loss of predictivity for two reasons. First, the generator $`T`$ was fixed to be exactly $`BL`$ in order to solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem via the Dimopoulos-Wilczek mechanism , thus reducing the number of parameters by one. Second, with $`T=BL`$, the 33 elements in Eq. (3) vanish, since $`(BL)_f+(BL)_{f^c}=0`$, making the parameter $`\theta `$ irrelevant. (This necessitated, of course, that a different operator be introduced to generate the 33 elements.) The model of  and  was extremely predictive and simple in structure. One of its great successes was that it naturally accounted for the largeness of the atmospheric neutrino mixing angle. However, though very simple, it made an enormous sacrifice from the point of view of the idea we are exploring in the present paper: it was based on a flavor symmetry, i.e. a symmetry that distinguished the three families from each other.

To summarize the past efforts, one can say that no completely satisfactory model exists that succeeds in explaining the flavor structure of the quarks and leptons without a flavor symmetry. In this paper we shall pursue this goal again. We present two models. Both incorporate the operator in Eq. (2). The first model is similar in spirit to the models of  and . It is rather simple and has a single prediction, namely the mass of the strange quark, which comes out smaller than the Georgi-Jarlskog prediction and more in line with the recent lattice estimates. The second model is very close to the model of  and , but is obtained without recourse to flavor symmetry.

Model 1. A realistic variant of the models of  and  can be constructed in a simple fashion. Consider an $`SO(10)`$ model with the following Yukawa superpotential;

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_{Yukawa}& =& M(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})+a_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟏}_H\hfill \\ & & \\ & +& M^{}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{})+b_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H\hfill \\ & & \\ & +& c(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟔})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{up}+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{down}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The vector Higgs fields $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{up}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{down}`$ are supposed, respectively, to obtain VEVs in their $`Y/2=+1/2`$ and $`Y/2=1/2`$ components. Thus, the former gives mass only to up quarks and neutrinos, while the latter gives mass to down quarks and charged leptons.

The structure that emerges from these terms can be understood readily. As before, we can write $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H=\mathrm{\Omega }T`$, where $`T`$ is an $`SO(10)`$ generator, which we choose to parametrize as $`T=2I_{3R}+3d(BL)`$. (The parameter called $`d`$ here is the same up to a normalization as the parameter called $`ϵ`$ in .) Without loss of generality a basis in family space can be chosen so that the Yukawa coupling vectors take the form $`a_i=a(0,0,1)`$ and $`b_i=b(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The combination of the two terms involving the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$, namely the term with $`M`$ and the term with $`\mathrm{𝟏}_H`$, cause the fields $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3`$ to mix with each other. That means that the field $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ is not purely superheavy, but also contains an admixture of the fields of the third family. Similarly, the two terms involving the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}`$, namely the term with $`M^{}`$ and the term with $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$, cause the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}`$ and the linear combination $`b_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i=b(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2)`$ to mix with each other. Thus, the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}`$ is also not purely superheavy, but contains an admixture of the fields of the second and third families in a proportion that depends on the angle $`\theta `$.

Given these facts, one sees that the term $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟔})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{up}`$ contributes only to the 33 element of the up quark mass matrix $`U`$. Similarly, the term $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^{down}`$ contributes to the 23, 32, and 33 elements of the mass matrix of the down quarks, $`D`$, and the mass matrix of the charged leptons, $`L`$. At this stage, then, one has that the charm quark is massless. It, like the fermions of the first family, is supposed to get mass from other smaller terms. This is not unreasonable, in light of the fact that $`m_c/m_t`$ is an order of magnitude smaller than $`m_s/m_b`$ and $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$.

From the foregoing one can write down the following expressions for the mass matrices $`D`$ and $`L`$:

$$D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (1d)\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& d\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)M_D,L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (1+3d)\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ 0& 3d\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)M_D.$$
(5)
In this model, two parameters, $`d`$ and $`\theta `$ are available to predict three dimensionless quantities, $`V_{cb}`$, $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$, and $`m_s/m_b`$. There is therefore one prediction, which can be taken to be for the strange quark mass. For brevity, let us define $`t\mathrm{tan}\theta `$, $`vV_{cb}`$, and $`3\mathrm{}m_\mu /m_\tau `$. Then, to the leading two orders in small quantities one can write

$$vV_{cb}=\frac{dt}{1+[(1d)^2d^2]t^2}.$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{}\frac{1}{3}\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }=\frac{d(1+3d)t^2}{1+[(1+3d)^2+(3d)^2]t^2},$$
(7)
$$m_s/m_b=\frac{d(1d)t^2}{1+[(1d)^2+d^2]t^2}.$$
(8)
Eq. (6) can be inverted to give $`d=\frac{v}{t}\left(\frac{1+t^2}{1+2vt}\right)`$. Substituting this into Eq. (7), one finds that the expressions simplify to yield a quadratic equation for the parameter $`t=\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ in terms of the experimentally known $`v`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$0=t^2[5v(1\frac{34}{5}\mathrm{})]+t[110\mathrm{}][\mathrm{}/v+18\mathrm{}v3v].$$
(9)
Using $`v=0.035`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1/50.4`$ (these are evaluated at the GUT scale), one finds that

$$t\mathrm{tan}\theta =0.536,d=0.081.$$
(10)
Note that the angle $`\theta `$ is not particularly small. This means that the Yukawa vectors $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ are not “unnaturally” aligned in family space. This is consistent with the philosophy that there is no family symmetry. The small parameter in this model is really $`d`$. As is evident from Eqs. (6) – (8), it is the smallness of $`d`$ that accounts for the mass hierarchy between the second and third families and for the smallness of the mixing between them. That is, remarkably, it is not a flavor symmetry that produces these “flavor” features, but the pattern of $`SO(10)`$ breaking. Note also that in the limit $`d0`$, the Georgi-Jarlskog relation $`m_s/m_b=\frac{1}{3}m_\mu /m_\tau `$ becomes exact, as can be seen from Eqs. (7) and (8). In fact, this is how the Georgi-Jarlskog relation was obtained in the model of . However, since the parameter $`d`$ is significantly different from zero, there is a significant deviation from the exact Georgi-Jarlskog prediction for $`m_s`$. One finds that

$$m_s/m_b0.866(m_s/m_b)_{GJ}1/58.2.$$
(11)
This is the value at the unification scale. It translates into a strange quark mass of about 137 MeV at 1 GeV, or about 100 MeV at 2 GeV, which is in the range given by recent lattice calculations.

Model 2. The second model is a realization of the model of  and  constructed without use of flavor symmetries. Again based on $`SO(10)`$ it has the following Yukawa superpotential terms:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_{Yukawa}& =& M(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})+a_i(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟏}_H\hfill \\ & & \\ & +& M^{}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟎})+b_i(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H\hfill \\ & & \\ & +& c(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟔})\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟎})\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H^{}\hfill \\ & & \\ & +& g_i(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟔}_i)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H\mathrm{𝟏}_H/M_G^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Here, the spinor Higgs field $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H`$ is supposed to acquire a VEV in the $`SU(5)`$-singlet direction, i.e. one that commutes with the Standard Model group, whereas $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H^{}`$ is supposed to acquire a VEV in the Weak-doublet direction . As in the model of  and , the adjoint Higgs field $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$ is supposed to acquire a VEV in the $`BL`$ direction, as needed to solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem by the Dimopoulos-Wilczek mechanism. This set of terms can be shown to be the most general that is consistent with a $`Z_3`$ symmetry under which all the quark and lepton multiplets tranform trivially except for the three ordinary families $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i`$, which all transform non-trivially and in the same way.

The form of the mass matrices that result from these Yukawa terms can be determined by the same kind of reasoning that was used above. As before, we can choose our axes to make $`a_i=a(0,0,1)`$ and $`b_i=b(0,\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The coefficient $`c_i`$ in the higher-dimension operator will then in general have three non-zero components. It is easy to see that integrating out the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ leads to a mixing of the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3`$, as discussed before. Similarly, integrating out the superheavy fermions in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ leads to a mixing of the $`SU(5)`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and in $`b_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i=b(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2)`$. The term with coefficient $`c`$ then gives 33 entries to all the Dirac mass matrices $`N`$, $`U`$, $`D`$, and $`L`$. These contributions are denoted “1” in the matrices shown below. The term with coefficient $`d`$ gives contributions only to the matrices $`D`$ and $`L`$. This can be seen by looking at the $`SU(5)`$ decomposition of this term: $`d[\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})]\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H^{})`$. This reduces to a term proportional to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3(\mathrm{cos}\theta \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{sin}\theta \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_H`$. These contributions are denoted by “$`\sigma `$” in the matrices below. Note that these contributions are “lopsided”, giving only a contribution to $`D_{23}`$ but not $`D_{32}`$ and to $`L_{32}`$ but not $`L_{23}`$. Finally, the higher-dimension operator with coefficient $`g_i`$ gives terms proportional to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3(g_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+g_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2+g_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1)`$, which are denoted by “$`ϵ_i`$” in the matrices below. Altogether, then, the matrices have the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& ϵ_1/3\\ 0& 0& ϵ_2/3\\ ϵ_1/3& ϵ_2/3& 1\end{array}\right)M_U,D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& ϵ_1/3\\ 0& 0& \sigma s_\theta ϵ_2/3\\ ϵ_1/3& ϵ_2/3& 1+\sigma c_\theta \end{array}\right)M_D,\hfill \\ \\ L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& ϵ_1\\ 0& 0& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1& \sigma s_\theta ϵ_2& 1+\sigma c_\theta \end{array}\right)M_D^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
where $`s_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`c_\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta `$. By rotations in the 1-2 planes these can be brought to the forms:

$$\begin{array}{c}U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ/3\\ 0& ϵ/3& 1\end{array}\right)M_U,D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sigma s_\theta ϵ_2/3\\ 0& ϵ/3& 1+\sigma c_\theta \end{array}\right)M_D,\hfill \\ \\ L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\\ ϵ_1& \sigma s_\theta ϵ_2& 1+\sigma c_\theta \end{array}\right)M_D^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`ϵ\sqrt{ϵ_1^2+ϵ_2^2}`$. These matrices go over to those of the model of  in the limit that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 0`$ and $`ϵ_1/ϵ_20`$. As far as the fits to the quark masses and mixings and the charged lepton masses are concerned, the parameter $`ϵ_1`$ makes very little difference. (It does, however, make a contribution to the neutrino mixing parameter $`U_{e3}`$.) The presence of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ in these matrices is important, on the other hand, since it introduces an additional parameter compared to the model of . There it was found that an excellent fit was obtained with $`\sigma 1.7`$ and $`ϵ0.14`$. Here, because of the additional parameter $`\theta `$ a slightly better fit is possible. We find the best fit to be $`\sigma 1.6`$, $`ϵ0.15`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta 0.13`$.

Essentially, then, the model is the same as that in , although slightly less predictive. It has the same important feature of highly “lopsided” mass matrices $`D`$ and $`L`$, i.e. $`D_{32}D_{23}1`$ and $`L_{23}L_{32}1`$. This, as emphasized in , gives a natural explanation of why the atmospheric neutrino mixing ($`U_{\mu 3}`$) is so large. Other important features are the natural explanation of the Georgi-Jarlskog factor and of the fact that $`m_c/m_tm_s/m_b`$. The reader is referred to  for further details.

The interesting thing is that we have succeeded in taking a highly successful model of quark and lepton masses that exists in the literature and that was constructed by means of flavor symmetries which distinguish among the three families, and constructing a model that is virtually the same without making any use of flavor symmetries of that kind.

What we have shown is that in the context of grand unification it is possible to construct interesting and predictive models which reproduce the important features of the quark and lepton mass spectrum, while at the same time treating all three families on exactly the same footing, that is, giving them the same quantum numbers. In other words, one can have flavor without flavor symmetry.

Fig. 1. The diagram that leads to the effective operator given in Eq. (2).


text:
# A Supernova Brane Scan

## 1 Introduction

At a time when observational cosmologists are finally pinning down some crucial cosmological parameters (Perlmutter et al., 1997, 1999; Riess et al., 1998; de Bernardis et al., 2000; Lange et al., 2001; Netterfield et al., 2001; Hanany et al., 2000; Balbi et al., 2000; Stompor et al., 2001; Halverson et al., 2001; Pryke et al., 2001; Percival et al., 2001), theoretical cosmologists have increased and diversified their efforts to try to provide some more solid connections between particle physics and cosmology.

In this context, a topic of much recent interest has been that of the so-called ‘brane-world scenarios’ (Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos & Dvali, 1998; Randall & Sundrum, 1999; Binétruy et al., 2000; Maartens, 2001; Rubakov, 2001). The general principle behind such models is that the ordinary particles live on a three-dimensional surface (commonly called a 3-brane, or simply ‘the brane’), which is embedded in a larger space (‘the bulk’, which may or may not be compact and might even have an infinite volume) on which gravity can propagate. An observer on the brane will measure four-dimensional gravity up to some corrections which, given the weakness of gravity, can in general be made small enough not to conflict with observations without tweaking with model parameters too much.

At present the topic is young enough that the main drive is still to try to explore all remotely viable model-building possibilities without worrying too much about the consequences. However, some of the proposed models are already developed enough that they can start to be put through the sieve of specific cosmological observations. In this paper we will provide what we believe to be the first detailed analysis of this kind for a brane world scenario.

We will consider a particular solution of a brane world scenario originally introduced by Dvali, Gabadadze & Porrati (2000), and further studied in (Deffayet, 2001; Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001)—we shall refer to it as the DGP model for simplicity. It’s a five-dimensional brane-world model with a non-compact, infinite-volume extra dimension. The usual four-dimensional gravity is recovered on the brane for scales below a ‘characteristic radius’ $`r_c`$, due to a four-dimensional Ricci scalar being induced on the brane. However, at larger scales this becomes sub-dominant, and one will effectively see five-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity.

The above effect can obviously have dramatic cosmological implications. A particularly interesting solution was first found by Deffayet (2001)—and then generalized by Dick (2001)—and then further studied in (Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001). It describes a universe which at late times is accelerated on scales larger than $`r_c`$. This is an effect of the bulk gravity, in the sense that observers on the brane will see no cosmological constant. Hence this is another interesting alternative way to explain the current acceleration of the universe, which is strongly indicated by Type Ia supernova observations (Perlmutter et al., 1997, 1999; Riess et al., 1998), without resorting to a cosmological constant—for earlier alternative explanations, see (Dev, Sethi & Lohiya, 2000; Behnke et al., 2001; Mannheim, 2001). Note that, unlike most other known brane worlds scenarios, here the early evolution of the universe is the standard one while the late evolution is different. Also, unlike other alternative theories of gravity (introduced in other contexts) here gravity will become weaker on large enough scales. These two points will be important in what follows.

In (Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001) the authors argue that this is an intrinsically higher-dimensional effect, at least in the sense that one can not mimic it with arbitrary high-derivative terms in ordinary four-dimensional gravity. This turns out to be both a blessing and a curse, for on one hand it means that one can extract quite distinctive observational predictions, but on the other hand it also implies that it’s quite easy to rule it out. In (Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001) the authors claim that the model’s alternative explanation for the current acceleration of the universe agrees with all existing cosmological observations (or, more accurately, that it is currently indistinguishable from the standard scenario). In what follows we shall show that this is not the case. Indeed, currently existing data is already sufficient to make this alternative explanation for acceleration strongly disfavoured when compared to the standard one.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we provide a brief summary of the features of the DGP model which are relevant for our discussion. We then proceed to analyse the accelerating solution in the light of the Type Ia supernovae data in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 we cross-check the results of this analysis with other cosmological datasets, and finally we present our conclusions in Sect. 5.

## 2 The Model

Here we briefly describe the brane-world scenario introduced by Dvali, Gabadadze & Porrati (2000), and further studied in (Deffayet, 2001; Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001)—we shall henceforth refer to it as the DGP model. Our discussion will be somewhat simplified, as we will only focus on the features that are relevant for our subsequent analysis—the reader is encouraged to consult the original references for a more detailed discussion.

Our three-brane is embedded in a five-dimensional spacetime with a non-compact, infinite-volume extra dimension. Particles in the standard model are confined to the brane, and brane fluctuations are neglected. There is essentially one free parameter in the model, which is the ‘five-dimensional Planck mass’, denoted $`M_5`$. Note that one must assume that the standard model cut-off doesn’t coincide with $`M_5`$—in fact, it must be much larger, so that the physical interpretation of $`M_5`$ is not quite trivial.

The four-dimensional Planck mass will be denoted $`M_4`$, and is related to the usual gravitational constant through $`8\pi G_4=M_4^2`$. Unlike in other brane world scenarios, here the two masses $`M_4`$ and $`M_5`$ need not be related. We note that there is a somewhat technical problem with the model (Deffayet, 2001) which implies that if one defines Newton’s constant via a standard Cavendish-like experiment, then the so-defined $`G_N`$ doesn’t necessarily coincide with $`G_4`$. This would obviously contradict standard tests of General Relativity, as was already pointed out in (Deffayet, 2001). Possible ways to circumvent this problem have been claimed (Dvali, Gabadadze & Porrati, 2000; Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001). In any case, we shall neglect this aspect in what follows, since our present purpose is to discuss ‘cosmological’ (as opposed to ‘local’) tests of the model.

The usual four-dimensional gravity is recovered on the brane for scales below a ‘characteristic radius’ $`r_c`$, which is given by

$$r_c\frac{M_4^2}{2M_5^3}.$$
(1)
This is due to a four-dimensional Ricci scalar being induced on the brane. However, at larger scales this term becomes sub-dominant, and one will effectively see five-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity. Therefore gravity becomes weaker on large enough scales. This is to be contrasted with models where one modifies gravity on large scales in order to solve, for example, the dark matter problem: in that context, one requires stronger gravity on large scales. From this it immediately follows that one can impose a simple constraint on $`M_5`$, since the characteristic radius must at least be as large as the present Hubble radius.

Cosmological solutions in this model were first studied in (Deffayet, 2001)—but see also (Dick, 2001). One finds that the Friedmann equation on the brane has the following form

$$H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\left(\left[\frac{8\pi }{3}G_4\rho +\frac{1}{4r_c^2}\right]^{1/2}+\frac{ϵ}{2r_c}\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`k=0,\pm 1`$ is the spatial curvature and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ corresponds to two different brane embeddings in the bulk spacetime. On the other hand, the energy conservation equation has the standard form,

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}+3H(\rho +p)=0.$$
(3)
At early enough times the density term dominates the Friedmann equation, and hence one obtains (at least to first order) the standard cosmological evolution, namely $`3H^2=8\pi G_4\rho `$. The additional bulk-induced term will become important when $`H^1r_c`$. Then the subsequent evolution depends on the sign of the parameter $`ϵ`$. In the $`ϵ=1`$ branch the universe switches into a full five-dimensional gravity regime, where the Friedmann equation looks like $`H\rho `$—something that is typical of many brane world scenarios. On the other hand, in the $`ϵ=+1`$ branch something rather more interesting happens. There is a ‘self-inflationary’ solution with $`Hr_c^1`$. What happens is that the additional curvature term on the brane appears as a source for bulk gravity, and thus can cause acceleration on the brane. In other words, an observer on the brane will see the universe being accelerated on scales larger than $`r_c`$.

Note, however, that this solution does not require any other energy source on the brane—so in this sense this is indeed a higher-dimensional effect. In particular, no cosmological constant is needed on the brane, so this is an interesting alternative way to explain the current acceleration of the universe, which is strongly indicated by Type Ia supernova observations (Perlmutter et al., 1997, 1999; Riess et al., 1998), without resorting to a cosmological constant. A simple, ‘back-of-the-envelope’ constraint comes from the fact that we want the universe to be at this crossover stage at about the present epoch if the alternative proposal for the acceleration of the universe is to be viable, hence $`H_0^1r_c`$. This then naively implies that the five-dimensional Planck mass should be of the order of

$$M_510100MeV.$$
(4)
We finally note that high-energy processes place almost no constraints on this mass scale $`M_5`$, basically because up to about the present epoch the universe evolves as normal. Indeed the only constraint comes from the measurement of the Newtonian force, which only implies the very mild

$$M_5>10^3eV.$$
(5)
As we shall see in the following section, much more stringent constraints can be derived using cosmological observations, if one assumes that the accelerating solution is valid. We will start by an analysis of the Type Ia supernovae data, which is described below. We will then contrast the results of this analysis with other cosmological constraints.

## 3 Supernovae Data Analysis

We begin by evaluating the luminosity distance as a function of the cosmological parameters for our model. The Friedmann equation (2) can be rewritten as a function of the red-shift $`1+za_0/a`$ to give:

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}+\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (1+z)^{3(1+w_\alpha )}}\right)^2,$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\frac{k}{H_0^2a_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}=\frac{1}{4r_c^2H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha =\frac{8\pi G_4\rho _{\alpha 0}}{3H_0^2a_0^{3(1+w_\alpha )}},$$
(7)
respectively represent the fractional contribution of curvature, the bulk-induced term and the other components in the Friedmann equation. In equation (6) the sum is over all the components of the cosmic fluid with an equation of state $`p_\alpha =w_\alpha \rho _\alpha `$. From now on we will consider only one component of non-relativistic particles together with the bulk-induced term, in which case equation (6) becomes

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}+\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3}\right)^2;$$
(8)
in particular, at the present day one must have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}+\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)^2=1.$$
(9)
For a flat universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ and so in this case the two cosmological parameters are related by (9)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}=\left(\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}\right)^2.$$
(10)
It is also possible to show that closed universes with

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{3/2}>8\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}^{1/2}$$
(11)
do not have a big bang. These universes avoid the big bang singularity by bouncing in the past. We shall disregard such universes in most of what follows. Another useful benchmark is the redshift at which the universe switches from deceleration to acceleration, or in other words the redshift for which the deceleration parameter vanishes. For a flat universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ it’s easy to show that the following exact result holds

$$\left(1+z\right)_{q=0}=2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)^{1/3};$$
(12)
note that in this (flat) case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are not independent parameters—they are related by (10). For comparison, the result in the standard case, again taking a flat model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$) is

$$\left(1+z\right)_{q=0}=\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\right)^{1/3};$$
(13)
we shall return to these quantities in the following section.

It is also straightforward to show that in a Friedmann-Robertson Walker (FRW) universe the luminosity distance is given by:

$$d_L=H_0^1(1+z)|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}S_k(|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}d_C),$$
(14)
where

$$d_C=H_0_0^z\frac{dx}{H(x)},$$
(15)
and $`S_k`$ is $`\mathrm{sinh}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$. Note that the assumption of a FRW universe is the only one needed to derive (14). Specifically, we do not need to assume the validity of General Relativity or to specify a priori the detailed contents of the universe. This is of course crucial in our case.

We estimated the cosmological parameters using the combined data of two independent teams—thus making up a dataset of 92 different supernovae—using the procedure described in (Wang et al., 2000; Wang & Garnavich, 2001). The measured distance modulus for a SN Ia is

$$\mu _0^{(l)}=\mu _p^{(l)}+ϵ^{(l)}$$
(16)
where $`\mu _p^{(l)}`$ is the theoretical prediction

$$\mu _p^{(l)}=5\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{d_L(z_l)}{\text{Mpc}}\right)+25,$$
(17)
and $`ϵ^{(l)}`$ is the uncertainty in the measurement, including observational errors and intrinsic scatters in the SN Ia absolute magnitudes.

We denote the parameters to be fitted as s and estimate them using a $`\chi ^2`$ statistic, with (Riess et al., 1998)

$$\chi ^2(\text{s})=\underset{l}{}\frac{\left[\mu _p^{(l)}(z_l|\text{s})\mu _0^{(l)}\right]^2}{\sigma _{\mu _0,l}^2+\sigma _{mz,l}^2}\underset{l}{}\frac{\left[\mu _p^{(l)}(z_l|\text{s})\mu _0^{(l)}\right]^2}{\sigma _l^2},$$
(18)
where $`\sigma _{\mu _0}`$ is the estimated measurement error of the distance modulus, and $`\sigma _{mz}`$ is the dispersion in the distance modulus due to the dispersion in galaxy redshift, $`\sigma _z`$, due to peculiar velocities and uncertainty in the galaxy redshift. The probability density function (PDF) for the parameters s is

$$p(\text{s})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\chi ^2}{2}\right).$$
(19)
The normalized PDF is obtained by dividing the above expression by its sum over all possible values of the parameters s. In the particular case of our model the cosmological parameters are $`H_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}`$. The probability distribution function for the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}`$ is obtained by integrating over all possible values of $`H_0`$, and the results are displayed in Fig. 1.

We have also studied the improvements in the parameter estimation using supernovae which are expected from future studies of cosmic acceleration. Following (Weller & Albrecht, 2001) we assumed a future dataset similar to one proposed for the SNAP satellite111SNAP home page at http://snap.lbl.gov. This has the magnitudes of 50, 1800, 50 and 15 supernovae in the red-shift ranges from $`z=00.2`$, $`z=0.21.2`$, $`z=1.21.4`$ and $`z=1.41.7`$ respectively. The statistical error in magnitude is assumed to be $`\sigma =0.15`$ including both the estimated measurement error of the distance modulus and the dispersion in the distance modulus due to the dispersion in galaxy redshift. The supernovae dataset was generated assuming that we live in a standard FRW universe with cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. Fig. 2 shows the corresponding results.

## 4 Results and Discussion

A number of interesting features are apparent from Fig. 1. Firstly, the likelihood analysis of the supernovae data is degenerate in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ plane, approximately following a line of the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}\frac{2}{5}\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\frac{1}{10}.$$
(20)
This is to be compared with the standard cosmological scenario, where the degeneracy is approximately along

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\frac{1}{3}.$$
(21)
Hence one can say that for any given value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}`$ which provides the best-fit to the supernova data is always lower than the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Reversing the argument, one could also say that for a given value of the density of the accelerating component (a cosmological constant in the standard case or the bulk-induced term in the DGP model) the DGP model requires a higher matter density in order to fit the supernova data. Note that the two and three sigma likelihood contours are quite close to each other, and relatively distant from the one sigma contour. This indicates that with the currently available data there is an elongated ‘degenerate best-fit plateau’, and beyond this plateau the likelihood drops quite abruptly.

In any case, just by looking at Fig. 1 one might think that there is a rather comfortable range of matter densities which would give models in agreement with observation. However this is not the case as there are other cosmological constraints that must be met. In particular, the most recent CMB data (de Bernardis et al., 2000; Lange et al., 2001; Netterfield et al., 2001; Hanany et al., 2000; Balbi et al., 2000; Stompor et al., 2001; Halverson et al., 2001; Pryke et al., 2001) gives a strong indication that the universe is spatially flat or very nearly so. The current constraint is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.00\pm 0.05;$$
(22)
note that only fairly weak priors are needed to derive this constraint (refer to the original CMB papers for the analysis details). Combining this with the supernova analysis this leaves a much smaller range of allowed models. At the $`68\%`$ confidence level, the allowed range of matter densities is approximately

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.20\pm 0.05,$$
(23)
while at the $`99\%`$ confidence level it is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2\pm 0.1.$$
(24)
Note that this result is quite robust—for example, we have checked that it is unchanged if the likelihood analysis is restricted ab initio to flat universes.

The final piece of observational evidence that we shall use are dynamical measurements of the total mass density—see Turner (2000a, b) for a discussion of the state-of-the-art. In particular the ratio of baryons to the total mass in clusters has been determined using both X-ray measurements (Mohr et al., 1999) and Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements (Carlstrom et al., 1999). One respectively obtains

$$f_x=(0.075\pm 0.007)h^{3/2}$$
(25)
from X-ray measurements, and

$$f_{sz}=(0.079\pm 0.010)h^1$$
(26)
from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. In both cases, various dozens of sources have been used in the analysis. If one assumes that clusters are a fair sample of the matter content of the universe (which is very reasonable given their large size) and uses the latest value of the baryon density at nucleosynthesis (Burles, Nollett & Turner, 2000)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_b=(0.020\pm 0.002)h^2,$$
(27)
together with the value of the (re-scaled) Hubble constant $`h`$ obtained by the HST Key Project (Freedman et al., 2000),

$$h=0.72\pm 0.08,$$
(28)
one finally obtains the (rather conservative) estimate

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35\pm 0.07.$$
(29)
More recently, there have been claims of an even narrower (though perhaps slightly optimistic) range (Turner, 2001) at the one sigma level

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.330\pm 0.035.$$
(30)
Note also that there are various other sources of supporting evidence that are consistent with the above value, including studies of the evolution of cluster abundances with redshift, measurements of the power spectrum of large-scale structure (such as the recent preliminary 2dF results (Percival et al., 2001)), analyses of measured peculiar velocities as they relate to the observed matter distribution, and observations of the outflow of material from voids. A discussion of the assumptions and techniques of each method can be found in Turner (2000a, b).

Hence the DGP model’s proposal for the acceleration of the universe requires a value of the matter density that is inconsistent, at least at the two sigma level, with the observationally estimated matter density of the universe. Together with the fact that gravity becomes weaker on large enough scales, this presents a serious problem. Note that if the required mass was larger than the standard case, one could perhaps argue that there was some matter in an yet undetected form. Indeed, the fact that in the DGP model gravity becomes weaker on large enough scales could then be used to obtain a relatively simple explanation. However, since the observationally acceptable range of masses is lower than the standard model, no explanation of this kind is possible. In any case, one should recall that the evolution of the universe should be as standard in the DGP model up to very recent times, eg in what concerns the Friedmann equation for example—which also places strong constraints on any attempts to ‘get rid of’ some of the matter.

And finally, there is yet another hurdle for this model to overcome. In (12) we derived the redshift at which the universe switches from deceleration to acceleration, for the case of a flat universe. We plot this redshift, for the range of matter densities given by (24), in Fig. 3, together with the analogous curve for the standard model. The problem is now apparent: for the specified range of matter densities, the redshift of turnaround decreases as the matter density increases. On the other hand, for a given value of the turnaround redshift, the required matter density is always lower with a bulk-induced term replacing a cosmological constant (the solid curve in Fig. 3) than in the standard model with a cosmological constant (the dashed curve). Now, the latest supernova data (Perlmutter et al., 1997, 1999; Riess et al., 1998, 2001; Turner & Riess, 2001; Avelino, de Carvalho & Martins, 2001) indicates that the universe switched from deceleration to acceleration at a redshift in the interval (at one-sigma level)

$$0.6<z_{q=0}<1.7.$$
(31)
Note that for values of the matter density close to the upper limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$ the predicted redshift of turnaround is already smaller than this range.

This, therefore, is the dilemma of these models. On the assumption of a flat universe, a very low matter density is needed so that acceleration starts early enough. This is in fact confirmed by the simulation of the supernova analysis for a SNAP-class dataset, which is shown in Fig. 2: closed models are still favoured, though flat ones are still possible at around the two sigma level. However the range of possible matter densities is significantly reduced. Note that in generating the SNAP dataset we have assumed a standard FRW universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. Hence, according to our discussion above, if we fit that dataset to the accelerating DGP model then the preferred value of the matter density will come out lower. This is a trivial consequence of the fact that the type Ia supernova analysis method is basically a cosmological ‘accelerometer’. The point is that, even with the data available today, such low values are already strongly disfavoured by dynamical measurements of the total mass density in the universe.

On the other hand, even if one would be willing to admit that such values were allowed on the grounds of dynamical measurements alone (implying a much smaller value of dark matter than in the standard model), they are expected to run into serious difficulties when it comes to density fluctuation growth and the evolution of large-scale structures (which can now be probed much beyond Mpc scales both by direct surveys and through gravitational lensing), again because of the weaker gravity on large enough scales. For the DGP scenario to be viable the characteristic scale would be of order $`r_cH_0^1`$, but obviously the effects of weaker gravity would be felt on smaller scales than this. Indeed this point has already been made on rather general grounds (though only for the case of sub-horizon modes) by Uzan & Bernardeau (2000), and we shall return to it in more detail elsewhere.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have considered the cosmological consequences of the brane world model of Dvali, Gabadadze & Porrati (2000), and its proposed alternative explanation for the current acceleration of the universe. We have shown that, contrary to recent claims (Deffayet, Dvali & Gabadadze, 2001), this proposal is already strongly disfavoured by existing cosmological datasets, at least at the two sigma level. In order to be consistent with CMB and supernova data one would need a very low matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.2`$. Even if this was allowed by dynamical measurements (such as cluster data), such a low density ( and hence such a small amount of dark matter) together with the fact that gravity is weaker on large enough scales would make it difficult to produce a consistent structure formation scenario.

The lesson to be learned from this exercise is twofold. Firstly, no matter how interesting or mathematically clever one’s favourite particle physics model of the universe might be, the first hurdle towards credibility consists in deriving falsifiable cosmological predictions from it. And secondly, the currently available cosmological observations are already powerful enough to impose tight constraints on a wide range of possible models, especially when various cosmological datasets are combined—which is a sign that the era of precision cosmology has indeed started. We hope that other brane world scenarios can be brought into the realm of cosmological testability in the near future.

C. M. is grateful to the organizers and participants of the Extra Dimensions Workshop at Collège de France, Paris, for many enlightening seminars and discussions. C. M. is funded by FCT under “Programa PRAXIS XXI” (grant no. FMRH/BPD/1600/2000). We thank ‘Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto’ (CAUP) for the facilities provided.


text:
# BIMA Observations of Linear Polarization in Sagittarius A* at 112 GHz

## 1 Introduction

The evidence that Sagittarius A\* is associated with a supermassive black hole in the Galactic Center has been reviewed recently in Maoz (1998) and Backer & Sramek (1999). However, significant details of the accretion and emission region are not understood. In particular, it is not known whether the emission originates in an inflow or an outflow and whether the emission mechanism is synchrotron or gyrosynchrotron (e.g., Melia, 1994; Özel et al., 2000; Falcke & Markoff, 2000).

Polarization is an important diagnostic of Sgr A\*. The source exhibits no linear polarization at frequencies less than 86 GHz (Bower et al., 1999a, c). Interstellar depolarization has been eliminated as an effect by this high frequency result and by 4.8 and 8.4 GHz spectropolarimetry. Recently, Aitken et al. (2000) have claimed detection of high levels of linear polarization in Sgr A\* at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths. Their JCMT/SCUBA observations at 150 GHz indicate $`p=12_4^{+9}\%`$ and increasing values at higher frequencies. The low resolution of these observations ($`33.5^{\prime \prime }`$) required substantial corrections to the observed total intensity and polarized fluxes due to dust and free-free emission in order to determine the polarization of Sgr A\*. The implied sharp rise in polarization has significant implications for models of the emission region (Quataert & Gruzinov, 2000; Agol, 2000; Melia et al., 2000).

We have also pursued circular polarization observations of Sgr A\* (Bower et al., 1999b, 2001). These results indicate that the circular polarization is variable and that it exceeds the linear polarization at frequencies as high as 15 GHz and possibly higher. Any complete model of the emission region must account for both linear and circular polarization.

We present here BIMA array observations of linear and circular polarization in Sgr A\* at 112 and 115 GHz. These interferometric observations have a resolution of $`20^{\prime \prime }\times 5^{\prime \prime }`$, which is an order of magnitude less than those of Aitken etal. We detect no linear or circular polarization at a level of 1%.

## 2 Observations and Results

We used the BIMA array in its C array configuration on 13 May 2000 to observe Sgr A\* and on 12 May and 6 June 2000 to observe the polarization calibrators 3C 273 and 3C 279. Observations were made in two sidebands with central frequencies of 111.8 and 115.3 GHz and bandwidths of 800 MHz each.

We observed in the polarization switching mode previously described in Bower et al. (1999c). A single antenna was kept in linear polarization while other antennas switched between right (RCP) and left (LCP) circular polarization. Self-calibration of parallel-hand visibilities was performed with respect to the reference antenna in linear polarization. The compact and highly polarized source 3C 279 was used as a polarization leakage calibrator on 12 May and 6 June. Observations were 3.5 and 4.5 h in duration on the two dates, respectively. We plot the lower sideband polarization leakage solutions in Figure BIMA Observations of Linear Polarization in Sagittarius A\* at 112 GHz. The rms difference between these solutions is 1.3%. This indicates a maximum 1-$`\sigma `$ systematic error of 0.4% for polarization results. Previous measurements of linear polarization with BIMA have achieved similar limits (e.g., Bower et al., 1999c; Rao et al., 1998).

These leakage solutions were applied to the phase-self-calibrated data for Sgr A\* and other calibrators. The calibrated visibilities were imaged and deconvolved in all four Stokes parameters. Baseline lengths ranged from 10 to 80 m. This produced a resolution of $`20^{\prime \prime }\times 5^{\prime \prime }`$ in position angle $`3.4^{}`$ for Sgr A\*. We tabulate the total intensity and polarized fluxes in the images Table 1. These fluxes were measured through the fitting of Gaussians at the phase-center of the images. Errors in linear and circular polarization are the 1-$`\sigma `$ statistical error.

Differences in the polarization between epochs for some sources may be due to real source variability. Compact, flat-spectrum sources are known to show significant changes in their total and polarized flux density on timescales less than 2 months (Marscher et al., 1999).

The results at 112 GHz are clearly more reliable than those at 115 GHz. For Sgr A\*, the higher frequency flux is $`0.5`$ times the flux at 112 GHz and the polarization measurement error is higher by a factor of $`4`$. Similar effects are seen for the other sources. This is the result of increased atmospheric opacity from the 118 GHz O2 line. System temperatures at 115 GHz were roughly twice those at 112 GHz, as predicted for model atmospheres (e.g., Liebe, 1989). The increased system temperature leads to lower SNR in self-calibration of the antenna phases, and thus decorrelation. The decorrelation is enhanced for Sgr A\* due its low declination. Therefore, while the polarization results at the two frequencies are consistent, the more accurate results are at 112 GHz.

Decorrelation is unlikely to play a large effect at 112 GHz. The short baseline flux that we measure for Sgr A\* at 112 GHz is roughly equal to the peak flux in the JCMT maps at 150 GHz with $`33.5^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution. Furthermore, analysis of J1733-130 and the other calibrators indicates that there is less than 25% decorrelation on the longest baselines with no dependence on source declination.

Confusion of thermal emission from Sgr A West may increase the measured total intensity of Sgr A\*. This confusion is likely to be small with respect to the total intensity of Sgr A\*. This is in part because the good East-West resolution separates Sgr A\* from the North-South arm of the minispiral. There is some component of emission in the East-West arm, or bar, of the minispiral, however. We can estimate a maximum confusion flux from the well-sampled 3.6 cm VLA continuum image of Sgr A West of Roberts & Goss (1993). Convolving this image with a $`20^{\prime \prime }\times 5^{\prime \prime }`$ beam we find a total flux at the map center of $`5.4`$ Jy. The actual flux of Sgr A\* in this map is 0.7 Jy, implying an excess flux of $`4.7`$ Jy. Extrapolating with a power law index appropriate to free-free emission $`(S\nu ^{0.1})`$, we expect 3.6 Jy of additional flux in the central beam. Clearly, much of this flux is absent in our image. This is in part a result of the less complete $`(u,v)`$-coverage of our observations, especially on short-baselines. Extended flux is not usually preserved in images made from incompletely-sampled visibility data (e.g., Cornwell et al., 1999). This flux can be seen in the $`(u,v)`$-distance plot on baselines shorter than 10 $`k\lambda `$ (Figure BIMA Observations of Linear Polarization in Sagittarius A\* at 112 GHz).

A more direct comparison comes from an analysis of the visibility amplitudes as a function of $`(u,v)`$-distance and a comparision with higher resolution results at lower frequencies (Bower et al., 1999c, b, 2001). These show that flux in the visibility range of 20 to 35 $`k\lambda `$ is an excellent estimator of the total flux over a broad range of frequencies. In VLA A-array observations of Sgr A\* at 8.4 GHz, the mean flux between 20 and 35 $`k\lambda `$ is $`0.78\pm 0.13`$ Jy, which is very close to the true flux of $`0.75\pm 0.02`$ Jy determined on baselines longer than 100 $`k\lambda `$. At 43 GHz, VLA A-array fluxes in the same two $`(u,v)`$ distance ranges are $`0.92\pm 0.16`$ Jy and $`0.99\pm 0.02`$ Jy, respectively. And at 86 GHz, BIMA fluxes are $`2.27\pm 0.47`$ Jy and $`2.40\pm 0.02`$ Jy, respectively. This effect is due to the averaging of flux from arcsecond-scale structure that beats with the flux from Sgr A\*. Apparently, and as expected, it is independent of frequency, specific $`(u,v)`$-coverage and the flux of Sgr A\*.

For our 112 GHz data the flux density is $`0.85\pm 0.04`$ Jy in the range 20 to 35 $`k\lambda `$. The consistency with the lower frequency data sets is shown in Figure BIMA Observations of Linear Polarization in Sagittarius A\* at 112 GHz. This implies a free-free contribution to the flux measured at the position of Sgr A\* to be $`0.5`$ Jy. The 1-$`\sigma `$ upper limit for the polarization of Sgr A\* is 1.8%.

## 3 Discussion

These results indicate that the linear polarization of Sgr A\* at 112 GHz is not detected at a level of 1.8%. This is consistent with previously-made lower frequency observations (Bower et al., 1999a, c). We can reject the hypothesis of constant linear polarization fraction at a weighted mean of 3.5% between 112 and 150 GHz: our measurement combined with the JCMT/SCUBA result gives $`\chi _\nu ^2=5.4`$. Thus, a very steep rise in linear polarization fraction is necessary to reconcile the two measurements. As both Quataert & Gruzinov (2000) and Agol (2000) have shown, very specific conditions are necessary in the source and in the accretion environment to produce such a steep rise.

Variability of the linear polarization signal is a potential explanation for the discrepancy. Zhao et al. (2001) have recently demonstrated 106-day periodic variations in the total intensity of Sgr A\* at 15 and 22 GHz. The strength of the variation does increase with frequency, suggesting that there may be substantial variation at frequencies above 100 GHz. However, the number of epochs of polarization monitoring indicate that this is an unlikely cause. We observed in total four separate epochs at 86 and 112 GHz without detection. The flux varied by a factor of two between these observations with no apparent change in the linear polarization. Such variations in the total flux have been observed previously at high frequencies (Wright & Backer, 1993; Tsuboi et al., 1999). Additionally, Aitken et al. (2000) claim detection at different frequencies in two widely separated epochs. Interestingly, these two epochs are roughly at the same phase of the 106-day period. If variability were confirmed as the source of the discrepancy, then the relationship between total intensity and polarized intensity variations would be a very important diagnostic for Sgr A\*.

We also present measurements of the circular polarization of these sources. Circular polarization is not detected in any source. For Sgr A\*, the rms uncertainty in the polarization is $`1.7\%`$. The high degree of order in the magnetic field necessary to produce linear polarization fractions greater than 10% will also lead to a higher fractional circular polarization in a synchrotron or gyrosynchrotron source. Thus, the absence of circular polarization also suggests that the linear polarization limit is robust. The circular polarization is known to be variable with an inverted spectrum at frequencies as high as 15 GHz (Bower et al., 2001).

An absence of linear polarization at high frequencies has several possible explanations. One, a dense accretion region as expected by both jet and ADAF models will likely depolarize a linearly polarized signal. The low accretion rate model of Quataert & Gruzinov (2000) is not required. Two, the emission region may have a strongly tangled magnetic field. Three, the emission is not synchrotron or there is a large number of low energy electrons in the source that depolarize the emission.

Higher frequency interferometric observations are crucial to resolve the apparent disagreement between these results and those of Aitken et al. (2000). Beyond that, connection of linear and circular polarization properties with each other and with total intensity variability stands as an important observational and theoretical goal for our understanding of Sgr A\*.

The BIMA array is operated by the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association under funding from the National Science Foundation.