text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The splitting in mass of flavour singlet and non-singlet mesons with the same quark content arises from gluonic interactions. The assumption that these are small is known as the OZI rule. For the pseudoscalar mesons this splitting is not small (it is related to the $`\eta `$$`\eta ^{}`$ mass difference), basically because of the impact of the anomaly. For scalar mesons the splitting is also expected to be large because of mixing with the nearby scalar glueball. It is usually assumed that the OZI rule is in good shape for the vector and axial mesons. This is difficult to check experimentally because of mass shifts induced by decays etc.

Here we study this splitting from first principles using lattice QCD. We work in a simplified world with $`N_f=2`$ flavours of degenerate quarks. This is still sufficient to explore the sign and magnitude of any splitting which can then have a phenomenological impact on the interpretation of the observed spectrum. In this $`N_f=2`$ world, isospin is exact so we classify the flavour singlet state as $`m_0`$ and the non-singlet as $`m_1`$. We indeed do find that the splitting is largest for the scalar and pseudoscalar mesons, but we are able to estimate the magnitude of the splitting for vector and axial (both $`f_1,a_1`$ and $`h_1,b_1`$ types of axial) mesons. For the vector and axial channels, the corresponding glueball masses are known from lattice studies  to be much heavier and so the expectation is that the splitting $`m_0m_1`$ due to such glueball effects would be small and negative (since mixed states repel). This is the same sign as found for scalar mesons but opposite to that for pseudoscalar mesons. The usual explanation for the splitting in the pseudoscalar channel is through the topological charge density in the vacuum .

In lattice studies it is possible to measure separately the non-singlet contribution which is given by connected correlation $`C(t)`$ while the flavour singlet contribution has an additional disconnected correlation $`D(t)`$. Previous lattice studies have been made of the pseudoscalar mesons  and scalar mesons . For a discussion including some results for vector and axial mesons, see .

At large t where ground state contributions dominate we have

$$C(t)=ce^{m_1t}$$
(1)
and

$$C(t)+D(t)=de^{m_0t}$$
(2)
where $`m_0`$ is the flavour singlet mass and $`m_1`$ the flavour non-singlet mass. Now if the same meson creation and destruction operators are used for the study of both correlations, with quarks degenerate in mass, $`d`$ and $`c`$ have the same sign.

Then by a study of $`D/C`$ which is given by

$$D/C=(d/c)e^{(m_1m_0)t}1$$
(3)
one can explore the mass splitting between flavour singlet and non-singlet. We illustrate this behaviour in fig. 1, assuming that only ground state contributions occur at all $`t`$ values. Although it might be thought that $`d=c`$, we have shown previously  that this is not necessarily the case, and indeed sign changes in $`D/C`$ versus $`t`$ can be required. So, in summary, the slope (increase/decrease) of $`D/C`$ on a lattice can determine the sign and magnitude of $`m_1m_0`$.

This has already been explored in detail by us for the cases of pseudoscalar mesons  (where $`m_0m_1>0`$ ) and scalar mesons  (where $`m_0m_1<0`$). Here we extend the study to vector and axial mesons.

## 2 Connected and Disconnected Contributions

Here we discuss in general what information is available on the connected correlation $`C`$ and disconnected correlation $`D`$ and their relative sign.

For this section we consider only local operators to create a meson, namely $`\overline{\psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi _B`$, where subscripts refer to the flavour of the quarks. We choose a basis of hermitian matrices for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, see Table 1. Here we restrict ourselves to spatially symmetric operators, a fuller description which takes into account also the lattice cubic symmetry is given in .

For $`t>1`$ we can use reflection positivity to determine the sign of $`C`$. This corresponds to using a meson sink $`\overline{\psi }_B\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\psi _A`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R=\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\gamma _4=r_4\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then the correlation

$$C(t)=(\overline{\psi }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi _B)_0(\overline{\psi }_B\mathrm{\Gamma }^R\psi _A)_t$$
(4)
will be positive for $`t>1`$. We evaluate this correlation in the usual way for the connected correlation, combining the Grassmannian fermion fields into propagators which yields another minus sign, and using the $`\gamma _5`$ hermitivity of the Wilson-Dirac fermion matrix to relate these propagators to a common source. We indeed find that $`C(t)>0`$ in our measured correlations for $`t1`$.

In the flavour singlet case, when quarks $`A=B`$, there is an additional disconnected correlation $`D(t)`$ to be evaluated. This correlation can be written in the form

$$D(t)=N_fr_4r_5L(0)L^{}(t)$$
(5)
where the disconnected loop

$$L(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Gamma }M^1$$
(6)
with $`M^1`$ the quark propagator and the sum in the trace is over colour, Dirac and spatial indices at time $`t`$.

The factor of $`r_5`$ arises since the Wilson-Dirac fermion matrix $`M`$ is $`\gamma _5`$ hermitian and hence $`L`$ is real/ imaginary as $`\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }=r_5\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _5`$ with $`r_5=\pm 1`$. Now at $`t=0`$ we have that $`L(0)L^{}(0)>0`$ so the disconnected correlation $`D(0)`$ has sign $`r_4r_5`$. If this sign were to be maintained at larger $`t`$, then this would give a prediction for the sign of $`D/C`$ and hence information on the sign of $`m_1m_0`$ without any lattice evaluation at all. The no-free-lunch is that indeed a sign change in $`D`$ as t increases is possible and it is indeed the goal of this work to explore this on the lattice.

From Table 1, we can deduce that there must be such sign changes in $`D(t)`$ as $`t`$ increases from 0, since there are two operators available to study both pseudoscalar and vector mesons. In each case these two operators have different signs of $`r_4r_5`$ and hence one of them must change sign so that they agree on a common value of $`m_0m_1`$ at large $`t`$ where the ground state contribution must dominate. This has already been explored for the pseudoscalar case  and there D(t) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\gamma _4\gamma _5`$ was found to change sign.

## 3 Lattice Methodology

Here we use dynamical fermion configurations with $`N_f=2`$ from UKQCD . The sea quarks correspond to $`\kappa =0.1395`$ with a tadpole improved clover formalism with $`C_{SW}=1.76`$.

Local and spatially-fuzzed operators  are used for meson creation (with two fuzzed links in a spatially symmetric orientation with 5 iterations of fuzzing with coefficient given by 2.5\*Straight + Sum of staples). Thus we evaluate a $`2\times 2`$ matrix of local and fuzzed correlators . Mesons created by all independent products of gamma matrices are evaluated. Here we restrict our attention to the momentum zero sector.

We measure the disconnected correlations on 252 configurations of size $`12^324`$ separated by 20 trajectories. For the evaluation of the disconnected correlators, we use stochastic noise sources with variance reduction using the hopping parameter expansion . Here we employ more noise sources (96) to explore the very small disconnected contributions from some quantum numbers. We use sources at every site on the lattice and determine the momentum zero correlations from them.

The connected correlator is obtained by explicit inversion from a source (local or fuzzed) at the origin for 126 configurations separated by 40 trajectories .

### 3.1 Stochastic noise compared to signal

We measure the zero momentum disconnected loop $`L(t)`$ on each time-slice for each gauge configuration. This ensemble, for each choice of operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives us the values of the standard deviation $`\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ given in Table 2. We also, from our 96 stochastic samples in each case, have the estimate of the standard deviation $`\sigma _{\mathrm{stoch}}`$ on the mean of these 96 samples coming from the stochastic method. We can then deduce the true standard deviation of the gauge time slices from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{gauge}}=(\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{stoch}}^2)^{1/2}`$. This is presented in Table 2. Here the normalisation is such that $`M=1+\kappa \mathrm{}`$.

In an ideal world we would have $`\sigma _{\mathrm{stoch}}<<\sigma _{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ which would imply that no appreciable error arose from the stochastic methods employed. For the previously studied cases, the pseudoscalar with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _5`$ and the scalar with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=I`$, we see that the stochastic errors are truly negligible with 96 stochastic samples and indeed the 24 samples used before  were adequate. For the other cases, which have been little studied hitherto, we see that the stochastic errors are reasonably small, except for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _k`$ or $`\gamma _4`$. The latter case has spin exotic quantum numbers and is expected to be very poorly determined by our methods. For the vector meson, however, one of our goals is to explore the singlet mass splitting. Here we see that more stochastic samples (over 1000) would be needed with our current method to get the stochastic error significantly smaller than the inherent gauge error. We do not have the required computational resources at present. One small advantage, however, is that we can average over the three spin components of the vector which reduces errors by $`1/\sqrt{3}`$. Also the second operator ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\gamma _4\gamma _k`$) which creates a vector meson has a relatively smaller stochastic error. We also use fuzzed sources in order to obtain more measurements.

### 3.2 Results

We present in figs. 2 to 4 some of our results for the ratio of the disconnected correlator to the connected correlator. The error on the disconnected correlator is much larger than that on the connected one. This arises essentially because the absolute error on the disconnected correlator stays of the same magnitude as $`t`$ increases, much as is the case for correlations between Wilson loops as used in glueball studies. The connected correlator, in contrast, has an approximately constant relative error as $`t`$ increases. For this reason we employ the full data set to determine the disconnected correlator: sources at all sites and measurements every 20 trajectories. We bin these results to avoid any problem from autocorrelations among the gauge configurations separated by only 20 trajectories. Even with this approach, the error on the disconnected correlator rises rapidly as seen from the figures. A considerably larger number of gauge configurations will be needed to explore larger $`t`$ values.

Our results for the pseudoscalar case have been presented before  and are included here for comparison. We do indeed see a consistent slope for the two different $`\gamma `$ matrix operators considered with a sign change for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\gamma _4\gamma _5`$ as discussed above. The mass difference $`a(m_0m_1)0.1`$ is positive here as expected since the $`\eta ^{}`$ is heavier than the non-singlet pseudoscalar mesons.

For the vector mesons, we again have two different $`\gamma `$ matrix combinations available. We expect a sign change in one case as discussed above. From fig. 3 we see that the situation is that the ratio $`D/C`$ is very small so that detailed study is difficult. Moreover the different values observed for fuzzed and local operators suggest that excited state contributions are significant, especially for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=i\gamma _4\gamma _5`$ case. The results up to $`t=3`$ do suggest that $`D/C`$ is negative and that a sign change occurs for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _k`$ case between $`t=0`$ (where it is positive) and $`t=3`$. This would imply $`a(m_0m_1)>0`$.

For the axial mesons, our results are presented in fig. 4. The $`f_1`$ meson case shows a larger signal, consistent with $`a(m_0m_1)>0`$. We find a sign change in $`D(t)`$ from $`t=0`$ to $`t>0`$ for the $`h_1`$ case, giving a very small signal for $`D(t)/C(t)`$ at small $`t`$ values which appears to be negative, implying $`a(m_0m_1)>0`$.

We have attempted to make fits to the singlet correlators to extract masses in each case, but the rapid increase in errors with increasing $`t`$ makes these fits poorly determined and with results that depend strongly on the minimum and maximum $`t`$ values fitted. A less sensitive way to estimate the allowed magnitude of the singlet non-singlet mass splitting is from the values of $`D(t)/C(t)`$ directly: bearing in mind the scenarios illustrated in fig. 1. From the data shown for $`t5`$, we estimate $`a(m_0m_1)0.10(2)`$ for the pseudoscalar case, $`a(m_0m_1)0.001(2)`$ for the vector case, $`a(m_0m_1)0.005(10)`$ for the $`f_1,a_1`$ case and $`a(m_0m_1)0.001(10)`$ for the $`h_1,b_1`$ case. Note in particular the hierarchy of errors: with smallest errors for the vector case, followed by the axial mesons. Note also, as discussed above, that we have information on the sign of $`a(m_0m_1)`$ which is not folded into these error estimates.

## 4 Discussion

Our exploratory study has a scale set by  $`r_0/a=3.44`$ and peudoscalar meson to vector meson mass ratio of $`m_P/m_V=0.71`$. Using the conventional value $`r_0=0.5`$ fm then gives $`a^1=1.34`$ GeV while the meson mass ratio implies that the sea quarks have masses close to that of a strange quark. Here we are using $`N_f=2`$ flavours of degenerate quark in the sea. Since our lattice evaluation is for unphysical parameters, we first discuss the experimental spectrum of light quark mesons to aid in comparison with our results.

For a meson considered as made from two valence quarks of either type $`n`$ ($`u`$, or $`d`$ here treated as degenerate) or of type $`s`$, we have two observable non-singlet states $`\overline{n}n`$ and $`\overline{n}s`$. Then the singlet $`\overline{n}n`$ state would have a mass degenerate with the non-singlet $`\overline{n}n`$ if there were no disconnected contributions. Furthermore, from the observed non-singlet masses, by assuming an equal splitting in mass (or usually in mass squared), one also can deduce the mass which the singlet $`\overline{s}s`$ state would have if there were no disconnected contributions. Comparison of these theoretical mass values with the observed flavour singlet masses, then gives information from experiment about the size and nature of disconnected contributions.

Thus there are two observed states in the nonet with isospin zero which can have a component of the disconnected contribution and these can mix in terms of their quark content. So for flavour singlet sector, we then have contributions to the mass squared matrix with quark model content $`(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ (which we label as $`nn`$ and $`ss`$ respectively):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{nn}^2+2x_{nn}& \sqrt{2}x_{ns}\\ \sqrt{2}x_{ns}& m_{ss}^2+x_{ss}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
Here $`m`$ corresponds to the mass of the flavour non-singlet eigenstate as discussed above and is the contribution to the mass coming from connected fermion diagrams while $`x`$ corresponds to the contribution from disconnected fermion diagrams. In the limit of no mixing (all $`x=0`$, the OZI suppressed case), then we have the quenched QCD result that one flavour singlet state is degenerate with the isospin one $`\overline{n}n`$ meson while the other corresponds to the $`s\overline{s}`$ meson.

Using as input $`m_{nn}`$, $`m_{ss}`$ and the flavour singlet masses $`m_0`$ and $`m_0^{}`$, the three mixing parameters $`x`$ cannot be fully determined. However if one makes some assumption about the mixing parameters $`x`$ one can deduce the mixing pattern - see  for a discussion of this for pseudoscalar mesons. One simple case that may be used is to assume that all mixing strengths $`x`$ are the same for mesons of a given $`J^{PC}`$. Furthermore, if the value of $`x^2/(m_{ss}^2m_{nn}^2)`$ is small, then the off-diagonal contribution to mixing is negligible and the flavour singlet mass eigenstates will be of mass squared $`m_{nn}^2+2x`$ and $`m_{ss}^2+x`$. This gives two opportunities to estimate $`x`$ from the observed spectrum. Also the mass shift of the $`nn`$ flavour singlet ($`2x`$) is just the same as in the case of $`N_f=2`$ degenerate quarks - which is the case we explore on the lattice here. A caveat applies for axial mesons: since charge conjugation is not a good quantum number for the $`\overline{s}n`$ states, there will be mixing between the $`J^{PC}=1^{++}`$ and $`1^+`$ mesons. This complicates the mixing scheme further.

We now present the conclusions of such an analysis based on the experimental  mass values. For the vector mesons, the $`n\overline{n}`$ sector gives $`m_0m_1=0.013`$ GeV while the $`s\overline{s}`$ sector gives 0.016 GeV with a mass squared formalism and 0.001 GeV with a linear mass formalism. These signs suggest that the splitting in the $`N_f=2`$ sector would be $`m_0m_10.01`$ GeV.

For the axial mesons, the additional mixing of the $`n\overline{s}`$ states only allows an analysis if more assumptions are made. Then assuming that the lightest iso-singlet state is predominantly $`n\overline{n}`$ yields the two flavour result that $`m_0m_10.05,0.06`$ GeV for the $`J^{PC}=1^{++},1^+`$ mesons respectively.

A complication that arises in comparing with experimental meson spectra is that of decays. In our lattice studies, since the quark mass is relatively heavy (heavier than the strange quark since $`m_P/m_V=0.71`$ while we expect  this ratio to be 0.682 for strange quarks) then we have no decay channels open for the ground state mesons we study. In contrast, some of these mesons have substantial experimental decay widths (150 MeV for the $`\rho `$, over 250 MeV for the $`a_1`$ and 140 MeV for the $`b_1`$). One consequence of this, as has been known for a very long time , is that the pole in the complex plane corresponding to a resonance has an energy whose real part is lower than the quoted value which corresponds to a phase shift of $`90^0`$. This mass shift arises from the energy dependence of the width and will be more significant for wider resonances. Aside from this inherent uncertainty, there may be further dynamical effects arising from the back-reaction of the decay channels to the effective propagator.

Thus we should interpret our results as giving an indication of the strength and sign of OZI violating contributions to the light meson spectrum. These need not correspond to those observed experimentally because of the above issues (namely the more complex mixing schemes allowed for $`N_f=3`$ and the decay effects) and also because we would need to extrapolate our lattice results to the continuum limit and to more realistic quark masses. In particular, there is evidence from the pseudoscalar mesons that the splitting does increase with decreasing quarks mass .

We find a hierarchy of singlet non-singlet mass splitting which is large for pseudoscalar mesons (0.13(2) GeV), smaller for axial mesons (0.007(13) GeV for $`f_1`$ and 0.001(13) GeV for $`h_1`$) and smallest for vector mesons (0.002(3) GeV). This is in agreement with the hierarchy of magnitudes seen experimentally. We find that in each case the sign of the effect is that the flavour singlet state is heavier. This is the sign found experimentally for the pseudoscalar, vector and $`1^{++}`$ axial but not for the $`1^+`$ axial. The magnitudes we find are smaller than the experimental values (except for the $`h_1`$ case where the magnitude is comparable), which can come in part from the use of too heavy a light quark (as is known to be the case for the pseudoscalar mesons) but also from the impact of the large experimental decay widths.

In this study we have explored from first principles in QCD the OZI rule for the meson masses for the case of two degenerate quark flavours. It would be interesting to extend this lattice study to OZI rule effects in meson decays. We find that the disconnected contributions (ie OZI violating terms) to the masses are indeed small for axial and vector mesons. For the vector and axial mesons, we find evidence that the flavour singlet mass is increased compared to the non-singlet. This is the opposite of what would be expected in the simplest theoretical model: namely mixing with a heavier glueball of the same $`J^{PC}`$. An understanding of this remains a theoretical challenge.


format: text

text:
# Boundary Representations for Operator Algebras

## 1. Introduction

Concretely, an operator algebra $`𝒜`$ is a subalgebra of $`(K)`$, the bounded linear operators on some Hilbert space $`K`$. It is unital if it contains the identity operator. The algebra $`M_{\mathrm{}}(𝒜)`$ of $`\mathrm{}\times \mathrm{}`$ matrices with entries from $`𝒜`$ inherits a norm as a subspace of $`M_{\mathrm{}}((K))`$ identified canonically with $`(_1^{\mathrm{}}K)`$. The Blecher, Ruan and Sinclair Theorem  characterizes unital operator algebras in terms of a matrix norm structure, while a theorem of Blecher  does the same for non-unital algebras assuming the algebra multiplication is completely bounded. Consequently it is possible to speak abstractly of an operator algebra without reference to an ambient $`(K)`$.

A linear mapping $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$ induces a linear mapping $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}:M_{\mathrm{}}(𝒜)(_1^{\mathrm{}}H)`$ by applying $`\varphi `$ entry-wise, so that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(a_{jm})=(\varphi (a_{jm}))`$. The map $`\varphi `$ is completely bounded if $`\varphi `$ is bounded and there exists $`C`$, independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, such that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}C`$, it is completely contractive if it is completely bounded with $`C1`$, and it is completely isometric if $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is an isometry for each $`\mathrm{}`$. Finally, a representation of $`𝒜`$ on the Hilbert space $`H`$ is an algebra homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$. If $`𝒜`$ is unital, it is assumed that any representation of $`𝒜`$ takes the unit to the identity operator.

A boundary representation (, ) of the unital operator algebra $`𝒜`$ consists of a homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒜𝒞`$, where $`𝒞`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`C^{}(\varphi (𝒜))=𝒞,`$ together with a representation $`\pi :𝒞(H)`$ such that the only completely positive map on $`𝒞`$ agreeing with $`\pi `$ on $`\varphi (𝒜)`$ is $`\pi `$ itself. In originally defining boundary representations, Arveson also required that they be irreducible. We do not impose this condition.

The $`C^{}`$-envelope of $`𝒜`$, denoted $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$, is the essentially unique smallest $`C^{}`$-algebra amongst those $`C^{}`$-algebras $`𝒞`$ for which there is a completely isometric homomorphism $`\varphi :𝒜𝒞`$. For instance, if $`𝒜`$ is a uniform algebra, then $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous functions on the Šilov boundary of $`𝒜`$. In fact, in this case the irreducible boundary representations correspond to peak points of $`𝒜`$. Arveson proved that $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ exists provided there are enough boundary representations for $`𝒜`$. However, the existence of $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ does not imply the existence of boundary representations and Hamana  established the existence of $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ in general without recourse to boundary representations.

In this note we show, by elaborating on a construction of Agler essential to his approach to model theory  and using a characterization of boundary representations due to Muhly and Solel , that boundary representations exist, and then following an argument similar to Arveson’s, we also derive the existence of $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$.

Agler’s approach is to consider a family $`_𝒜`$ of representations of an algebra $`𝒜`$ (which is not necessarily an operator algebra). This is a collection of representations which is

1. Closed with respect to direct sums (so if $`\{\pi _\alpha \}`$ is an arbitrary set of representations in the family, then $`_\alpha \pi _\alpha `$ is also a representation in the family);
2. Hereditary (that is, if $`\varphi `$ is a representation in the family and $`L`$ is a subspace which is invariant for all $`\varphi (a)`$, $`a𝒜`$, then $`\varphi |_L`$, the restriction of $`\varphi `$ to $`L`$, is also in the family);
3. Closed with respect to unital $``$-representations (so if $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$, and $`\nu :(H)(K)`$ is a unital $``$-representation, then $`\nu \varphi `$ is in the family).

If $`𝒜`$ is non-unital, then we also require
4. $`𝒜`$ is closed with respect to spanning representations with respect to the partial ordering on dilations (defined below). A consequence of (1) is that the norms of all $`\pi _𝒜`$ are uniformly bounded.

When $`𝒜`$ is unital, (1)–(3) can be shown to imply (4), using an argument similar to that used to prove (1) of Theorem 1.1 in .

Special examples of families include the collection of all completely contractive representations of an operator algebra $`𝒜`$ and the collection of all representations $`\pi `$ of the disc algebra such that $`\pi (z)`$ is an isometry.

A representation $`\varphi `$ lifts to a representation $`\psi `$ if $`\varphi `$ is the restriction of $`\psi `$ to an invariant subspace. Following Agler  we will say that the representation $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$ is extremal, if whenever $`K`$ is a Hilbert space containing $`H`$ and $`\psi :𝒜B(K)`$ is a representation such that $`H`$ is invariant for $`\psi (𝒜)`$ and $`\varphi =\psi |_H`$, then $`H`$ reduces $`\psi (𝒜)`$. Further, if $`\rho :𝒜(L)`$ is a representation, then $`\rho `$ lifts to an extremal representation; i.e., there exists a Hilbert space $`H`$ containing $`L`$ and an extremal representation $`\varphi `$ of $`𝒜`$ such that $`L`$ is invariant for $`\varphi (𝒜)`$ and $`\rho =\varphi |_L`$ (, Proposition 5.10).

Lifting induces a partial ordering on representations, with $`\varphi _\alpha \varphi _\beta `$ being equivalent to $`\varphi _\alpha `$ lifting to $`\varphi _\beta `$. If $`𝒮`$ is a totally ordered set of liftings (with respect to this partial ordering), then we define the spanning representation $`\varphi _s:𝒜(H_s)`$ by setting $`H_s`$ to be the closed span of the $`H_\alpha `$’s over all $`\alpha 𝒮`$, and then densely defining $`\varphi _s`$ to be $`\varphi _\alpha `$ on $`H_\alpha `$ and extending to all of $`H_s`$ by boundedness of the representations $`\varphi _\alpha `$. It is readily verified that $`\varphi _s`$ is a representation which lifts each $`\varphi _\alpha `$.

The representation $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$ dilates to the representation $`\psi :𝒜(K)`$ if $`K`$ contains $`H`$ and $`\varphi (a)=P_H\psi (a)|_H`$ for all $`a𝒜`$. A fundamental result of Sarason  says that a representation $`\varphi `$ dilates to a representation $`\psi `$ if and only if $`H`$ is semi-invariant for $`\psi `$. Thus, there exists subspaces $`LNK`$ invariant for $`\psi `$ such that $`H=NL`$. Alternatively, $`K=LHM`$ with $`L`$ and $`LH`$ invariant for $`\varphi `$. Just as in the case of liftings, dilating induces a partial ordering on representations in the obvious manner. We can also similarly define spanning representations of totally ordered sets of representations, and this is what is used in item (4) above. Note that liftings are also dilations (with $`L=\{0\}`$). Hence the partial ordering on dilations subsumes that of liftings, and in particular, any spanning representation of liftings is one in terms of dilations as well.

As was noted above, families of representations over unital algebras contain all spanning representations formed from chains of representations in the family, though it appears that this is a needed added assumption in the non-unital setting. On the other hand, there are interesting collections of representations which are closed with respect to (1) and (4) of a family, but not necessarily (2) and (3). For example, the collection of all completely isometric representations of an algebra fall into this category. Since the theorems we prove below only depend on existence of spanning representations in the collections of representations we are considering and all representations being uniformly bounded, we define the extended family of an algebra $`𝒜`$ to be a collection of representations of $`𝒜`$ which is closed under the formation of direct sums and spanning representations.

For dilations, the equivalent of an extremal will be referred to as a $``$-representation. The representation $`\varphi :𝒜(H)`$ is a $``$-representation if whenever $`\psi :𝒜B(K)`$ dilates $`\varphi `$, then $`H`$ reduces $`\psi (𝒜)`$.

Muhly and Solel  show, in the language of Hilbert modules rather than representations, that for unital operator algebras $``$-representations coincide with boundary representations (forgetting the irreducibility requirement).

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a unital operator algebra. Then $`\rho :𝒜(H)`$ is a $``$-representation if, and only if, given any completely isometric map $`\varphi :𝒜𝒞`$ where $`𝒞`$ is a $`C^{}`$ algebra with $`𝒞=C^{}(\varphi (𝒜))`$, there exists a boundary representation $`\pi :C^{}(\rho (𝒜))(H)`$ such that $`\pi \varphi =\rho `$.

The proof of Muhly and Solel of this equivalence uses the existence of the $`C^{}`$-envelope. Our main result and proof of the existence of the $`C^{}`$-envelope do not depend on their work. However, it should be noted that a proof of the equivalence which does not already assume the existence of the $`C^{}`$-envelope is possible, and we sketch a proof below based along a line of reasoning in (, Theorem 1.2).

###### Sketch of the proof of (1.1).

Suppose $`\varphi :𝒜𝒞=C^{}(\varphi (𝒜))`$ is completely isometric and $`\pi :C^{}(\varphi (𝒜))(H)`$ is a boundary representation. Set $`\rho =\pi \varphi `$, and note that it is completely contractive. Suppose $`\nu :𝒜(K)`$ dilates $`\rho `$. The goal is to show that $`H`$ reduces $`\nu `$.

To this end, define a map $`\gamma :\varphi (𝒜)(K)`$ by $`\gamma (\varphi (a))=\nu (a)`$, $`a𝒜`$. This map is completely contractive, and so by the Arveson extension theorem extends to a completely positive unital map $`\gamma :C^{}(\varphi (𝒜))(K)`$ with $`\gamma \varphi =\nu `$. Observe that the map which takes $`bP_H\gamma (\varphi (b))|_H`$, $`bC^{}(\varphi (𝒜))`$ is completely positive, and by definition, $`P_H\gamma (\varphi (a))|_H=\rho (a)=\pi (\varphi (a))`$ for all $`a𝒜`$. We have assumed that $`\pi `$ is a boundary representation, so in fact $`P_H\gamma (\varphi (b))|_H=\pi (b)`$ for all $`bC^{}(\varphi (𝒜))`$. From this we have for all $`a𝒜`$,

$`\rho (a)\rho (a)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (\varphi (a))\pi (\varphi (a))^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\pi (\varphi (a)\varphi (a)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`P_H\gamma (\varphi (a)\varphi (a)^{})|_H`$
$``$ $`P_H\gamma (\varphi (a))\gamma (\varphi (a)^{})|_H=P_H\nu (a)\nu (a)^{}|_H`$
$``$ $`P_H\gamma (\varphi (a))P_H\gamma (\varphi (a)^{})|_H=P_H\nu (a)P_H\nu (a)^{}|_H`$
$`=`$ $`\rho (a)\rho (a)^{},`$
where the first inequality is the Cauchy Schwarz inequality for completely positive maps . From this we see that $`\nu (a)^{}HH`$. An identical argument gives $`\nu (a)HH`$, proving that $`H`$ reduces $`\nu `$.

The converse is a straightforward exercise and is left to the reader. ∎

In the course of this paper, we will prove the following.

###### Theorem 1.2.

If $`\rho :𝒜(H)`$ is a representation in an extended family $`_𝒜`$, then there exists a Hilbert space $`K`$ containing $`H`$ and a $``$-representation $`\varphi :𝒜(K)`$ also in $`_𝒜`$ such that $`\rho `$ dilates to $`\varphi `$.

As mentioned above, Arveson’s original definition of boundary representation required $`\pi `$ to be irreducible. Note that (1.2) does not imply the existence of irreducible boundary representations.

The authors would like to thank Jim Agler for sharing a draft of the first several chapters of a recent manuscript on his abstract model theory and Vern Paulsen for his valuable assistance and an advance look at the new edition of his book, Completely Bounded Maps and Dilations, particularly the chapters on the abstract characterization of operator algebras and the $`C^{}`$-envelope.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 establishes (2.1) giving the existence of extremals, which form the core of any model in Agler’s approach to model theory . Although versions of this result are quite old, no proofs yet appear in the literature. In Section 3 we prove (1.2) and in Section 4 we explain how to obtain the existence of $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ from Theorem 1.2.

## 2. Liftings and extremals

In Agler’s approach to model theory a family is a collection of representations of a unital algebra satisfying the first three canonical axioms listed in the last section. A key result in his model theory is that an arbitrary member of a family $`_𝒜`$ lifts to an extremal member of the family $`_𝒜`$ (, Proposition 5.10). We establish this result for extended families.

###### Theorem 2.1.

If $`\rho :𝒜(H)`$ is a representation in an extended family $`_𝒜`$, then $`\rho `$ lifts to an extremal representation in $`_𝒜`$.

In this section we establish a preliminary version of Thorem (2.1) in Lemma (2.2) below, and then indicate a proof of the theorem based on the lemma.

Suppose the representation $`\varphi _\alpha :𝒜(H_\alpha )`$ lifts to the representation $`\varphi _\beta :𝒜(H_\beta )`$. Then the lifting is trivial if $`H_\alpha `$ is reducing, not just invariant, for $`\varphi _\beta (𝒜)`$. If the only liftings of $`\varphi _\alpha `$ are trivial, then $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is extremal.

If $`\varphi _\beta `$ lifts $`\varphi _\alpha `$, then we define a lifting $`\varphi _\delta :𝒜(H_\delta )`$ of $`\varphi _\beta `$ to be strongly non-trivial with respect to $`\varphi _\alpha `$ if there exists an $`a𝒜`$ such that

$$P_{H_\delta H_\beta }\varphi _\delta (a)^{}|_{H_\alpha }0.$$

Otherwise, the lifting is weakly trivial relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$. Finally, $`\varphi _\beta `$ is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$ if every lifting of $`\varphi _\beta `$ is weakly trivial relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Each representation $`\varphi _0:𝒜(H_0)`$ in an extended family $`_𝒜`$ lifts to a representation in $`_𝒜`$ which is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _0`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is by contradiction. Accordingly, suppose $`\varphi _0`$ does not lift to a weakly extremal representation relative to $`\varphi _0`$.

Let $`\kappa _0`$ be the cardinality of the the set of points in the unit sphere of $`H_0`$, $`\kappa _1`$ the cardinality of the set of elements in the unit ball of $`𝒜`$. Set $`\kappa =2^{\mathrm{}_0\kappa _0\kappa _1}>\kappa _0\kappa _1`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be the smallest ordinal greater than or equal to $`\kappa `$. Note that there is a $`C>0`$ so that for $`\pi _𝒜`$, $`\pi (a)hCah`$ for all $`hH_0`$ and $`a𝒜`$.

Construct a chain of liftings in $`_𝒜`$ by transfinite recursion on the ordinal $`\lambda `$ as follows: if $`\alpha \lambda `$, and $`\alpha `$ has a predecessor, let $`\varphi _\alpha `$ denote a strong (with respect to $`\varphi _0`$) nontrivial lifting of $`\varphi _{\alpha 1}`$. Such an lifting exists by the assumption that $`\varphi _0`$ does not lift to a weak extremal. If $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, set $`\varphi _\alpha `$ to the spanning representation of $`\{\varphi _\delta \}_{\delta <\alpha }`$. For any $`h`$ in the unit sphere of $`H_0`$ and $`a`$ in the unit ball of $`𝒜`$, there are at most countably many $`\alpha `$’s with predecessors where $`P_{H_\alpha H_{\alpha 1}}\varphi _\alpha (a)^{}h0`$. Since the cardinality of the set of ordinal numbers less than or equal to $`\lambda `$ and having a predecessor is $`\kappa `$, there must be an ordinal $`\beta <\lambda `$ with predecessor where $`P_{H_\beta H_{\beta 1}}\varphi _\beta (a)^{}h=0`$ for all $`h`$ in the unit sphere of $`H_0`$ and $`a`$ in the unit ball of $`𝒜`$, so that $`\varphi _\beta `$ is a lifting of $`\varphi _{\beta 1}`$ which is weakly trivial with respect to $`\varphi _0`$; a contradiction, ending the proof. ∎

###### Proof of (2.1).

We use (2.2) to prove (2.1). Let $`\varphi _0:𝒜(H_0)`$ denote a given representation. Lift $`\varphi _0`$ to a representation $`\varphi _1:𝒜(H_1)`$ which is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _0`$. Lift $`\varphi _1`$ to a representation $`\varphi _2`$ which is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _1`$. Continuing in this manner, constructs a chain $`\varphi _j`$, $`j`$, with respect to the partial order on liftings with the property that $`\varphi _j`$ is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _{j1}`$. The resultant spanning representation $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}:𝒜(H_{\mathrm{}})`$ lifts $`\varphi _0`$ and it is easily checked to be extremal, since it is weakly extremal relative to $`\varphi _j`$ for all $`j`$. ∎

It is not difficult to see that the restriction of an extremal to a reducing subspace is an extremal. Also, in (2.1) if we were to take the intersection of all reducing subspaces of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ containing $`H_0`$, we end up with the smallest reducing subspace for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ containing $`H_0`$. Restricting to this gives a minimal extremal $`\varphi _e`$ lifting $`\varphi _0`$, in the sense that if $`\psi `$ lifts $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\psi \varphi _e`$, then $`\psi =\varphi _e`$. Of course $`\varphi _e`$ may still be reducible even if $`\varphi _0`$ is irreducible. In addition, there may be non-isomorphic minimal extremal liftings of $`\varphi _0`$.

## 3. Dilations and Boundary Representations

Let $`\varphi _\alpha :𝒜(H_\alpha )`$ be a representation. In parallel with the theory of liftings, a dilation $`\varphi _\beta :𝒜(H_\beta )`$ is termed trivial if $`H_\alpha `$ is reducing for $`\varphi _\beta (𝒜)`$. If the only dilations of $`\varphi _\alpha `$ are trivial ones, then $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is a $``$-representation.

Likewise, suppose $`\varphi _\delta \varphi _\beta \varphi _\alpha `$ in the partial ordering for dilations, with the representations mapping into the operators on $`H_\delta `$, $`H_\beta `$ and $`H_\alpha `$, respectively. By assumption, we can write $`H_\delta =L_\delta H_\beta M_\delta `$, where $`L_\delta `$ and $`L_\delta H_\beta `$ are invariant for $`\varphi _\delta `$. We say that $`\varphi _\alpha `$ is strongly non-trivial with respect to $`\varphi _\alpha `$ if there exists an $`a𝒜`$ such that either

$$P_{L_\delta }\pi _\beta (a)|_{H_\alpha }0\text{or}P_{M_\delta }\pi _\beta (a)^{}|_{H_\alpha }0.$$

Otherwise, the dilation is said to be weakly trivial relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$. Finally, $`\varphi _\beta `$ is a weak $``$-representation relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$ if every lifting of $`\varphi _\beta `$ is weakly trivial relative to $`\varphi _\alpha `$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Each representation $`\varphi _0:𝒜(H_0)`$ in an extended family $`_𝒜`$ dilates to a weak $``$-representation relative to $`\varphi _0`$ which is also in $`_𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

The proof closely follows that of the existence of weak extremals, and is by contradiction. Hence we suppose $`\varphi _0`$ does not lift to a weak $``$-representation relative to $`\varphi _0`$. We define the ordinal $`\lambda `$ as in the proof of (2.2).

Construct a chain of dilations in $`_𝒜`$ where each of the representations by transfinite recursion on the ordinal $`\lambda `$ as in (2.2): if $`\alpha \lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, set $`\varphi _\alpha `$ to the spanning representation of $`\{\varphi _\delta \}_{\delta <\alpha }`$ and if $`\alpha `$ has a predecessor, let $`\varphi _\alpha `$ be a dilation to a strong (with respect to $`\varphi _0`$) nontrivial dilation of $`\varphi _{\alpha 1}`$, which exists by the assumption that $`\varphi _0`$ does not lift to a weak $``$-representation. Then for any $`h`$ in the unit sphere of $`H_0`$ and $`a`$ in the unit ball of $`𝒜`$, there are at most countably many $`\alpha `$’s with predecessors where $`P_{L_\delta }\pi _\beta (a)h0`$ or $`P_{M_\delta }\pi _\beta (a)^{}h0`$. The same reasoning then gives a representation $`\varphi _\beta `$ in our chain dilating $`\varphi _{\beta 1}`$ which is weakly trivial with respect to $`\varphi _0`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Proof of (1.2).

This now follows the proof of (2.1). Construct a countably infinite chain of representations $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ into the bounded operators on Hilbert spaces $`H_i`$, where $`\varphi _i`$ is a weak $``$-representation with respect to $`\varphi _{i1}`$ for each $`i`$. Let $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the spanning representation on the Hilbert space $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. Since a dilation of a weak $``$-representation with respect to a representation $`\varphi `$ is also a weak $``$-representation with respect to $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a weak $``$-representation with respect to $`\varphi _i`$ for all $`i`$. It easily follows that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $``$-representation. ∎

Minimal $``$-representations dilating a given representation can be defined in the manner of minimal extremals.

## 4. The $`C^{}`$-envelope and the Šilov Ideal

The $`C^{}`$-envelope of the operator algebra $`𝒜`$, denoted $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$, is a $`C^{}`$-algebra which is determined by the property: there exists a completely isometric representation $`\gamma :𝒜C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ such that $`C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))=C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ and if $`\rho :𝒜(H)`$ is any other completely contractive representation, then there exists an onto representation $`\pi :C^{}(\rho (𝒜))C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))`$ such that $`\pi (\rho (a))=\gamma (a)`$ for all $`a𝒜`$.

It is not hard to see that $`C_e^{}(𝒜)`$ is essentially unique, for if $`\rho `$ also has the properties of $`\gamma `$, then there exists an onto representation $`\sigma :C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))C^{}(\rho (𝒜))`$ with $`\sigma (\gamma (a))=\rho (a)`$ for all $`a𝒜`$. It follows that $`\sigma `$ is the inverse of $`\pi `$ and thus, as $`C^{}`$-algebras, $`C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))`$ equals $`C^{}(\rho (𝒜))`$.

###### Theorem 4.1 ().

Every unital operator algebra has a $`C^{}`$-envelope.

###### Proof.

A proof follows directly from (1.2). Viewing $`𝒜`$ as a subspace of $`(K)`$, the inclusion mapping $`\iota :𝒜(K)`$ is a completely isometric representation and thus, according to this proposition, it dilates to a completely isometric representation $`\gamma :𝒜(H)`$ which is a $``$-representation.

To see that $`C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))`$ is the $`C^{}`$-envelope, suppose $`\psi :𝒜(H_\psi )`$ is also completely isometric. In this case $`\sigma :\psi (𝒜)(H)`$ given by $`\sigma (\psi (a))=\gamma (a)`$ is completely contractive (and thus well-defined). By a theorem of Arveson, there exists a Hilbert space $`K`$ containing $`H`$ and a representation $`\pi :C^{}(\psi (𝒜))(K)`$ such that $`\gamma (a)=\sigma (\psi (a))=P_H\pi (\psi (a))|_H`$ (, Cor. 6.7). Since $`aP_H\pi (\psi (a))|_H`$ is a representation of $`𝒜`$ and $`\gamma `$ is a $``$-representation, $`H`$ reduces $`\pi (\psi (𝒜))`$. Thus, $`\sigma `$ extends to an onto representation $`C^{}(\psi (𝒜))C^{}(\gamma (𝒜))`$. ∎

Arveson says that $`𝒥`$ is the Šilov boundary of the concrete operator algebra $`𝒜(K)`$ if $`𝒥`$ contains every ideal $``$ with the property that the restriction of the quotient $`q:C^{}(𝒜)C^{}(𝒜)/`$ to $`𝒜`$ is completely isometric. Since the inclusion of $`𝒜`$ into $`(K)`$ is completely isometric, there exists an onto representation $`\pi :C^{}(𝒜)C_e^{}(𝒜)=C^{}(\gamma (a))`$ such that $`\pi (a)=\gamma (a),`$ where $`\gamma `$ is a representation as in (4.1) which generates the $`C^{}`$-envelope of $`𝒜`$. It is left to the interested reader to verify that the kernel of $`\pi `$ is the Šilov ideal of $`𝒜`$.


text:
# SIMULATIONS OF CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies evolve on time scales of the order or little less than the age of the universe. Hence with observations one cannot follow their evolution. Observations provide only snapshots of the different evolutionary stages. Therefore only numerical simulations provide the possibility to follow the dynamics of clusters.

Numerical models cannot only be used to learn how the clusters form and evolve, but also observable quantities can be derived, which can be compared directly with observations. This comparison is used for many different purposes. Observations can be interpreted more easily, e.g. the models can distinguish what observable feature corresponds to which dynamical state. Moreover, observational methods can be tested with the simulated data. The results can be compared to the input parameters of the calculations and in an iterative way the methods can be refined. In this way the physical processes in clusters and cluster evolution can be understood. This knowledge provides the opportunity to constrain cosmological models.

Merging of subclusters are particularly interesting phenomena to study with simulations. Irregular cluster morphologies in many X-ray images of cluster as well as indications from optical observations imply that many clusters are not relaxed. Hence mergers are very common in clusters of galaxies. Such mergers of subclusters are very energetic events, which affect clusters strongly, e.g. the cause shocks. These shocks are the major heating source for the intra-cluster gas and also particles can be re-accelerated there to relativistic energies.

This article is organised as follows. In Sect. 2 the different simulation methods are explained. Sect. 3 shows what can be learned from models in particular about the merger process of clusters of galaxies. The effects of magnetic fields and other physical processes like radiative cooling and star formation are discussed in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. In Sect. 6 results of simulations of different metal enrichment processes are presented. Sect. 7 shows how useful numerical models are to test the mass determination method. A short summary is given in Sect. 8.

## 2 Simulation Methods

For realistic simulations three-dimensional calculations are required. Also the different cluster components must be taken into account: dark matter, galaxies and intra-cluster gas. Dark matter and galaxies can be regarded as collisionless particles and can therefore be modelled by N-body simulations. In these kinds of simulations only the gravitational interaction between the particles are taken into account. Each particle is moved in the force field of all the other particles. For current particle numbers of $`128^3`$ or $`256^3`$ this procedure would take a lot of computing time to calculate the force by simply summing over all the other particles’ contributions. To accelerate the calculations different techniques have been developed, e.g. the particles are sorted onto a grid or into a tree structure. In this way several particles are combined and treated simultaneously without loosing much accuracy but gaining a lot of computing time. Many simulations have been performed which take into account only dark matter and apply therefore only N-body calculations. Such kind of simulations are very useful for many purposes because the dark matter makes up most of the gravitative mass. In this article, however, I will concentrate only on models which include both, the dynamics of the dark matter and of the gas.

For the simulation of the gas pressure must be taken into account, i.e. the full hydrodynamic equations must be solved. Two different methods have been used generally for these hydrodynamic calculations: (1) Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH; Lucy 1977; Monaghan 1985): This is a Lagrangian approach, i.e. the calculation follows the fluid. The gas is treated as particles in this approach. Examples of this type of simulations are: Evrard (1990), Dolag et al. (1999), Takizawa (1999), and Takizawa & Naito (2000). (2) Grid-based codes: this is the Eulerian approach, i.e. the simulation volume is divided into cells and the fluid is moving in this grid which is fixed in space. Examples of simulations using grid codes can be found in Schindler & Müller (1993), Bryan et al. (1994), Roettiger et al. (1997), Ricker (1998) and Quilis et al. (1998).

Fortunately, the choice of simulation technique is not essential. Calculations with both methods yield very similar results. This was tested in a large project, the Santa Barbara Cluster Comparison Project (Frenk et al. 1999), in which the formation of a galaxy cluster was simulated using 12 different techniques. Both methods, SPH and grid codes, were applied. Each simulation started with exactly the same initial conditions. The comparison showed very good agreement in the properties of the dark matter. Also relative good agreement was found in the gas temperature, the gas mass fraction and the gas profiles of the final cluster. The largest discrepancies were found in the X-ray luminosity which differed by up to a factor of 2.

## 3 Cluster Models

In general cluster models can reproduce cluster morphologies and parameters known from observations quite well. The temperatures of the X-ray emitting intra-cluster gas are typically very well simulated. Also the spatial distributions are very realistic. For the dark matter component a NFW profile (Navarro et al. 1995) is usally found, while the gas profile is well fit by a so-called $`\beta `$-profile (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976).

The models can distinguish between cosmological parameters. Simulations on large scales show distinctly different distribution of matter for a mean density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, respectively (Ostriker & Cen 1996; Thomas et al. 1998; Jenkins et al. 1998). While in the latter model the distribution changes only slightly between a redshift z=1 and now, in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ model significant differences are visible in the same time interval: many smaller structures merge to larger structures, so that the distribution looks much less smooth at z=0 than at z=1. A distinction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ models and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ models is difficult though.

### 3.1 Mergers of Clusters

Simulations are ideal to follow the different stages of a merging event (see Fig. 1). In the pre-merger phase the two subclusters are approaching each other and can still be seen as well separated units. The collision, i.e. the moment when the cores pass through each other, is characterized by enhanced X-ray luminosity and enhanced temperature. In the subsequent post-merger stage shock waves emerge – mainly in direction of the original collision axis. The shocks propagate outwards and are visible for about 1 - 2 Gyrs.

### 3.2 Shocks

The most prominent features emerging form mergers are shock waves in the intra-cluster gas resulting from colliding subclusters with relative velocities of up to $``$ 3000 km/s. When a dense subcluster falls into a cluster a shock emerges already before the core passage: a bow shock is visible in front of the infalling subcluster (Roettiger et al. 1997). The strongest shocks emerge after the collision of subclusters, when these shocks propagate (Schindler & Müller 1993; Roettiger et al. 1999a; see Fig. 1e). These shocks are relatively mild shocks, though, with a maximum Mach number of about 3. The shocks are visible as steep gradients in the gas density and in the gas temperature. In general, the shock structure is found to be more filamentary at early epochs of cluster formation and quasi-spherical at low redshifts (Quilis et al. 1998).

Observationally, the shocks are best visible in X-ray temperature maps, because they show up as steps in these maps (Fig. 1e; Schindler & Müller 1993). For such maps spatially resolved X-ray spectroscopy is necessary which can be performed now with high accuracy with the new X-ray observatories XMM and Chandra.

The shocks are not only the major heat source of the intra-cluster gas, but they are also of particular interest for particle acceleration models. It is likely that particles are re-accelerated to relativistic energies in these shocks. These relativistic particles are responsible for the non-thermal emission and their interaction with the cluster magnetic field shows up as synchrotron emission in radio halos (e.g. Giovannini & Feretti 2001; Feretti 2001).

The shocks heat primarily the ions as has been shown in simulations which treat ions and electrons separately (Chièze et al. 1998; Takizawa 1999). Only later the energy is transferred to the electrons.

### 3.3 Observational Signatures

Apart from shocks, there are several other signatures which can be used to determine the dynamical state of a galaxy cluster. For example, the X-ray luminosity increases during the collision of two subclusters (Schindler & Müller 1993). The reason is that the gas is compressed, i.e. the gas density is increased, and as the X-ray emission is proportional to the square of the density we see enhanced X-ray emission during the core passage of two subclusters. Shortly before the collision the gas between the subclusters is heated due to compression and shows up as a high temperature region (see Fig. 1c).

During the core passage and at each rebounce an increase in the magnetic field is visible (Dolag et al. 1999; Roettiger et al. 1999b; see also Section 4). Mergers also cause turbulence and motion in the intra-cluster gas. Off-centre collisions produce additionally angular momentum (Ricker 1998; Roettiger et al. 1998).

Observationally, mergers cannot only be identified by multiple X-ray maxima, but also by isophote twisting with centroid shift and elongations: the collisionless component is always elongated along the collision axis, before and after the collision. The gas is first elongated along the collision axis. During the core passage it is pushed out perpendicular to the collision axis, so that later an elongation perpendicular to the collision axis can be seen (Schindler & Müller 1993; see Fig. 1e). Also offsets between the collisionless component and the gas have been found (Roettiger et al. 1997). If more than one merger occurs in a relatively short time interval the temperature structure can become very complex.

## 4 Cluster Simulations with Magnetic Fields

Faraday rotation measurements indicate that clusters are permeated by magnetic fields of the order of 1 $`\mu `$G (e.g. Kim et al. 1991). Also radio halos require the existence of magnetic fields in clusters on scales of a few Mpc (e.g. Giovannini et al. 1991, 1993). Therefore magneto-hydrodynamic calculations have been performed (Dolag et al. 1999; Roettiger et al. 1999b; see also Dolag, this volume) to investigate the origin, the distribution and the evolution of the magnetic fields (see Fig. 2). Results of these simulations are: the initial field distribution is irrelevant for the final structure of the magnetic field. The structure is dominated only by the cluster collapse. Faraday rotation measurements can be reproduced by the simulations for magnetic fields of the order of 1 $`\mu `$G in very good agreement with the value inferred from observations.

Most important for the amplification of the magnetic field are shear flows, while the compression of the gas is of minor importance. Mergers of subclusters change the local magnetic field strength as well as the structure of the cluster-wide field. At early stages of the merger, filamentary structures prevail, which break down later and leave a stochastically ordered magnetic field.

## 5 Cooling and Star Formation

It might be necessary to take into account additional physical processes in order to achieve realistic models. Two important processes are star formation and radiative cooling.

In simulations without cooling and star formation it was found, that the gas is less concentrated than dark matter. Also the X-ray luminosity - temperature relation inferred from simulations is in disagreement with observations (Eke et al. 1998, Bryan & Norman 1998, Yoshikawa et al. 2000). The question arises, whether this is a numerical artifact due to the negligence of physical processes or due to the difficulty in determining the X-ray luminosity correctly from the numerical models. Another possibility is that it is connected with observational findings of different profiles of baryonic and dark matter (Schindler 1999) and the deviation of the X-ray luminosity - temperature relation from a pure power law (Ponman et al. 1999) which could both be explained by non-gravitational heating processes. In order to test this hypothesis several groups have performed simulations with cooling and star formation and came to quite different conclusions.

Lewis et al. (2000) found that models with cooling and star formation have a 20% higher X-ray luminosity and a 30% higher temperature in the cluster centre. Also Suginohara & Ostriker (1998) find that radiative cooling increases luminosity. In contrast to these results Pearce et al. (2000) and Muanwong et al. (2001) find that radiative cooling decreases the total X-ray luminosity.

In order to test whether the is gas less concentrated than the dark matter because of preheating, i.e. early non-gravitational heating, Bialek et al. (2000) performed simulations with an initially elevated adiabat. They find that they can reproduce the observations when adding an initial entropy of 55 - 150 keV cm2.

Mathiesen & Evrard (2001) took a different approach and tested with their models how good the observational temperature determination is. They simulated CHANDRA spectra and found that the temperature can be underestimated by up to 20% by the standard temperature determination method. The reason is cold material falling onto the cluster from all sides, i.e. also along the line of sight, resulting in a cold contribution to the cluster spectrum and hence to a lower temperature determination.

Bryan & Norman (1998) showed that in simulations the mass - temperature relation is much more robust that the X-ray luminosity - temperature relation and hence suggested to use the former relation for drawing conclusions about the cluster formation process.

The star formation rate can be affected by mergers of subclusters. It is still controversial whether mergers increase or decrease the star formation activity. The interstellar medium in a galaxy can be compressed during a merger, which would lead to an increased star formation rate. This effect was predicted by simulations by Evrard (1991). Also in a number of observations a connection between mergers and enhanced star formation rate has been found. In contrast to these results Fujita et al. (1999) found in simulations that the interstellar medium in the galaxies is stripped off due to increased ram pressure during the merger, so that the galaxies contain less gas and therefore show decreased star formation activity. At the moment of the subcluster collision, they found an increase of post-starburst galaxies which indicates that a rapid drop in the star formation rate must have occured.

## 6 Metal Enrichment

The intra-cluster gas contains metals. This implies that the gas cannot be purely of primordial origin, but it must at least partially have been processed in the cluster galaxies and have been expelled from the galaxy potential into the intra-cluster medium. As mentioned above the star formation activity, i.e. the metal production rate, and its connection to the dynamical state is still controversial. Also the gas ejection processes and their time scales are still under discussion. Several gas ejection processes have been suggested: e.g. ram-pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972), galactic winds (De Young 1978), galaxy-galaxy interaction and jets from active galaxies.

In order to decide which process is dominating at what time it is necessary to compare observations and simulations in particular with respect to the metallicity distribution within clusters and to the metallicity evolution with redshift.

The effects of supernova driven winds were studied by many groups. David et al. (1991) calculated the first models on cluster scales. They found that the results depend sensitively on the input parameters: the stellar initial mass function, the adopted supernova rate and the primordial fraction of intra-cluster gas. In 3D models calculating the gas dynamics and galactic winds Metzler & Evrard (1994, 1997) found that winds can account for the observed metal abundances. They find very strong metallicity gradients (almost a factor of ten between cluster centre and virial radius) which are hardly affected by cluster mergers. From simulations on galaxy scale Murakami & Babul (1999) concluded that galactic winds are not very efficient for the metal enrichment.

Another process which is probably important for the metal enrichment is ram-pressure stripping: as a galaxy approaches the cluster centre it experiences an increasing pressure and at some point the galaxy potential is not strong enough to retain the galaxy gas. The gas is stripped off and the metals are released into the intra-cluster medium.

Simulations of ram-pressure are relatively difficult because not only the conditions of the gas inside the galaxy and the potential of the galaxy must be taken into account, but also the conditions of the surrounding medium. Recently, high resolution simulations were carried out to study the stripping process in different types of galaxies. Abadi et al. (1999) and Quilis et al. (2000) performed simulations of spiral galaxies. They found that their gas can be stripped off when it is not homogeneous. Details of the spatial distribution and the time dependence of the process are shown. For dwarf galaxies Mori & Burkert (2000) found in their simulations that the gas is easily stripped off when these galaxies move through the intra-cluster medium. In simulations of elliptical galaxies (Toniazzo & Schindler 2001) showed details of the stripping process of these galaxies. The amount of gas stripped off depends sensitively on the orbit of the galaxy. The gas cannot only be stripped off as the galaxy approaches the cluster centre, but the galaxy can again accumulate some gas when it is in the apocentre of its orbit. X-ray morphologies of the simulated galaxies are derived as well.

All these simulations showed that ram-pressure stripping can be an important metal enrichment process. Merging activity increases the effect even more because the ram pressure is proportional to $`\rho _{ICM}\times v_{rel}^2`$ with $`v_{rel}`$ being the relative velocity of intra-cluster gas and galaxies. During mergers not only the gas density is increased but also the relative velocities are much higher than in a relaxed cluster. Therefore a large influence of the merging processes on the stripping rate are expected.

## 7 Mass Determination of Clusters of Galaxies

Numerical models are ideal tools to test observational methods. An example for such a method is the mass determination from X-ray observations. In this method the X-ray emitting gas is used as a tracer for the potential. Mass determinations are very important because they measure in an indirect way the amount and the distribution of dark matter in clusters.

With the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry the total cluster mass can be expressed in terms of only two observable quantities, which can both be inferred from X-ray observations: the gas temperature and the gas density.

The total mass of a model cluster is known exactly for each time step and within any radius. On the other hand the X-ray emission of the model cluster can be simulated and the normal X-ray mass determination method can be applied to these simulated X-ray data. A comparison of the true mass and the X-ray mass yields the accuracy of the X-ray method.

As shown by several groups the X-ray mass determination method proved to be quite reliable in relaxed clusters (Evrard et al. 1996; Roettiger et al. 1996; Schindler 1996). Typical errors are 15% without any preference for over- or underestimation.

Only during mergers quite strong deviations can occur. The reason is that the two assumptions for the method – hydrostatic equilibrium and spherical symmetry are not well obeyed during mergers. For example, at the location of shocks the gas is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. Shocks cause gradients – both in the temperature and in the density – and can cause therefore an overestimation of the mass. Locally, this can lead to a mass estimate up to two times the true mass. Substructure on the other hand tends to flatten the azimuthally averaged profile and hence leads to an underestimation of the mass, in extreme cases to deviations of 50% of the true mass (Schindler 1996).

In some cases, these deviations can be corrected for, e.g. in clusters in which substructures are well distinguishable, the disturbed part can be excluded from the mass analysis and a good mass estimate can be obtained. But in general, mass determinations in non-relaxed clusters should be done very cautiously.

Also the effect of magnetic fields on the mass determination was investigated. A considerable magnetic pressure compared to the thermal pressure would lead to an underestimation of the mass. Magneto-hydrodynamic simulations by Dolag et al. (1999) were used to perform the same comparison as mentioned above. Dolag & Schindler (2000) found that in relaxed clusters the mass is underestimated at most by a few percent and only in the cluster centre. In merging clusters, on the other hand, the mass can be strongly underestimated. The reason is that during the merger the gas is compressed and with it the magnetic field lines and hence the magnetic field is stronger and affects the mass determination.

## 8 Summary

Simulations provide a unique way to follow the dynamics of galaxy clusters. Different dynamical states can be distinguished. Each stage of a merger (pre-merger, collision, post-merger) is characterised by different observational characteristics. Therefore not only merger clusters can be distinguished from relaxed clusters but even the exact dynamical state can be determined by a detailed comparison of simulations and observations.

Numerical models can be used to test observational methods, like e.g. the mass determination or the temperature determination. They define the limitations of these methods and help improving them.

In the future not only the increase of resolution is important but also inclusion of physical effects, e.g. radiative cooling, star formation,and magnetic field. All these improvements together will yield more realistic models, that will help us to understand the physical processes in clusters and to make the best use of clusters as diagnostic tools for cosmology.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organisers for organising this extremely interesting, fruitful and enjoyable conference.

## References