text:
# Parametric amplification of waves during gravitational collapse: a first investigation

## I Introduction

### A A brief background

The gravitational collapse of stellar objects with mass over a certain threshold is known to produce one of the most spectacular events in Universe. Due to the release of an enormous amount of energy, collapse is one of most favourable sources for all kinds of electromagnetic observations. It is expected (or hoped) that the same will come true for gravitational wave observations, which are about to begin in the next few years with the completion of a network of interferometric detectors (for a recent review see ). A considerable amount of theoretical work (numerical in its majority) has been devoted to the description/prediction of the emitted gravitational waveform produced by such a catastrophic event (see for instance ). Despite this effort, great uncertainties still remain, mainly due to the unknown initial state of the collapsing body, the complexity of the physics involved in realistic collapse and the related excessive computational requirements.

The simplest general relativistic collapse model was introduced more that sixty years ago with the seminal work of Oppenheimer and Snyder (hereafter O-S) . In that model the collapsing star is approximated as a freely falling “dust” fluid ball (see Section II for more details). Using the O-S model, Price  was the first to study the evolution of scalar field perturbations during spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, focusing on the last stages where a black hole is formed. Subsequent studies by Cunningham, Price and Moncrief  were extended to gravitational perturbations. It was found that, at the final stage of the collapse, the emitted waveform was dominated by the exponentially decaying quasinormal mode “ringing” of the newly born black hole. At even later times, the signal decayed as a power-law, representing radiation backscattered from the asymptotic gravitational field.

Collapse of relativistic polytropes was modelled by Seidel  (for a non-rotating configuration) and by Stark and Piran  (for an axisymmetric rotating configuration), who provided an estimate of the amount of energy released via gravitational radiation. In their calculations, the resulting waveform was mainly comprised of a short burst followed by the black hole ringdown. Recent efforts include the relativistic rotational core-collapse study of Dimmelmeier et.al.  and the more general investigation by Fryer et.al. . We also refer the reader to the article of Font  (and references therein) where numerical techniques in general relativistic hydrodynamics are discussed.

### B Motivation

In the present paper we aim to study a specific aspect of gravitational collapse that (to the best of our knowledge) has been overlooked in the literature, namely, the possibility of having parametrically amplified perturbations within the star. That such a process could operate, at least in principle, can be justified with the following argument.

It is well known that there is a qualitive similarity between the time-dependent gravitational field of a spherically symmetric collapsing star and the gravitational field of the closed Friedmann cosmological model. This similarity has been quantified in the celebrated O-S collapse model , which, despite its simplicity, gives reliable results. On the other hand, one of the most important results in the study of cosmological perturbations is that their interaction with the background gravitational field of the expanding Universe can lead to considerable amplification  (in addition to the overall “adiabatic” change $`a^1`$, where $`a`$ is the cosmological scale factor). This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the immense amplification of tiny primordial gravitational quantum vacuum fluctuations and their promotion to classical fields, which are likely to have left measurable imprints in the CMB radiation observed today . Moreover, these fields put a strong candidature for direct observation by the gravitational wave detectors .

Hence, based on the two points above, a natural question that arises is whether the gravitational field of a collapsing star could pump energy into perturbations (that can be of fluid or gravitational nature) temporary “living” inside the star. In this work we plan to give an answer to this question by considering the simplest possible model for a collapsing star. In particular, we keep those pieces of physics which are related to the phenomenon we try to study, and strip off unrelated features which might be a cause of technical problems and confusion. We shall adopt a collapse model which very closely resembles the known O-S model, but is even more simplified regarding the exterior to the star gravitational field (see next Section). In a realistic situation, we can think of a collapsing star as a generator of all kinds of perturbations (fluid, gravitational). In our toy model, this process is “mimiced” by placing some initial field inside the star and studyingits subsequent evolution. Moreover, we are free to choose the time at which this field is first placed inside the star. Finally, another major simplification is to consider a massless scalar field as the perturbation. We expect, however, that our results can be extrapolated to the realistic case of gravitational perturbations. This claim is based on the work of Ford and Parker , where both scalar and gravitational perturbations in Friedmann spacetime were considered.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In Section II we give a brief review of the O-S collapse model (subsection IIA) and subsequently discuss the properties of the scalar wave equation in the field of a collapsing star and of full Friedmann spacetime (subsection IIB). In subsection IIC we introduce our simplified collapse model. Section III is devoted to our numerical results (time-evolutions). Analytical calculations regarding the amount of amplification in terms of the field’s energy, are presented in Section IV. Section V offers a physical insight into the results of the previous Sections. Finally, a concluding discussion can be found in Section VI. Two Appendices are devoted to some technical details. Throughout the paper we have adopted geometrised units $`c=G=1`$.

## II A toy-model for gravitational collapse

### A The Oppenheimer-Snyder model

We set off by giving a brief review of the standard O-S model (for a detailed presentation see ). In this model, the spacetime of a collapsing, spherically symmetric, pressureless, homogeneous fluid “ball” is constructed by patching together a piece of Schwarzschild geometry (describing the vacuum outside the star) and a piece of closed ($`k=+1`$) Friedmann geometry (describing the stellar interior). The two metrics are matched smoothly across the surface of the star. Explicitly, the interior metric is written in familiar comoving coordinates $`(\eta ,\chi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$,

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )[d\eta ^2+d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)]$$
(1)
while the exterior metric is, in Schwarzschild coordinates,

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f^1(r)dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),$$
(2)
where $`f(r)=12M/r`$. The scale factor in the Friedmann domain is,

$$a(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}a_\mathrm{m}(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta )$$
(3)
with $`a_\mathrm{m}`$ denoting its initial value (which is also the maximum value). The surface of the star is labelled as $`\chi _\mathrm{o}`$ and $`R`$ in these two coordinate frames and as seen in Schwarzschild coordinates is moving inwards as a timelike radial geodesic with zero initial velocity at some distance $`R_\mathrm{i}`$ corresponding to the initial stellar radius at the onset of collapse. This translates into

$$R(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}R_\mathrm{i}(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta ).$$
(4)
The relation between the two different time coordinates is given by

$$t=2M\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{(R_\mathrm{i}/2M1)^{1/2}+\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)}{(R_\mathrm{i}/2M1)^{1/2}\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)}\right|+2M(R_\mathrm{i}1)^{1/2}[\eta +(R_\mathrm{i}/4M)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )].$$
(5)
Note that the conformal time coordinate $`\eta `$ is restricted between $`\eta =0`$ (initial time when collapse begins) and $`\eta =\pi `$ at which moment the star has shrank to zero radius. Of course, the physically relevant value $`\eta _c`$ for $`\eta `$ is the time when the star is crossing its Schwarzschild radius,

$$\eta _c=\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{4M}{R_\mathrm{i}}1\right).$$
(6)
The initial stellar radius as measured in units of the stellar total mass $`M`$ is,

$$\frac{R_\mathrm{i}}{M}=2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _\mathrm{o}.$$
(7)
The parameter $`\chi _\mathrm{o}`$ can take any value between $`0`$ ($`R_\mathrm{i}/M\mathrm{}`$) and $`\pi /2`$ ($`R_\mathrm{i}/M=2`$). A typical collapsing object has $`R_\mathrm{i}10^410^5M`$ (the size of a white dwarf), and this value can rise even higher for supermassive stars.

### B The scalar wave equation in the field of a collapsing star

As we mentioned earlier in this paper, we shall consider the simplest possible case of perturbations, i.e. a massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which obeys the covariant wave equation $`^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. We can immediately separate the angular dependence by means of the decomposition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}R_\mathrm{}mY_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(8)
In the Friedmann domain (also simply termed “interior” hereafter), the wavefunction $`R_\mathrm{}m`$ can be rescaled as

$$R_\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\chi )=\frac{\psi _\mathrm{}m(\eta ,\chi )}{a(\eta )\mathrm{sin}\chi }.$$
(9)
Note that by this operation we have isolated the usual “adiabatic” change $`a^1`$ due to the contracting background. The new wavefunction $`\psi `$ satisfies (for brevity we drop the $`\mathrm{},m`$ subscript hereafter),

$$_\eta ^2\psi _\chi ^2\psi +V(\eta ,\chi )\psi =0,$$
(10)
where the effective potential $`V`$ is given by (for $`\chi \chi _\mathrm{o}`$),

$$V(\eta ,\chi )=\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{\mathrm{sin}^2\chi }1\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{\mathrm{sin}^2\chi }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2(\eta /2).$$
(11)
Similarly, for the Schwarzschild domain (to be called “exterior”) we have,

$$R(t,r)=\frac{1}{r}\psi (t,r)$$
(12)
with $`\psi `$ satisfying the familiar Regge-Wheeler equation,

$$_t^2\psi _r_{}^2\psi V(r)\psi =0$$
(13)
with

$$V(r)=f(r)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3}\right),$$
(14)
and where $`r_{}`$ is the so-called “tortoise” radial coordinate defined by $`dr_{}/dr=1/f(r)`$.

Naturally, our attention will be mainly focused on the interior time-dependent field which is identical (by construction) to the field of a closed Friedmann model. The exterior field is of little concern to us, as it is responsible for effects like the quasinormal mode ringing and late time power-law tails which are the expected (and well studied) dominant components of the emitted signal at the final stages of a realistic collapse scenario.

As a warm up, we first consider the initial value problem for the wave equation (10) in a pure Friedmann gravitational field. Moreover, we restrict ourselves to the monopole case $`\mathrm{}=0`$. Assuming static initial data $`\psi (0,\chi )=\psi _\mathrm{o}(\chi )`$, $`_\eta \psi (0,\chi )=0`$ and imposing the additional boundary condition $`\psi (\eta ,\pi )=0`$, the general solution of (10) is given by,

$$\psi (\eta ,\chi )=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}(n\chi )_0^\pi 𝑑\chi \psi _\mathrm{o}(\chi )\mathrm{sin}(n\chi )\left[\mathrm{cos}(n\eta )+\frac{1}{2n}\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\mathrm{sin}(n\eta )\right].$$
(15)
The key feature of eqn. (15) is the term $`\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)`$. This term originates from the $`\ddot{a}/a`$ term in the potential eqn. (11) and consequently encodes all the effects associated with the time variance of the background gravitational field. We can apply the solution (15) for initial data of the form of a narrow Gaussian pulse. The resulting field is shown in Fig. 1.

The field initially evolves as in flat spacetime, but at later times, we clearly observe a growth in the amplitude which is more pronounced in the “wake” behind the travelling pulse. This wake is mainly comprised of low-frequency waves (which “feel” more strongly the background gravitational field) as opposed to the main pulse which includes the higher frequency contribution. As $`\eta `$ approaches $`\pi `$ the field becomes enormous as compared to its initial amplitude and eventually diverges, as predicted by eqn. (15). This behaviour is a typical example of parametric amplification in Friedmann spacetime.

### C Pushing the simplification further

Let us now return to the O-S model. The difference in the field evolution from the preceding picture is obvious: the field, as it propagates outwards, will reach the stellar surface at $`\chi _\mathrm{o}`$. Once there, it will partially transmit to the exterior and partially reflect back to the interior (see Fig. 2). In principle, one could try and describe such a process analytically, by making some simplifications for the exterior field (for example, by keeping only the centrifugal term in the potential). However, such an attempt soon runs into serious technical problems related to the coordinate “discontinuity” at the stellar surface. To overcome this difficulty, one could use comoving Novikov coordinates  which smoothly covers the entire spacetime. However, in this case the resulting exterior wave equation is not separable, an undesired feature for any analytical work. At the same time, we should be almost certain that this coordinate-induced problems has nothing to do with the physics we try to study here.

Of particular relevance to this point is the recent study by Laarakkers and Poisson  on scalar wave propagation in the so-called Einstein-Strauss spacetime. This spacetime is, as the O-S model, a combination of Schwarzschild and Friedmann geometries but patched in the opposite sense with the interior being Schwarzschild and the exterior Friedmann. Apart from providing fully numerical results, these authors considered a simple toy-equation that closely resembles the pair of exact wave equations (10), (13). The construction was based on simply replacing eqns. (10),(13) with a single wave equation by extending the Friedmann coordinates over the entire spacetime. It was shown that the simplified wave equation captures most of the effects present in wave propagation in the Einstein-Strauss spacetime.

For the purposes of the present paper we have chosen to follow a similar path and replace eqns. (10),(13) with the toy-equation,

$$_\eta ^2\psi _\chi ^2\psi +V(\eta ,\chi )\psi =0,$$
(16)
where the new effective potential is,

$$V(\eta ,\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }\chi >\chi _\mathrm{o},\text{ }\text{exterior}\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2(\eta /2)\hfill & \text{for }\chi \chi _\mathrm{o},\text{ }\text{interior}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
Hereafter, we shall consider only the monopole case $`\mathrm{}=0`$. We have verified that all results presented in this paper remain qualitively the same even for higher multipoles. The important point is that the new potential is identical to the “exact” O-S potential in the interior, where the phenomenon of parametric amplification would take place. On the other hand, our model is unable to describe any effects related to the exterior gravitational field, such as backscattering of outgoing waves. In principle, this last feature could be of importance, as it would lead to trapping of some portion of the initial field inside the star. For this reason, we have also considered a star whose surface fully reflects any outgoing waves (see Section IV).

In a sense, eqn. (16) describes a static star (as seen by both external and internal observers) with some kind of time-varying gravitational potential in its interior. This star, and with respect to external observers only, knows nothing about collapse. Physical parameters like the total duration of collapse have to be “borrowed” from the O-S model. We believe that the wave equation (16), just as in the case of Einstein-Strauss spacetime, yields reliable predictions on scalar wave dynamics.

It is possible to find an analytic solution to the above toy-equation (see  for a treatment of the $`k=0`$ Friedmann equivalent) that describes the first transmission/reflection of a wavepacket through the potential discontinuity. In principle, we could extend this solution to incorporate multiple transmissions/reflections for the needs of our problem. However, the resulting expression becomes increasingly messy. This is the main reason that led us to approach the problem numerically.

## III Time evolutions

We have written a simple numerical code for solving eqn. (16) after prescribing some initial data (typically in the form of a Gaussian pulse). The code, which employs a standard leapfrog step algorithm, was tested for convergence and stability. We have widely experimented with collapsing models of different $`R_\mathrm{i}`$ and placing the initial data at different stages of the collapse. A typical example of our results for the field as observed outside the star is shown in Fig. 3. In this simulation we placed the initial data at $`\eta =0`$, i.e. at the onset of the collapse, and centered at $`\chi =\chi _\mathrm{o}/2`$, while the initial radius is $`R_\mathrm{i}=10^4M`$. We see that the field has escaped from the star, essentially unaffected, after a lapse of time of the order $`3\chi _\mathrm{o}/2`$ (which is the light time-travel for the, initially ingoing, wave component to reach the surface). Only a minute fraction of the initial field (specifically the low frequency components) has been left inside the star while $`RM`$. The same scenario is repeated in Fig. 4, but now the initial data is placed at a later time $`\eta _i=0.97\pi `$. This corresponds to an instantaneous stellar radius $`R22M`$. The final time is $`\eta _f0.99\pi `$ which gives a radius $`R2.1M`$. In this case, the potential inside the star is much more pronounced and consequently is more effective in trapping inside the star a small fraction of the initial pulse for a considerable time. The majority of the field, however, escapes during the first two crossings of the stellar surface. In the same Figure we illustrate the signal from a star with a potential “frozen” at its value at $`\eta =\eta _i`$ (dashed curve) and at $`\eta =\eta _f`$. We can see that the general appearance of the signal is similar for a static and non-static potential. It is very hard to say if there are any genuine features of parametric amplification present in the signal. For this reason we illustrate (see Fig. 5) the field as it looks at $`\eta =0.998\pi `$ when the stellar radius has decreased to $`R0.001M`$. An amplified field inside the star can be clearly seen now (although it could never escape to infinity). In all the situations we examined, we reached a similar conclusion. Amplification becomes notable only after the star has crossed the Schwarzschild radius. Our final time evolution concerns the appearance of the emitted field as a function of the frequency content of the initial data. This can be simply done by considering as initial data a modulated Gaussian pulse,

$$\psi _\mathrm{o}(\chi )=\mathrm{exp}[0.5(\chi \chi _\mathrm{c})^2/\sigma ^2]\mathrm{sin}[\lambda (\chi \chi _\mathrm{c})],$$
(18)
where $`\chi _\mathrm{c}`$ the pulse location and $`\lambda `$ is the modulation frequency. In Fig. 6 we show a comparison between the signals originated by an unmodulated pulse and a pulse with $`\lambda =20/\chi _\mathrm{o}`$. All other parameters are the same to the ones of Fig. 4. As we should have expected, the high-frequency pulse is escaping from the star more easily, and the late time “tail” is strongly suppressed.

## IV A “mirror” star

The results of the previous Section are clearly not very optimistic regarding the efficiency of parametric amplification. In order to put an upper limit to this efficiency (at least for scalar perturbations) we have considered a “mirror” star, i.e. a star which totally reflects any outgoing field at the surface. Clearly, this situation is the most favoured one from the point of view of the amplification process, as the field will stay trapped inside the star for the entire collapse event.

Mathematically, this mirror star is modelled by setting the additional boundary condition $`\psi (\eta ,\chi _\mathrm{o})=0`$. Hence, the field inside the star has two inflection points at $`\chi =0,\chi _\mathrm{o}`$. It is straightforward to find an analytic solution to this problem that also satisfies static initial data $`\psi (0,\chi )=\psi _\mathrm{o}(\chi )`$ (see Appendix A for details),

$$\psi (\eta ,\chi )=\frac{2}{\chi _\mathrm{o}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}C_\mathrm{n}\mathrm{sin}(n\pi \chi /\chi _\mathrm{o})\left[\mathrm{cos}(n\pi \eta /\chi _\mathrm{o})+\frac{\chi _\mathrm{o}}{2n\pi }\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\mathrm{sin}(n\pi \eta /\chi _\mathrm{o})\right],$$
(19)
where

$$C_\mathrm{n}=_0^{\chi _\mathrm{o}}𝑑\chi \psi _\mathrm{o}(\chi )\mathrm{sin}(n\pi \chi /\chi _\mathrm{o}).$$
(20)
We can strictly quantify the amplification of the field by means of the total energy

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\chi _\mathrm{o}}𝑑\chi \left[(_\eta \psi )^2+(_\chi \psi )^2+V\psi ^2\right].$$
(21)
It can be easily shown (see Appendix B) that

$$E(\eta )E(0)=\frac{1}{2}_0^\eta _0^{\chi _\mathrm{o}}𝑑\eta ^{}𝑑\chi \psi ^2_\eta ^{}V.$$
(22)
In this simple way we can see that the field energy is not conserved due to the time-varying potential.

Combining eqn. (19) with eqn. (22), we can monitor the energy of the scalar field inside the collapsing star. Results of this calculation, for a selection of $`R_\mathrm{i}`$, are shown in Fig. 7, where we plot the quantity $`\mathrm{log}_{10}|100\times \{E(\eta )E(0)\}/E(0)|`$ (i.e. the percentage fractional change in the energy) as a function of $`\eta `$. The conclusion from this calculation is rather dissapointing from an “observational” point of view: The amplification factor is $`1\%`$ when the star is about to cross its Schwarzschild radius. It only becomes important, at later times, when the radius is close to zero. This is in agreement with the behaviour seen in the time-evolutions in the field of a “transparent” star (Section III). According to Fig. 7, there is a $`10\%`$ amplification when $`R0.25M`$. It is interesting to note that, according to Fig. 7, the amplification factor is almost the same for a given value of $`R`$ and different $`R_\mathrm{i}`$. An intuitive explanation of this behaviour is given in the following Section. It is important to mention that the amplification factor at the moment of horizon crossing proved to be sensitive to the width of the initial pulse. Specifically, by decreasing the width of the pulse the amplification factor can drop down by an order of magnitude. This can be understood in terms of the fact that parametric amplification strongly depends on the frequency (see discussion in the next Section).

In Fig. 8 we show snapshots of the field itself inside the “mirror” star. The field evolves in a fashion similar to a standing wave (there are two main pulses repeatedly bouncing at the left and right boundaries). It is only at the very late stages ($`\eta \pi `$) that amplification can be clearly seen, in agreement with the previous energy considerations.

## V A physical insight

In this Section we give some physical arguments which will clarify the apparent inefficiency of parametric amplification. Let us discuss first what happens in the case of cosmological perturbations. There, we have two parameters which regulate the strength of parametric amplification: the wavelength $`\lambda `$ of the perturbation and the Hubble radius $`R_\mathrm{H}a/\dot{a}`$. It is well known  that amplification is more efficient for large, “superhubble” modes, i.e. $`\lambda >R_\mathrm{H}`$. This is easily understood, as it is a general property of wave propagation in a gravitational field that long wavelengths are the ones that are dominantly affected (an example is provided by Fig 6).

In the case of a collapsing “mirror” star, there is a third lengthscale entering the problem, namely, the size $`\chi _\mathrm{o}`$ of the star. As evident from the solution (19), the field inside the star is made of the discrete spectrum $`\lambda _\mathrm{n}=2\chi _\mathrm{o}/n`$. Hence, the maximum wavelength is just equal to the diameter of the star. For amplification to be significant, we should demand that,

$$\chi _\mathrm{o}>\frac{1}{2}R_\mathrm{H}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)}.$$
(23)
Moreover, there is another restriction set by the time required for the star to cross its Schwarzschild radius. The condition $`R2M`$, with the help of eqns. (4),(7), gives,

$$\chi _\mathrm{o}<\frac{\pi \eta }{2}.$$
(24)
Conditions (23) and (24) are plotted together in Fig. 9 for various values of $`\chi _\mathrm{o}`$, or equivalently, of $`R_\mathrm{i}/M`$. For a given choice of $`R_\mathrm{i}/M`$ there is an amplification “window” where there is at least one superhubble mode present. At this point we also need some input from the energy expression (22), which says that the time-derivative of the potential is a crucial factor for amplification. Since $`_\eta V\mathrm{sin}(\eta /2)/\mathrm{cos}^3(\eta /2)`$ we could argue that amplification should become stronger as $`\eta \pi `$. In the same limit, and according to Fig. 9, the amplification window shrinks considerably. In effect these two counter-balancing factors produce an almost uniform total amplification factor as it was shown in Fig. 7. On the other hand, for the case of pure Friedmann spacetime the corresponding window is significantly larger, which explains why amplification can be much stronger (as illustrated in Fig. 1).

## VI Concluding discussion

We have presented the results of an investigation on the possibility of having parametrically amplified perturbations during gravitational collapse. We have argued, based on the similarity between the time-varying gravitational field in the interior of a spherically collapsing star and the field of the closed Friedmann cosmological model, why this process will be present, at least in principle. Indeed, our investigation revealed that the process is present, and in order to obtain a quantitive estimate of the effect, we have constructed a simplified collapse model (which captures the physics relevant to the problem) and studied time-evolutions of a scalar field placed inside the star. We have found that, unless the star has shrunk to a radius smaller than the Schwarzschild limit, the scalar field escapes from the star in a very short timescale for amplification to become important. We have also quantified the amplification in terms of the field energy, and set an upper limit (for scalar perturbations) by considering a perfectly reflecting star, i.e. a star that keeps the field trapped in its interior for the entire collapse event (this is what we called a ”mirror” star). Unfortunately, we found that even under these very favourable conditions, amplification is only of order $`1\%`$ when the stellar surface is about to cross the star’s Schwarzschild radius. It is only when the radius has shrunk to a much lower value that amplification becomes notable (for example, there is a $`10\%`$ amplification in the energy when $`R=0.25M`$). Moreover, these results remain almost invariant for a wide range of initial radii $`R_\mathrm{i}/M`$. We have given a simple physical argument, based on the comparison between the stellar radius, the Hubble radius $`a/\dot{a}`$ and the moment at which the star crosses its Schwarzschild radius, to “explain” the low efficiency of the process.

The results presented in this paper should encourage one to adopt a pessimistic point of view regarding the astrophysical importance of parametric amplification during gravitational collapse. However, this statement is far from being definite and must be viewed with some caution. We have considered one of the simplest possible models to describe a collapsing star. One could naturally ask how the above conclusion may change when more realistic models are adopted (which would incorporate features like pressure gradient, rotation etc.). In all these models, there is still present a time-varying background gravitational field which could pump energy into any kind of perturbations inside the star. There is no way at this point to say whether the amplification mechanism would operate with the same efficiency as in pressureless spherical collapse. Some steps towards including rotational effects could be taken by considering a slowly rotating O-S collapse model . There are also other factors that should be taken into account in realistic collapse. For example, it is well established  that an inhomogeneous collapsing star can easily give birth to a naked singularity instead of a black hole. Under such conditions, our results suggest that strongly amplified fields could be generated while the stellar radius is $`<M`$, and subsequently escape to infinity. In our view, and despite the “negative” results of this study, further (and more detailed) work is needed to give a more complete answer on the astrophysical significance of parametric amplification.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to L.P. Grishchuk for providing the idea that initiated this work and for many helpful discussions. We would also like to thank N. Andersson, C. Gundlach, J. Inglesfield and B.S. Sathyaprakash for useful discussions/comments.

## A Analytic solution for the “mirror” star

In this Appendix we derive the analytic solution used to describe a scalar field inside the “mirror” star of Section IV. We rewrite eqn. (16),

$`_\eta ^2\psi _\chi ^2\psi +V(\eta ,\chi )\psi =0`$ (A1)
and perform separation of variables:

$$\psi (\eta ,\chi )=H(\eta )X(\chi ).$$
(A2)
We then get the following pair of equations for $`H`$ and $`X`$,

$`_\eta ^2H+\left[\nu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(\eta /2)\right]H`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A3)
$`_\chi ^2X+\left[\nu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi )}}\right]X`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (A4)
where $`\nu `$ is the separation constant. The solution of these equations is,

$`X_\nu (\chi )=c(\nu ,l)\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}(\chi )}P_{\nu \frac{1}{2}}^{l\frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{cos}(\chi )],`$ (A5)
(A6)
$`H_\nu (\eta )=c_1(\nu )u_1(\nu ,\eta )+c_2(\nu )u_2(\nu ,\eta ),`$ (A7)
where $`c,c_1,c_2`$ are constants (with respect to $`\eta `$ and $`\chi `$), $`P_\kappa ^\mu [z]`$ are associated Legendre functions and

$`u_1=\mathrm{cos}[\nu (\pi \eta )]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\nu }}\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\mathrm{sin}[\nu (\pi \eta )],`$ (A8)
$`u_2=2\nu \mathrm{sin}[\nu (\pi \eta )]+\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)\mathrm{cos}[\nu (\pi \eta )].`$ (A9)
The above solutions already incorporate the “left” boundary condition $`\psi (\eta ,0)=0`$.

At this point, we restrict our attention to the monopole case ($`\mathrm{}=0`$) only. The time dependence of the field $`\psi `$ (as given by eqn. (A3) is the same irrespective of $`\mathrm{}`$, so consideration of $`\mathrm{}0`$ will just overcomplicate the analysis without providing any new physical information.

We next impose the “right” boundary condition, $`\psi (\eta ,\chi _\mathrm{o})=0`$. For $`\mathrm{}=0`$ we find the following eigenvalues and eigenfunctions:

$`\nu _n={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\chi _0}}n,\text{ for }n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ (A10)
$`\psi _n=\left[c_1(\nu _n)u_1(\nu _n,\eta )+c_2(\nu _n)u_2(\nu _n,\eta )\right]\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{\chi _0}}\chi \right).`$ (A11)
The full field $`\psi `$ can be presented as an infinite sum of these eigenfunctions. The two remaining constants $`c_1,c_2`$ can be fixed by the use of initial conditions (assumed static here). The final expression for $`\psi `$ is,

$`\psi (\eta ,\chi )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\chi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_n\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{\chi _0}}\eta \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0}{2\pi n}}\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{\chi _0}}\eta \right)\right]\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{\chi _0}}\chi \right),`$ (A12)
where

$$C_n=_0^{\chi _0}𝑑\chi \psi _0(\chi )\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi n}{\chi _0}\chi \right).$$
(A13)
This solution exhibits a standing wave-like behaviour. Moreover, by setting $`\chi _\mathrm{o}=\pi `$ it can be used to describe scalar wave propagation in a closed Friedmann spacetime. When applying (A12) in practice, we found that the $`n`$-sum is rapidly convergent (typically, no more than 20-25 terms are required).

## B Energy “conservation” law for the Klein-Gordon equation

The “master” equation that governs the field $`\psi `$ is a Klein-Gordon equation. Here we intend to derive a simple “energy conservation” expression for this type of equations when homogeneous boundary conditions are assumed for the field at the right and left endpoints.

Consider again eqn. (16)

$$_\eta ^2\psi _\chi ^2\psi +V(\eta ,\chi )\psi =0,$$
(B1)
where $`V(\eta ,\chi )`$ is an effective potential which can generally have both spatial and time dependence. Suppose that the field is confined in the region $`0\chi \chi _\mathrm{o}`$ and $`\psi (\eta ,0)=\psi (\eta ,\chi _\mathrm{o})=0`$ (as in the model of the “mirror” star of Section IV). Multiplying eqn. (B1) with $`2_\eta \psi `$ and making a trivial rearrangement we obtain

$`2_\eta \psi _\eta ^2\psi 2_\chi (_\eta \psi _\chi \psi )+2_\chi _\eta \psi _\chi \psi +2V(\eta ,\chi )\psi _\eta \psi =0.`$ (B2)
This can also be written as

$$_\eta \left[(_\eta \psi )^2+(_\chi \psi )^2+V\psi ^2\right]\psi ^2_\eta V2_\chi (_\eta \psi _\chi \psi )=0.$$
(B3)
Integrating eqn. (B3) from $`0`$ to $`\chi _0`$ and taking into account the boundary conditions we get

$$_\eta _0^{\chi _0}\left[(_\eta \psi )^2+(_\chi \psi )^2+V\psi ^2\right]𝑑\chi =_0^{\chi _0}𝑑\chi \psi ^2_\eta V.$$
(B4)
We define the quantity

$$E(\eta )\frac{1}{2}_0^{\chi _0}\left[(_\eta \psi )^2+(_\chi \psi )^2+V\psi ^2\right]𝑑\chi .$$
(B5)
as the field’s total energy (this can be compared with the energy expression for a vibrating string). We have then shown that,

$$E(\eta )E(0)=\frac{1}{2}_0^\eta _0^{\chi _\mathrm{o}}𝑑\eta ^{}𝑑\chi \psi ^2_\eta ^{}V.$$
(B6)
In the “usual” case of time-independent potentials, this equation just says that the field energy is conserved. This property is spoiled when the potential is allowed to vary in time due to the coupling of the field and the time-derivative of the potential. This simple relation is an alternative way to view amplification of fields by time-dependent potentials.


format: text

text:
# A Measurement of the Contamination in [O III] 𝜆5007 Surveys of Intracluster Stars and the Surface Density of 𝑧=3.13 Ly𝛼 Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

A very powerful method for probing the history of galaxy clusters is through the observation and analysis of intracluster light (cf. Dressler, 1984; Miller, 1983; Merritt, 1984; Moore, Quillis, & Bower, 2000). Recently, this field has been revolutionized by on-band/off-band \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ surveys for planetary nebulae (PNe) located between the galaxies of Fornax and Virgo. By searching for emission line objects on CCD frames and adopting reasonable values for the ratio of PNe to main sequence stars, Theuns & Warren (1997), Méndez et al. (1997), Ciardullo et al. (1998) and Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby (1998) all concluded that a substantial fraction ($`20\%`$) of the stellar mass of these clusters resides outside of any galaxy.

This result, however, is by no means secure. By comparing star counts in a Virgo intracluster field with counts performed on the Hubble Deep Field, Ferguson, Tanvir, & von Hippel (1998) concluded that only $`11\%`$ of Virgo’s stellar mass belongs to a diffuse intergalactic component. In addition, the interpretation of Virgo’s \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ sources as intergalactic planetary nebulae has been called into question by the VLT/FORS spectroscopy of Kudritzki et al. (2000). Although spectroscopic observations by Freeman et al. (2000) appear to confirm that most of the emission line sources identified by Ciardullo et al. (1998) and Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby (1998) are, indeed, \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ emitters in nearby intracluster space, the Virgo PN candidates observed by Kudritzki et al. are all background galaxies. If most of the emission-lines sources found in the \[O III\] surveys are also background galaxies, then many of the conclusions recently reached about intracluster starlight in Virgo and Fornax are incorrect, and the usefulness of planetary nebula surveys in intracluster space has to be reconsidered.

Here we report the results of two experiments designed to estimate the number of background galaxies expected in surveys of Virgo and Fornax intracluster planetary nebulae (IPNe). First, we describe spectroscopic observations of five planetary nebulae in the field of M87 that have been labeled by Ciardullo et al. (1998) as “overluminous” and therefore foreground to M87. We show that a composite spectrum made from these sources contains both \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ and \[O III\] $`\lambda 4959`$ in the appropriate ratio. Consequently, it is likely that the majority of the overluminous objects in this field belong to the cluster. We then report the results of a 0.13 deg2 on-band/off-band photometric survey at 5019 Å of a “blank field” set well away from any nearby galaxy or cluster. We show that, although the density of “PN-like” sources in the field is not negligible, it is still five times smaller than the density derived for \[O III\] sources in Virgo. Thus, surveys for intracluster PNe remain a viable method for measuring the amount of stars stripped out of galaxies. Finally, we discuss the nature of the contaminating objects, and, using arguments based on emission line equivalent widths, conclude that most of these sources are emission-line galaxies at $`z=3.13`$. Our results support the conclusions of Hu, Cowie, & McMahon (1998) that Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies with monochromatic fluxes of $`6\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 and observed equivalent widths greater than 80 Å are fairly common, although the density we derive is only one-half the Hu et al. value.

## 2 Spectroscopy of Candidate Intracluster Planetary Nebulae

In their on-band/off-band \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ survey of planetary nebulae in the field of M87, Ciardullo et al. (1998) found that the planetary nebula luminosity function (PNLF) of the galaxy is distorted relative to the PNLFs of other galaxies. Specifically, in the outer part of the galaxy, M87’s PNLF does not have a sharp cutoff at its bright end; instead, the galaxy appears to contain a population of “overluminous” objects that are up to $`0.6`$ mag brighter than the PNe seen in other galaxies. Because the number of these overluminous PNe scales with the survey area, and not galactic surface brightness, Ciardullo et al. concluded that these bright \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ sources are not associated with M87. Instead, Ciardullo et al. hypothesized that the overluminous PNe belong to the Virgo Cluster as a whole, and are projected up to $`3`$ Mpc in front of M87.

To test this hypothesis, we used the Hydra multi-fiber spectrograph on the Kitt Peak WIYN telescope to obtain spectra of some of the overluminous PN candidates. Our specific spectrograph setup included Hydra’s 2-arcsec red sensitive fiber cables, the bench spectrograph’s 285 mm focal length camera, a SITe $`2048\times 2048`$ CCD detector (4.3 e- readnoise, gain of 1.7 e- ADU-1), and an 860 lines mm-1 grating blazed at $`30\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}9`$. When used in second order, this grating-camera-detector combination yielded spectra with a dispersion of 0.47 Å pixel-1 and a resolution of 0.77 Å over the wavelength range between 4500 Å to 5500 Å. The total observation time for the setup was three hours; to facilitate the removal of cosmic rays, the observations were split into three one-hour exposures.

Nine objects with monochromatic \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ fluxes greater than $`1.0\times 10^{16}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 ($`m_{5007}<26.25`$) were chosen for study. Since M87’s PNLF cutoff occurs at $`m_{5007}=26.35`$ (Ciardullo et al., 1998; Jacoby, Ciardullo, & Ford, 1990), these PN candidates are all significantly “overluminous” (by $`2\sigma `$) with respect to the galaxy, and can be interpreted as foreground intracluster stars. Unfortunately, due to a combination of factors, including astrometric and fiber-positioning errors, only five of the emission-line objects were detected.

The multifiber spectra were extracted, flatfielded, and wavelength calibrated using the IRAF package dohydra. A flatfield image taken at the beginning of the night served as the reference for tracing the spectra on the CCD frame; the wavelength calibration was performed using copper-argon comparison arcs taken before and after the exposure sequence. Sky subtraction was accomplished using the summed spectra of 49 sky fibers randomly placed around the galaxy. Since the sky in this wavelength region is faint and our observations were taken at moderately high ($`R6000`$) resolution, our results are independent of the accuracy of this subtraction.

The overluminous PN candidates are listed in Table 1, using the identification numbers of Ciardullo et al. (1998). Figure 1 displays the recorded spectra in the wavelength region between 4940 Å and 5060 Å. As the figure illustrates, the signal-to-noise of the spectra is extremely low; in all cases, we have only a bare detection of a single, unresolved emission line. The fact that the emission lines are unresolved does suggest that the objects are Virgo PNe, rather than background galaxies (or quasars), since the velocity widths of the latter objects would likely be greater than our $`50`$ km s-1 resolution. However, for any individual object, this possibility cannot be excluded.

Nevertheless, we can use the procedure of Freeman et al. (2000) to statistically show that the detected emission line is \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$. To do this, we start by assuming that the identification of \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ is correct, and then shift each spectrum back into its rest frame. We then scale the data so that all the $`\lambda 5007`$ lines have equal weight, and co-add the spectra to create a single composite spectrum. This spectrum is displayed in Figure 2. As the figure illustrates, the increased signal-to-noise brings out an additional feature: \[O III\] $`\lambda 4959`$. If all five overluminous objects are indeed, intergalactic PNe, then this companion line should be $`1/3`$ the strength of $`\lambda 5007`$; if some of the objects are background galaxies, then the line ratio should be reduced by the fraction of contaminants.

The ratio of $`\lambda 4959`$ to $`\lambda 5007`$ in Figure 2 is $`0.31\pm 0.03`$, where the quoted error represents our estimate of the measurement uncertainty, and neglects factors associated with the changing efficiency of the spectrograph. Since this number is extremely close to $`1/3`$, it is likely that all of the overluminous $`\lambda 5007`$ sources are planetary nebulae: at most, only one of the five objects can be a contaminant. Moreover, since the sources are too bright to be PNe associated with M87, the best hypothesis remains that these objects belong to the Virgo Cluster as a whole, and are located on the near side of the cluster.

## 3 \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ Imaging of a Blank Field

An alternative method of determining the importance of contamination in IPNe surveys is through the analysis of a control region. By measuring the surface density of point-like emission-line sources in the field, we can directly estimate the amount of contamination expected in cluster surveys. To perform this “blank field” experiment, we chose a high-latitude ($`b=49^{}`$) location in the southern hemisphere, $`\alpha (2000)=4^\mathrm{h}01^\mathrm{m}`$, $`\delta (2000)=39^{}42\mathrm{}`$. This region of sky is located well away from any nearby cluster: it is $`16^{}`$ from the center of Fornax, and $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ from the nearest (small) galaxy in the Tully Catalog (Tully, 1988). Aside from one faint radio source (PMN J0401$``$3944; Griffith & Wright, 1993) and one $`z=0.26`$ quasar (Osmer 14; Osmer, 1982) no remarkable objects are known to be located within the $`30\mathrm{}\times 30\mathrm{}`$ field of our camera.

According to the H I and galaxy count data of Burstein & Heiles (1982), the foreground galactic reddening in the region is $`E(BV)=0.0`$; from the DIRBE/IRAS data of Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998), this number is $`E(BV)=0.029`$. For simplicity, in this paper we assume that the extinction is identically zero.

We observed the blank field on the nights of 1998 Nov 20, 21, 22, and 23 with the Big Throughput Camera (BTC) on the Cerro Tololo 4-m telescope. This mosaic CCD system consists of a square array of four $`2048\times 2048`$ Tektronix CCDs, each of which has a readnoise of $`5`$ e-, a gain of 2.4 e- ADU-1 and a scale of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}43`$ per pixel. The total area included on all four chips is 0.23 deg2, but due to the dithering procedure used to improve the flatfielding, the actual area surveyed was only 0.215 deg2. When we exclude the data of CCD #2, which has a slightly lower (but highly variable) quantum efficiency, and eliminate the areas around saturated stars and bad pixels, our effective survey region is further reduced to 0.13 deg2. Still, this is over six times larger than that of the deep, narrow-band Ly$`\alpha `$ surveys of Hu, Cowie, & McMahon (1998) and Steidel et al. (2000).

The on-band filter used for our experiment was the \[O III\] #2 Mosaic filter of Kitt Peak; this filter has a central wavelength of 5019 Å and a full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of 55 Å at ambient temperature in the converging beam of the telescope. The off-band filter was Kitt Peak Mosaic filter \[O III\]+29, whose central wavelength and FWHM are 5305 Å and 241 Å, respectively. The total on-band exposure time for our four nights of observations was 285 minutes; this was split into four 1-hr exposures plus one 45-min exposure. Our off-band data consisted of 5 15-min exposures, for a total integration time of 75 min. All these data were taken under photometric conditions in $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ seeing.

The procedures used to reduce the data, identify emission-line objects, and measure their brightnesses, were identical to those used to search for intracluster planetary nebulae, and are fully described in Feldmeier (2000). After de-biasing and flatfielding the data, the on-band and off-band frames were co-added to create master images that were clipped of cosmic-rays. The frames were then searched for PN-like candidates in two different ways using the DAOPHOT and PHOT packages within IRAF. The first method involved performing photometry of all point sources on the frames, and constructing a color-magnitude diagram from the results. Objects with highly negative on-band minus off-band colors were flagged as PN-like sources (cf. Figure 3). In the second method, candidate sources were identified by searching for positive residuals on a “difference image” made by subtracting a scaled version of the off-band image from the on-band frame. These two techniques complement each other, in that each detects objects that the other method does not. Because the color-magnitude algorithm is susceptible to confusion by continuum sources near target objects (blends), the former analysis misses $`5\%`$ of the emission-line sources, even at bright magnitudes. Conversely, the subtraction technique detects virtually all the bright emission-line objects, but loses some of the fainter sources due to the larger noise of the difference frame. As we describe below, these two techniques, coupled with our chosen detection threshold for DAOFIND, optimized our our ability to detect real emission-line sources, and kept the number of false detections at a manageable level.

After analyzing our on-band/off-band frames with both methods, a series of routines were run to purge the candidate list of false detections. First, we removed objects which fell within the excluded regions around saturated stars and near bad pixels. We then ignored all objects for which the final final detected signal-to-noise was less than four; such objects are almost always random noise fluctuations (cf. Ciardullo et al., 1987; Hui et al., 1993). Finally, we removed probable cosmic rays from our list by going back to the individual exposures which created the master on-band frames. Using apertures of the order of the seeing FWHM, we measured the magnitude of each candidate object on each individual frame. If, after correcting for sky transparency, one of the measurements was $`5\sigma `$ higher than the mean determined from the magnitudes on the other four frames, the object was deleted from the analysis.

Once the false detections and cosmic rays were eliminated, the remaining PN-like candidates were screened by eye to create the final list of $`\lambda 5019`$ sources. To be included in the list, an object had to be spatially unresolved on the on-band image, and completely invisible on the off-band frame. A total of nine such “PN-like” objects were found by our procedure.

To confirm the robustness of our algorithms, we tested our results in three different ways. First, we added artificial stars to the on-band (but not the off-band) image using the ADDSTAR task within DAOPHOT. We then ran our detection algorithms, and computed the fraction of objects recovered as a function of magnitude. Since our algorithms can work no better than that of the star-finding algorithm (DAOFIND; Stetson, 1987), this analysis places a limit on the effectiveness of the search. The result of this simulation for one of the BTC CCDs is shown in Figure 4. As the figure illustrates, we are 90% complete down to an instrumental magnitude of $`m_{inst}=27.74`$, and 50% complete to $`m_{inst}=28.19`$. For consistency with other planetary nebula surveys, we adopt the 90% completeness limit, which is equivalent to a signal-to-noise of nine (Ciardullo et al., 1987; Hui et al., 1993), as this survey’s limiting magnitude.

As a second test, we ran our automated detection algorithms on frames of the Virgo Cluster that had been visually blinked as part of previous surveys for intracluster planetaries (Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby, 1998, 2001). Our new algorithms recovered all of the PN candidates above the DAOFIND completeness limit and 92% of all the previously known sources. Finally, two of us (J.J.F. and K.K.) independently blinked one of the BTC CCD fields by eye, and compared our results to those of the automated algorithm. In both cases, all objects brighter than $`m_{inst}=27.7`$ that were found by eye were also recovered by the computer. We are therefore confident that our detection scheme is the best possible for finding faint emission-line sources in a blank field.

Once the objects were found, their equatorial positions were derived with respect to the reference stars of the USNO-A 2.0 astrometric catalog (Monet, 1998; Monet et al., 1996). The measured residual of our plate solution was $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, a number slightly less than the $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}25`$ external error associated with the catalog. On-band and off-band photometry was accomplished relative to bright field stars via the aperture photometry routines within IRAF. These data were then placed on the standard AB system by comparing large aperture measurements of field stars with similar measurements of the Stone (1977) and Stone & Baldwin (1983) spectrophotometric standards Feige 110, LTT 1020, LTT 3218, EG 21, and LTT 2415. The dispersion in the photometric zero point computed from these stars was $`0.03`$ mag. Finally, we converted the on-band AB magnitudes to $`\lambda 5007`$ monochromatic fluxes using the techniques outlined in Jacoby, Quigley, & Africano (1987), under the assumption that the wavelength of the detected emission line lies near the bandpass center of the interference filter. For consistency with papers on extragalactic planetary nebulae, we define

$$m_{5007}=2.5\mathrm{log}F_{5007}13.74$$
(1)
where $`F_{5007}`$ represents monochromatic flux in ergs cm-2 s-1.

When placed on this standard system, the instrumental completeness limit of $`m_{inst}=27.7`$ corresponds to an AB magnitude of $`m_{AB}^{\mathrm{on}}=24.3`$, or a $`\lambda 5007`$ magnitude of $`m_{5007}=27.0`$. A similar analysis for the continuum frame reveals that the limiting AB magnitude of our off-band data is $`m_{AB}^{\mathrm{off}}=24.7`$. Coupled together, these two numbers imply that our $`\lambda 5007`$ survey should be complete to a monochromatic flux of $`5.0\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1, which corresponds to an equivalent limit of $`W_\lambda >82`$ Å in the observer’s frame.

## 4 The Density of Background Sources

Those objects which, had they been located in a cluster environment, would have been mistaken for intracluster planetary nebulae, are listed in Table 2. All the detected point-sources have extremely large equivalent widths: the smallest value is 212 Å, and the median equivalent width is 273 Å. These numbers are far above our detection threshold of 82 Å, and demonstrate that the number of PN-like sources in the blank field is not sensitive to this quantity. The most important feature of the table, however, is its rather small number of objects. Only nine point sources brighter than our limiting magnitude of $`m_{5007}=27.0`$ were detected in the 0.13 deg2 region. This compares to nine objects brighter than $`m_{5007}=26.8`$ in the lowest density Virgo field observed by Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby (1998). Considering that the Feldmeier et al. field is less than half the area of this survey, the data imply that surveys for intracluster PNe are a viable way to probe the distribution of intracluster starlight.

The results, however, do suggest that some of the recent conclusions about intracluster stars in Virgo and Fornax may be incorrect. For example, Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby (1998) used the apparent luminosity of Virgo’s brightest \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ sources and the planetary nebula luminosity function, to place an upper limit on the distance to the front edge of the system. Their distance of $`11.8`$ Mpc implied that Virgo is extremely elongated along the line-of-sight. Based on our blank field study, it is clear that field objects with large equivalent widths and line fluxes as large as $`7\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 do exist, and can be mistaken for intracluster planetaries. Thus, structural analyses that depend on one or two extremely bright objects may be incorrect. In the case of the M87 field, the spectroscopy of Section 2 demonstrates that the intracluster environment is indeed elongated: since the absolute magnitude of the \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ PNLF bright-end cutoff is $`M^{}=4.5`$ (Ciardullo et al., 1989), the apparent magnitudes of Table 1 imply that the front side of Virgo is no more distant than 12.8 Mpc (i.e., $`1.6`$ Mpc in front of M87; Ciardullo et al., 1998). Unfortunately, without spectroscopy, similar limits cannot be placed on other regions of the cluster.

To quantify the fraction of contamination expected, Table 3 compares the density of intracluster \[O III\] sources detected in Fields 2-6 of Feldmeier, Ciardullo, & Jacoby (1998, 2001) to the results of this blank field experiment. The limiting magnitudes of the Feldmeier et al. fields are generally not as deep as the data presented here ($`m26.8`$), so the Virgo results have been extrapolated to a depth of $`m_{5007}=27.0`$ using the standard form of the PNLF:

$$N(M)e^{0.307M}[1e^{3(M^{}M)}]$$
(2)
Although the contamination rate fluctuates from field to field, Table 3 demonstrates that $`20\%`$ of the emission-line objects found by Feldmeier et al. are likely to be interlopers. Unfortunately, it is difficult to define this fraction more precisely. Due to the small number of objects detected in the blank field survey, the derived contamination rate is uncertain by at least 33%. Moreover, if the contaminating sources are, indeed, extragalactic background objects, some field-to-field fluctuation might be expected to arise from large-scale structure. Nevertheless, our photometrically derived contamination fraction is in good agreement with the value of 26% determined via spectroscopy of individual IPN candidates (Freeman et al., 2000).

A $`20`$% contamination rate, coupled with the distribution of magnitudes given in Table 2, explains why Kudritzki et al. (2000) found a large fraction of contaminants in their spectroscopic survey, but Freeman et al. (2000) did not. From the table, it is apparent that there are more faint emission-line sources in our blank sky field than bright sources. A maximum-likelihood analysis of the nine data points suggests that, in the magnitude range $`m_{5007}<27`$, a power-law $`\mathrm{log}N(m)=a+bm`$, with slope $`b1_{0.3}^{+0.5}`$ adequately represents the differential source counts. If this behavior continues to fainter magnitudes, then the apparent discrepancy between the results of Kudritzki et al. and Freeman et al. is simply a function of which objects the authors chose to observe. Of the nine objects observed by Kudritzki et al., two are extremely bright, with \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$ magnitudes more than 0.7 mag brighter than the nominal PNLF cutoff. Since the PNLF’s decline at bright magnitudes is extremely rapid, blank field sources dominate at these magnitudes. Moreover, four of the Kudritzki et al. targets are extremely faint, with $`m_{5007}>27.5`$. In this regime, the slope of the PNLF has reached its limiting value of 0.133. Since this number is $`7`$ times shallower than the background source count slope, a significant amount of contamination is again expected. Between these two extremes, however, the density of background objects is much less than the density of IPNe, and it is this range that Freeman et al. performed their observations.

If we adopt a slope of $`b1`$ for the luminosity function of the background objects, and normalize the counts so that the background contributes $`20\%`$ of the $`m_{5007}<27`$ sources in Virgo’s intracluster space, then by $`m_{5007}27.6`$, the density of interlopers is more than half that of the intracluster stars. Of course, this result depends sensitively on the extrapolated slope of the background source counts. Nevertheless, because the faint-end slope of the PNLF is shallow, we can expect that at some point past $`m_{5007}=27`$, the background sources will overwhelm the planetaries.

Our estimate of the contamination rate moves PN-based measurements of Virgo’s intracluster stars into better agreement with that determined from HST red giant star counts (Ferguson, Tanvir, & von Hippel, 1998). However, because the vast majority of PN candidates brighter than $`m_{5007}=27.0`$ are still likely to be genuine, a factor of $`2`$ discrepancy between the two estimates remains. One possible explanation for the difference may be small-scale structure in the distribution of the intracluster stars themselves. Observationally, there is evidence that the IPN are scattered non-uniformly in the Virgo cluster (Feldmeier, 2000) and most theories for the creation of intracluster stars predict that the distribution of such objects should have filamentary structure (Moore et al., 1996). Since the HST field is much smaller ($`5`$ sq. arcmin) than the IPN fields ($`200`$ sq. arcmin), it is entirely possible that the difference between the IPN and HST estimates for Virgo’s intracluster star population reflect real fluctuations in the stellar background.

## 5 What are the Contaminating Sources?

To be detected via our on-band/off-band interference technique, an object must have an extremely strong emission line, with an observed equivalent width of $`W_\lambda >82`$ Å. If the line is not \[O III\] $`\lambda 5007`$, then the two most plausible alternatives are \[O II\] $`\lambda 3727`$ at $`z=0.35`$ (rest frame equivalent width $`W_\lambda >60`$ Å) or Ly$`\alpha `$ at $`z=3.13`$ ($`W_\lambda >20`$ Å). The former option is possible, though unlikely. Most of our emission-line sources have putative \[O II\] rest frame equivalent widths greater than 150 Å; the redshift surveys of Cowie et al. (1996), Hammer et al. (1997), and Hogg et al. (1998) have yet to find such extremely strong \[O II\] emitters (but see Stern et al., 2000). Moreover, if the emission-line sources are really \[O II\] galaxies at $`z=0.35`$, then these objects must have absolute magnitudes between $`15.3<M_B+5\mathrm{log}h<15.0`$. (The bright limit comes from the limiting magnitude of our off-band frame, while the faint limit is derived from our on-band flux limit of $`5\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 and the observed $`150`$ Å upper limit for \[O II\] equivalent widths.) If we integrate the luminosity function for low-redshift \[O II\] emission-line galaxies (Ellis et al., 1996; Small, Sargent, & Hamilton, 1997) between these two limits, and normalize to the volume of space surveyed by our 55 Å FWHM filter ($`800h^3`$ Mpc3 at $`z=0.35`$), then we find that $`4`$ \[O II\] emission line galaxies should lie within our survey region. Since only $`10\%`$ of faint ($`M_B>19`$) \[O II\] emission line galaxies have equivalent widths greater than our 60 Å rest frame survey limit (Cowie et al., 1996; Hammer et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998), the implication is that $`1`$ of our strong emission-line sources is an \[O II\] galaxy.

On the other hand, it is likely that at least some of our emission-line sources are Ly$`\alpha `$ objects. In their spectroscopic follow-up of candidate intracluster planetary nebulae in Virgo, Kudritzki et al. (2000) found nine such objects. Similarly, in their deep narrow-band and spectroscopic searches of a 75 square arcmin region, Hu, Cowie, & McMahon (1998) found that Ly$`\alpha `$ sources with observed equivalent widths $`W_\lambda >90`$ Å are not rare. Specifically, these authors found that, down to a limiting flux of $`1.5\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1, the density of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z3.4`$ is $`15,000`$ deg-2 per unit redshift interval. Since only five out of the twelve emitters tabulated by Cowie & Hu (1998) have fluxes greater than our detection limit of $`5\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1, their observations suggest that we should be able to detect $`38`$ such objects in our survey region.

In order to compare our results to the Cowie et al. numbers, we expanded our search criteria to include both resolved sources and sources detected in continuum. To do this, we followed the prescription of Herrero et al. (2001) and modified DAOFIND’s FWHM convolution kernel so that our program could detect non-stellar objects. We then re-ran our search algorithms on the BTC images, and flagged all objects (both stellar and non-stellar) with fluxes above the completeness limit and with equivalent widths greater than 82 Å. (For objects with no continuum detection, we used the off-band frame’s $`1\sigma `$ upper limit in our calculation of equivalent width.) The 12 additional objects found in this search are listed in Table 4, and plotted as open circles in Figure 3. Figure 5 displays the on-band, off-band, and difference images of a sample of our strong line-emitters (both PN-like and otherwise), and finding charts for all the sources listed in Tables 2 and 4 are given in Figure 6. In total, we detected 21 strong emission-line sources in our 0.13 deg2 survey region. Of the 12 additional sources, five are well-resolved with FWHM sizes in the range between $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ and $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, and another three are marginally resolved. This size distribution (13 point sources, 3 marginally resolved objects, and 5 clearly resolved galaxies) appears roughly consistent with the distribution of half-light radii observed for Lyman-break galaxies (cf. Lowenthal et al., 1997). However, higher resolution images are needed to confirm this result.

Our surface density, coupled with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.046`$ bandpass of our filter, implies that the surface density of Ly$`\alpha `$ sources with monochromatic fluxes greater than $`5\times 10^{17}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 is $`3500`$ deg-2 per unit redshift interval. This value is marginally lower (by $`1.4\sigma `$) than the value derived by Hu, Cowie, & McMahon (1998). The discrepancy certainly is not serious, especially since both surveys may be affected by large-scale structure. By counting Lyman-break galaxies in $`9\mathrm{}\times 9\mathrm{}`$ regions, Adelberger et al. (1998) has estimated the cell-to-cell variance of $`z3`$ Lyman-break galaxies to be $`\sigma ^21.3\pm 0.4`$. However, the large-scale distribution of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters may be quite different, and significant excursions from the mean are possible. For example, in their 5-m survey of a 78 square arcmin region of the sky, Steidel et al. (2000) detected $`25`$ $`z=3.09`$ emission-line sources above our detection threshold. When scaled to the bandwidth of our $`\lambda 5007`$ filter, their data give a Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxy surface density of $`17,000`$ deg-2 per unit redshift interval, a number almost five times larger than observed here. However, the Steidel et al. survey was directed at a large structure of galaxies, whose volume density is $`6.0\pm 1.2`$ times higher than average. Thus, their result is consistent with our observations.

For an $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`q_0=0.5`$ universe, our data imply that the space density of $`z=3.13`$ galaxies with Ly$`\alpha `$(EW) $`>21`$ Å and $`L(\mathrm{Ly}\alpha )>2.2\times 10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 is $`9.3\times 10^4`$ galaxies Mpc-3. Note that these objects are undergoing a significant amount of star formation. If we neglect internal extinction and assume (as do Hu, Cowie, & McMahon, 1998) that the Ly$`\alpha `$ to H$`\alpha `$ ratio of these objects is 8.7 (Brocklehurst, 1971), then $`10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 in Ly$`\alpha `$ corresponds to a star formation rate of $`1M_{}`$ yr-1 (cf. Kennicutt, 1983). This implies that all but one of the objects detected in this survey have star formation rates between 1 and $`8M_{}`$ yr-1. This is consistent with the $`z>3`$ star formation rates derived from the rest-frame UV flux measurements of Steidel et al. (1998).

Figure 7 plots the emission-line luminosity function of strong emission-line sources, under the assumption that the objects are, indeed, Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies at $`z=3.13`$. If we integrate the function over the range displayed in the figure, we obtain a measured star formation rate density of $`0.003M_{}`$ yr-1 Mpc-3. If we then extrapolate the luminosity function to the approximate limiting magnitude of Hu et al. using the assumption that the luminosity function flattens past $`L2\times 10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 in a manner similar to a Schechter (1976) function, then the total star formation rate density of emission line galaxies brighter than $`7\times 10^{41}`$ ergs s-1 is $`0.004M_{}`$ yr-1 Mpc-3. This value is roughly one-tenth that derived from Lyman-break galaxies (Steidel et al., 1999).

Our value for the space density of Ly$`\alpha `$ emitters and their implied star formation rate density is a factor of $`2`$ smaller than that derived by Hu, Cowie, & McMahon (1998). Since the Hu et al. data are for a slice of the universe at $`z=3.4`$, it is possible to interpret this decrease as being due to evolution. However, given the small difference in time between these two epochs ($`0.2`$ Gyr) and the small number of galaxies detected, it is far too early for such a conclusion.

## 6 Conclusions

By studying a blank field located well away from any galaxy or cluster, we have found that surveys for intracluster planetary nebulae are not pristine. At monochromatic fluxes fainter than $`6\times 10^{17}`$ ergs-2 s-1 there is a non-negligible amount of contamination from field objects. The most likely source of this contamination is Ly$`\alpha `$ galaxies at $`z3.13`$; the data therefore suggest that the same techniques that allow 4-m telescopes to map out the distribution of intracluster PNe, can be used to determine the distribution of starbursting galaxies at high redshift.

Nevertheless, our observations confirm the presence of intracluster PNe in Virgo. The amount of background contamination is not nearly enough to explain the number of emission-line sources found in wide-field surveys of Virgo; based on our blank-field data, the contamination fraction is only $`20\%`$. This low number is confirmed by our spectroscopy of candidate intracluster PNe in the field of M87: the presence of \[O III\] $`\lambda 4959`$ in a composite spectrum of five “overluminous” objects implies that at least four of the objects are true planetary nebulae. Surveys for intracluster planetaries at magnitudes brighter than $`m_{5007}27`$ therefore remain an effective way of probing the dynamical history of nearby clusters.

We thank K. Freeman, R. Kudritzki, and R. Méndez for useful discussions about the results of their spectroscopy of intracluster PN candidates, and J.A. Tyson for his assistance with the BTC camera. This research made use of NED, the NASA Extragalactic Database, and was supported in part by NSF grants AST 92-57833 and AST-9529270.


text:
# References

Jagellonian University Preprint TPJU-9/2001

SU(3) SYMMETRY BREAKING AND POLARIZED PARTON DENSITIES111 Presented at Dubna Workshop Spin 2001
M. Praszałowicz1, H.-Ch. Kim2 and K. Goeke2
(1) M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagellonian University,
ul. Reymonta 4, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
(2) Department of Physics, Pusan National University,
Pusan 609-735, Republic of Korea
(2) Institute for Theoretical Physics II, Ruhr-University Bochum,
D-44780 Bochum, Germany

## Abstract

We analyze the semileptonic weak decays of the octet baryons in a ”model independent” approach, based on the algebraic structure of the Chiral Quark-Soliton Model. We argue that this analysis is in fact more general than the model itself. While the symmetry breaking for the semileptonic decays themselves is not strong, other quantities like $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are much more affected. We calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ for all octet baryons. Unfortunately, large experimental errors of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays propagate in our analysis, in particular, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$. Only if the errors for these decays are reduced, the accurate theoretical predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$ will be possible.

The experimental results on the first moment $`I_\mathrm{p}`$ of the proton spin structure function $`g_1^p`$

$$I_\mathrm{p}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xg_1^\mathrm{p}(x)=\frac{1}{18}\left(4\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}\right)\left(1\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{\pi }+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(1)
are usually interpreted in terms of the exact SU(3) symmetry. Then, in contrast to the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule , the strange quark contribution to the nucleon spin deviates from zero and is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.1`$, and the singlet axial current matrix element, interpreted as the portion of the total spin carried by the quarks $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}=a_0`$, is much smaller than $`1`$.

Polarized structure functions have been thoroughly investigated within the perturbative QCD (see for review  and recent papers ). In the present note, following Ref.  we shall use $`I_\mathrm{p}=0.124\pm 0.011`$ which can be translated into:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}4\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}=2.56\pm 0.23.$$
(2)
if $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(Q^2=3(\mathrm{GeV}/c)^2)=0.4`$. Then, assuming the Bjorken sum rule, one gets for the neutron

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}4\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}=0.928\pm 0.186.$$
(3)
It is important to realize that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ is not directly measured; it is extracted from the data through some theoretical model. If the SU(3) symmetry is assumed then all hyperon semileptonic decays can be expressed in terms of $`2`$ constants $`F`$ and $`D`$ or alternatively in terms of two axial charges

$`g_A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}=F+D,`$
$`a_8`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}2\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}=3FD.`$ (4)
The SU(3) symmetry alone does not relate the singlet current to the octet ones, therefore in order to extract $`a_0`$ an extra input is needed, for example one can use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ of Eq.(2):

$$a_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}3FD\right).$$
(5)
In order to extract constants $`F`$ and $`D`$ one usually uses the neutron beta decay and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{n}`$ decay which gives the so called typical SU(3) values: $`F=0.46`$, $`D=0.8`$ and $`a_8=0.58`$. Alternatively one can perform the least $`\chi ^2`$ fit to all hyperon decays. Such a fit was performed for example in Ref., with the result $`F=0.47\pm 0.01`$, $`D=0.79\pm 0.01`$ and with relatively large $`\chi ^2=13.5`$ for $`4`$ degrees of freedom which is an indication of the SU(3) breaking. The resulting $`a_8=0.62\pm 0.03`$. It has been noticed in  that nominal errors obtained from the fit are underestimates of the true ones.

It is instructive to perform an oversimplified but illustrative analysis of the data which leads to the same conclusion. If the SU(3) symmetry breaking was not important, any pair out of six known semileptonic decays should give roughly the same number for $`g_A`$, $`a_8`$ and $`a_0`$. This is, however, not the case. There are $`14`$ pairs which one can form out of 6 known hyperon decays which give linearly independent equations for $`g_A`$, $`a_8`$ and $`a_0`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ of Eq.(2) as an extra input for the latter). Averaging over these $`14`$ possibilities (disregarding the experimental errors) one gets

$$\overline{g}_A=1.27,\overline{a}_8=0.67,\overline{a}_0=0.17.$$
(6)
We see that $`\overline{g}_A`$ is almost identical to the $`g_A`$ measured in the $`\beta `$ decay. In Fig.1 we plot the relative error for each fit for $`g_A`$, $`a_8`$ and $`a_0`$. The errors of $`g_A`$ are by far the smallest and the largest variations are observed for $`a_0`$. This can be further demonstrated by averaging the relative error over the $`14`$ fits. Then

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }g_A}=0.03<\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }a_8}=0.17<\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }a_0}=0.27.$$
(7)
If a similar analysis is performed for the baryon masses in the SU(3) octet and decuplet then one gets that the average relative mass error is of the order of 10% which may be interpreted as a typical accuracy of the SU(3) symmetry for baryons. Therefore an interesting pattern of the SU(3) symmetry breaking for the hyperon decays can be seen in the data: $`g_A`$ remains almost unaffected (which may be interpreted as the sign of the almost exact isospin symmetry) whereas for $`a_8`$ the SU(3) symmetry breaking is typical (17% error). For $`a_0`$ the average error is, however, larger, which is the signature of a potentially large symmetry breaking in this channel. This pattern can be in principle understood theoretically since in the symmetry limit $`g_A`$ is given as a sum of two positive constants (4) $`F`$ and $`D`$, and therefore the theoretical error for $`g_A`$ is of the order of the typical error of $`F`$ and $`D`$ alone, whereas $`a_8`$ is given as a difference (4) and this of course increases the error222One has to keep in mind, however, that this is just a rough argument since the errors of $`F`$ and $`D`$ are correlated.. The same argument applies in principle also to $`a_0`$, however here the situation is less clear, since we have to deal with 3 quantities (5) $`F`$, $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ not just $`2`$.

In Fig.2 we plot 14 values of $`a_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ together with the experimental error bars. Typically the large error bars are due to the large error of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ and of the semileptonic $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays.

The above analysis suggests that the good measure of the SU(3) symmetry breaking is the value of $`a_8`$. One may ask if the polarized DIS data can differentiate between different values of $`a_8`$? This question was addressed in Refs., where the constrained fit to all existing DIS data has been performed for 3 different values of $`a_8`$: $`0.40,`$ $`0.58`$ (typical SU(3) value) and $`0.86`$. Unfortunately the $`\chi ^2`$ value for all 3 fits is practically the same indicating that the present DIS data are not able to decide in which way the SU(3) symmetry is broken. In Fig.3 we plot the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from Ref. (in JET renormalization scheme) as functions of $`a_8`$ together with the extrapolation to even smaller values of $`a_8`$, not considered in  which were, however, suggested in Ref. .

In the situation where the DIS data are not able to provide any hint how the SU(3) symmetry is broken, one has to resort to some specific models . In this paper, following Refs., we will use the Chiral Quark-Soliton Model ($`\chi `$QSM for short)  (see Ref. for review) to implement perturbatively the symmetry breaking due to the non-zero strange quark mass. This model satisfactorily describes the axial-vector properties of the hyperons . Since the symmetry breaking pattern of the $`\chi `$QSM is identical to the one derived in large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ QCD , our analysis is in fact much more general than the model itself.

The $`\chi `$QSM (as most of the hedgehog models ) has a remarkable virtue of connecting the singlet axial-vector constant $`a_0`$ with $`g_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`a_8`$ in a direct manner. This connection introduces a model dependence into our analysis. However, as we discussed in , there is no significant numerical difference between the results obtained with and without this model dependent ingredient. Our analysis is based on a ”model-independent” method where the dynamical quantities, which are in principle calculable within the model , are treated as free parameters. By adjusting them to the experimentally known semileptonic decays we allow not only for maximal phenomenological input but also for minimal model dependence. In Refs. magnetic moments of the octet and decuplet have been studied in this way. Model calculations for the vector-axial properties of baryons have been presented in Ref.. There exist also direct model calculations of the spin polarization function itself .

The transition matrix elements of the hadronic axial-vector current $`B_2|A_\mu ^X|B_1`$ can be expressed in terms of three independent form factors:

$$B_2|A_\mu ^X|B_1=\overline{u}_{B_2}(p_2)\left[\left\{g_1(q^2)\gamma _\mu \frac{ig_2(q^2)}{M_1}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu +\frac{g_3(q^2)}{M_1}q_\mu \right\}\gamma _5\right]u_{B_1}(p_1),$$
(8)
where the axial-vector current is defined as

$$A_\mu ^X=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\lambda _X\psi (x)$$
(9)
with $`X=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm i2)`$ for strangeness conserving $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ currents and $`X=\frac{1}{2}(4\pm i5)`$ for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|=1`$.

The $`q^2=Q^2`$ stands for the square of the momentum transfer $`q=p_2p_1`$. The form factors $`g_i`$ are real and depend only on $`Q^2`$ in the case of the $`CP`$-invariant processes. We will neglect here both $`g_3`$ and $`g_2`$. In principle the latter form factor is proportional to $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ and therefore should be included in the consistent analysis of the weak decays data. Unfortunately, such an analysis is still missing and all experimental results for $`g_1`$ assume $`g_20`$ (with an exception of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ decay ).

Other possible small $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections come from the evolution of $`g_1`$ with $`Q^2`$, due to the non-conservation of the axial-vector currents caused by the SU(3) symmetry breaking. These corrections are also neglected in our approach.

The $`\chi `$QSM allows to express all semileptonic hyperon decays in terms of 6 parameters. These include both symmetry breaking in the baryon wave functions and in the weak currents as well. Unfortunately this is precisely the number of the known amplitudes $`A_i`$ of the semileptonic weak decays:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_1=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p})},& A_3=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{p})},& A_5=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })},\\ A_2=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm \mathrm{\Lambda })},& A_4=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{n})},& A_6=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}.\end{array}$$
(10)
The U(3) axial-vector constants $`g_A^{(0,3,8)}`$ can be also expressed in terms of the same set of parameters.

It is important to notice that there exist two linear combinations of $`A_i`$’s which are free of the linear $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ corrections in the $`\chi `$QSM (and large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ QCD ), namely:

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(4A_14A_23A_3+3A_4+3A_5+5A_6),`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(4A_2+3A_33A_43A_5+3A_6)`$ (11)
which give numerically

$$F=0.50\pm 0.07\mathrm{and}D=0.77\pm 0.04.$$
(12)
We shall employ these values of $`F`$ and $`D`$ for the fits in the symmetry limit. Note that in this case $`a_8=0.73`$ which is higher than the typical symmetry value $`0.58`$ and the least $`\chi ^2`$ value $`0.62`$. This shows that the value of $`a_8`$ depends on the way of analyzing the data even in the symmetry limit.

In the following we shall present two sets of results: 1) the SU(3) symmetric ones with the input values of $`F`$ and $`D`$ given by Eq.(12) and 2) the ones with the symmetry breaking included where all 6 free parameters are fitted to the 6 hyperon decays of Eqs.(10). Interestingly, the model predicts $`(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}=(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}=1.278\pm 0.158`$ in very good agreement with the recent result for the latter decay from the KTeV collaboration  $`(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}=1.32_{0.17}^{+0.21}\pm 0.05`$ (first error is statistical, second systematic). Unfortunately this particular decay is not a good measure of the SU(3) breaking since the equality of the two decays holds both in the symmetry limit and with the breaking included.

In the SU(3) symmetry limit the model predicts that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=9F5D$$
(13)
for all octet baryons. This formula has a remarkable feature: it interpolates between the naive quark model and the Skyrme model. Indeed, in the case of the naive quark model where $`F=2/3`$ and $`D=1`$ one obtains $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$, whereas in the case of the simplest Skyrme model for which $`F/D=5/9`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, as observed for the first time in Ref. . Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is very sensitive to small variations of $`F`$ and $`D`$, since it is a difference of the two, with relatively large coefficients. Indeed, for the 14 fits of Figs.1 and 2 the central value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ varies between $`0.25`$ to approximately 1. This might be the likely explanation of the hierarchy discussed in connection with Eq.(7).

Figure 4: Figure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ for the proton in the SU(3) limit and with SU(3) symmetry breaking, interpolated according to Eq.(13), together with the error bands.

In the plots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$’s we have restored the linear $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ dependence in the following way:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q=\mathrm{\Delta }q^{(0)}+\frac{m_\mathrm{s}}{180\mathrm{MeV}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }q^{(0)}\right),$$
(14)
assuming for definiteness that $`m_\mathrm{s}=180`$ MeV. This is possible because our chiral parameters $`F`$ and $`D`$ need not to be refitted as the symmetry breaking corrections are included.

In Fig.4 we plot $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{n}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ both for the chiral symmetry fit and for the full fit together with experimental data for the proton and neutron. We see that in the chiral limit defined by (12) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{n}`$ are not reproduced. Only if the symmetry breaking terms are included, the model predictions hit the experimental values. Unfortunately our predictions have large error due to the experimental error of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays. Somewhat unexpectedly we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ is almost independent of the chiral symmetry breaking333Similar behavior has been observed in Ref.. and stays within the range $`0.11.1`$, if the errors of the hyperon decays are taken into account. Similarly to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{p}}`$, $`75\%`$ of the experimental error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ comes from the two least known hyperon decays $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ (corresponding to $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$).

The advantage of the present approach is that it can be easily extended to all hyperons as it was done in Refs.. Unfortunately there is very little hope that $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$’s in hyperons can be measured. Nevertheless, one can make use of an approximate equality of the quark distributions and the fragmentation functions  (at least for large $`x`$) which are accessible experimentally. Here of special interest is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon for which there exist experimental data. In Fig.5. we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ both in the SU(3) symmetry limit and with the symmetry breaking. Interestingly $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is compatible with zero in both limits, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases with $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ (with large errors). This increase is due to the fact that the singlet axial-vector currents $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s split when the symmetry breaking is switched on. This splitting is depicted in Fig.6. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ shows the weakest $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ dependence, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ depend quite strongly on $`m_\mathrm{s}`$. Large error bars for these quantities are due almost entirely to the large errors of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays $`A_5`$ and $`A_6`$. This feature that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s are different for different baryons is characteristic for the models where the symmetry breaking in the currents is included. If the symmetry breaking is taken into account only in the wave functions then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s remain identical for all baryons .

As it was suggested in the introduction a good measure of the SU(3) symmetry breaking is the value of $`a_8`$. In our model $`a_8`$ is basically undetermined since $`a_8=0.47\pm 1.14`$. Here $`88\%`$ of the error comes from the decay $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. One may, however, conclude that $`a_8`$ is smaller than our symmetry limit value $`a_8=0.73`$ and perhaps smaller than the typical SU(3) value $`0.58`$. In the similar model , where, however, the symmetry breaking is included only in the wave functions and the exact diagonalization procedure is applied, $`a_8=0.30.4`$ depending on the fit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}=0.270.29`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}=0.02`$ to $`0.034`$, a fairly small number. This shows that the Chiral Quark Soliton Models, independently of the details, agree well with large $`N_c`$ QCD fit (with the SU(3) breaking included)  to the existing data (including decuplet decays), which gives $`a_8=0.27\pm 0.09`$. A simple parametrization of the SU(3) breaking proposed in Ref. assumed that the effective ratio $`F/D`$ for given decay $`if`$ was proportional to the dimensionless parameter $`\delta =\left[\left(m_i+m_f\right)\left(m_p+m_n\right)\right]/\left[\left(m_i+m_f\right)+\left(m_p+m_n\right)\right]`$. Then, by an appropriate interpolation, for the neutron $`\beta `$ decay one gets $`F/D=0.49\pm 0.08`$, less than the typical SU(3) value. This translates in turn into $`a_8=0.4`$. Similar value for $`a_8`$ was obtained in Ref. where a simple model of strange ss̄-pairs suppression, parametrized by a single parameter $`\epsilon `$, both in neutron and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, was considered. The resulting value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}=0.280.31`$ was almost independent of $`\epsilon `$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}`$ was quite sensitive, increasing with $`\epsilon `$ from $`0.10`$ at $`\epsilon =0`$ to $`0.04`$ at $`\epsilon =2`$. In this respect the model of Ref. is in qualitative agreement with our present study. Subsequently $`a_8`$ calculated from Eq.(11) of Ref. decreases from the symmetry value $`a_8=0.575`$ to $`a_8=0.42`$ for $`\epsilon =2`$. Interestingly, for this range of small $`a_8`$ the global analysis of Ref. indicates, as seen from Fig.3, that $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}`$ is compatible with zero and $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is also very small.

There are, however, other models which predict $`a_8`$ larger than the typical symmetry value. Chiral perturbation theory with kaon loops  gives $`a_8=0.8`$. Here both $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{p}`$ are sensitive to the strength of the symmetry breaking, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_\mathrm{p}`$ are not. The successful phenomenological model of S.B.Gerasimov  presented at this conference predicts in general $`a_8>0.8`$. An even larger value for $`a_8`$ was obtained in Ref. in a model where quark spin polarization is mass dependent.

To complete the model spectrum let us mention the recoil model of Ref. where the ratio $`F/D`$ (hence $`a_8`$) remains not affected by the symmetry breaking. However, Ref. predicted $`(g_1/f_1)^{(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}=1.17`$ to $`1.14`$ $`\pm 0.03`$ which is significantly lower than the recentKTeV result . Similar value for $`a_8`$ was obtained in Ref. where the most general form of a baryon matrix element of an axial-vector current has been considered. In this respect the model of Ref. is in principle parallel to our approach; also the number of free parameters is $`6`$ ($`4`$ of them proportional to $`m_s`$) as in our case. However, the authors of Ref. did not consider two measured decays $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. For that reason they tried to reduce the parameter space and performed 4 fits with only one $`m_s`$ dependent parameter being different from 0. This is perhaps the reason why their conclusions are different from ours.

Let us briefly summarize our findings. We have performed the ”model-independent” analysis of the hyperon semileptonic decays based on the algebraic structure of the Chiral Quark Soliton Model. There are two model ingredients which are of importance. The first one is the model formula for the octet axial-vector currents which have been derived in the linear order in $`m_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`1/N_\mathrm{c}`$. Our formulae here have the same algebraical structure as in the large $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ QCD , and therefore they are more general than the model itself. Secondly, in contrast to pure QCD, the model provides a link between the octet axial-vector currents and the singlet axial-vector current. This connection is a truly model-dependent ingredient, however, we have given the arguments in favor of Eq.(13) based on the fact that apart from the general success of the $`\chi `$QSM in reproducing the form factors and parton distributions, in the limit of the small soliton it properly reduces to the Nonrelativistic Quark Model prediction, and in the limit of the large soliton it reproduces the Skyrme Model prediction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Similarly, in Ref. the argument has been given that Eq.(13) naturally emerges in the limit of the large $`m_\mathrm{s}`$, where the SU(3) flavor symmetry reduces to the SU(2) one. In Refs. we have shown that if we abandon the model formula for $`a_0`$ and use instead $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{p}`$ as an additional input, then the resulting $`a_0`$ is numerically almost identical to the one obtained within the model. This provides a further support for the model formula for $`a_0`$.

Numerically our results suffer from large errors due to the experimental errors of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays. It is therefore of utmost importance to measure these two decays (and also $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$) with the precision comparable to the other four decays. One should bare in mind that this is one of a few cases, where the low energy data have an important impact on our understanding of the high energy scattering. Given the theoretical implications of these experiments as far as the role of the axial anomaly and the gluon polarization is concerned , one should make it clear how important the new measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{,0}`$ decays would be.

Within the experimental uncertainty we conclude that in our approach $`a_8`$ is smaller than the typical SU(3) value, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_\mathrm{p}`$ in the proton is not incompatible with $`0`$. Another important feature is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s for different hyperons split when the symmetry breaking is included. One should, however, keep in mind that the theoretical situation concerning the size and direction of the SU(3) breaking is not clear.

This work was supported by the Polish KBN Grant PB 2 P03B 019 17 and Bogolyubov-Infeld Program of JINR-Poland collaboration (M.P.), the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation grant No. R01-2001-00014 (H.-Ch.K.) and the BMBF, DFG, and COSY–Project. M.P. thanks the organizers of the Spin 2001 Workshop, especially A.V. Efremov, form warm hospitality and B.S. Gerasimov, A.V. Sidorov, D.B. Stamenov and O.V. Teraev for discussion and remarks.