text:
# 1 Evolution of the gravitational potential at the superhorizon scale for the case where 𝛿ϕ̃ᵢ≠0 and Ψ̃ᵢ=0. The horizontal axis is the scale factor 𝑎 whose normalization is arbitrary, and the vertical axis is Ψ̃^(𝛿ϕ) normalized by 𝑆̃ᵢ. The lines (A) and (B) correspond to cases with different initial modulus amplitude; ϕ̄ᵢ² for the line (A) is 10 times larger than that of (B).

In superstring theory , it is well known that there are various flat directions parameterized by scalar fields. (Hereafter, we call these fields as “moduli” fields.) Since their potential is usually generated by effects of supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking, their masses are expected to be of the order of the gravitino mass. Although masses of the moduli fields can be as light as (or even lighter than) the electroweak scale, moduli fields do not affect collider experiments since their interactions are suppressed by inverse powers of the gravitational scale.

Cosmologically, however, they may cause serious problems . Since the modulus field $`\varphi `$ is a scalar field, its primordial amplitude may be displaced from the minimum of the potential, and this is naturally the case unless the minimum of the potential is protected by some symmetry . If such a displacement exists, then the modulus field starts to oscillate at later stage of the universe and dominates the energy density of the universe. Since the interaction of the modulus field is expected to be suppressed by inverse powers of the gravitational scale, its decay width is at most

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^3}{M_{}^2}},`$ (1)
where $`m_\varphi `$ is the mass of the modulus field and $`M_{}2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck scale. Using Eq. (1), $`\varphi `$ decays before the present epoch if $`m_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}O(100\mathrm{MeV})`$. In this case, the reheating temperature is estimated as

$`T_\mathrm{R}1.2g_{}^{1/4}\sqrt{M_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }1.2\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV}\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi }{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{3/2},`$ (2)
where $`g_{}`$ is the effective number of the massless degrees of freedom, and hence reheating temperature becomes lower than $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ if $`m_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}O(10\mathrm{TeV})`$. With such a low reheating temperature, the great success of the standard big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) is spoiled. For lighter moduli fields ($`m_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}O(100\mathrm{MeV})`$), they survive until today and overclose the universe. Thus, the cosmological moduli fields cause extremely serious problems in cosmology.

One solution to these difficulties is to push up the mass of the moduli fields . In particular, in Ref. , it was pointed out that the scenario with heavy moduli can naturally fit into the framework of the anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking . Indeed, according to Eq. (2), the reheating temperature can be higher than $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ if $`m_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}O(10\mathrm{TeV})`$. In this case, the BBN occurs after the decay of the modulus field. In this letter, we consider this scenario and study its consequence in the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

Although, in the case with the modulus field, the thermal history after the BBN is mostly the same as the standard one, cosmology before the modulus decay is completely different. In particular, it should be noted that the CMB we observe today is from the decay of the modulus field while, in the conventional case, it is from the decay of the inflaton. Importantly, non-adiabatic fluctuation may be imprinted in the initial amplitude of the modulus field during the inflation, and we may observe a non-standard signal in the CMB angular power spectrum. Indeed, as we will see below, correlated mixture of adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations may be induced, which results in enhanced CMB angular power spectrum at higher multipoles relative to that of lower ones.#1#1#1For other mechanism of generating correlated mixiture of adiabatic and isocurvature fluctuations, see .

To understand the effect of the cosmological modulus field, let us follow the evolution of the modulus field from the epoch of the inflation. During the inflation, quantum fluctuation of the inflaton field generates the source of the adiabatic perturbation. Such an effect is well parameterized by the gauge-invariant potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which is related to the perturbed line element in the Newtonian gauge:

$`ds^2=(1+2\mathrm{\Psi })dt^2+a^2(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$ (3)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor. (We use the notation of Ref. .) Denoting $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ induced during the inflation as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{i}`$, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}(k)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}^2}{2\pi |\dot{\chi }|}}\right]_{k=aH_{\mathrm{inf}}},`$ (4)
where $`k`$ is the comoving momentum, $`\chi `$ is the inflaton field, the “dot” is the derivative with respect to time $`t`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is the expansion rate during the inflation. (Hereafter, the “tilde” is used for Fourier components of the correlation function with the measure $`d\mathrm{ln}k`$. For example, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{y})=d\mathrm{ln}k|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)|^2e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}`$.) If there is no modulus field, this is the only source of the cosmic density fluctuation. However, if the modulus field exists, its amplitude may also fluctuate, which can be a source of the density fluctuation. If the mass of the modulus is negligibly small relative to the expansion rate during the inflation,#2#2#2If the mass of the modulus is comparable to or larger than $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ becomes negligibly small and the resultant CMB power spectrum is completely the same as the conventional adiabatic case. Therefore, we do not consider such a case. we obtain

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{2\pi }}.`$ (5)
Hereafter, we assume that the initial amplitude of the modulus field is large enough so that we can treat $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ as a perturbation. Importantly, two fluctuations $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ are uncorrelated and hence we can study their effects separately. Effects of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$ have been intensively studied , and hereafter, we concentrate on effects of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$.

After inflation, inflaton field starts to oscillate and then decays. Then, the universe is reheated and the radiation dominated universe is realized. (We call this epoch as “RD1” epoch.) During this epoch, the unperturbed modulus amplitude $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and the perturbation in $`\varphi `$, denoted as $`\delta \varphi `$, obey the following equations of motion:

$`\ddot{\overline{\varphi }}+3H\dot{\overline{\varphi }}+V^{}(\overline{\varphi })=0,`$ (6)
$`\ddot{\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}+3H\dot{\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}+V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\varphi })\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }=2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}V^{},`$ (7)
where $`H`$ is the expansion rate of the universe, $`V(\varphi )`$ is the potential of $`\varphi `$, and the “prime” is the derivative with respect to $`\varphi `$. Since the modes we are interested in are at the superhorizon scale during the RD1 epoch, we neglect the $`k`$-dependent term in Eq. (7) in the following discussion. In addition, we adopt the simplest potential for the modulus field:

$`V(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2.`$ (8)
With this potential, notice that, in the long wavelength limit (i.e., $`k0`$), $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ obey the same equation if we neglect the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

It is instructive to discuss qualitative behaviors of $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. When $`Hm_\varphi `$, $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ both stay constant. As the universe expands, however, the expansion rate decreases and $`H`$ becomes comparable to $`m_\varphi `$ at some point. Then, $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ both start to oscillate. We assume that the reheating temperature after the inflation is high enough so that the modulus field starts to oscillate in the radiation dominated universe. We also assume that the initial amplitude of the modulus field $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ is smaller than $`M_{}`$; if this condition is satisfied, the energy density of the modulus field is smaller than that of radiation when $`Hm_\varphi `$ is satisfied.

Once the modulus field starts to oscillate, equation of state for $`\varphi `$ becomes $`\omega _\varphi 0`$ and $`\varphi `$ behaves as a non-relativistic matter. Therefore, the situation is like the conventional system with radiation and cold dark matter (CDM) components with primordial isocurvature perturbation in the CDM sector. In particular, notice that the energy density of the modulus is proportional to $`a^3`$, and hence the energy density of the modulus takes over that of radiation as the universe expands even though initially $`\rho _\gamma \rho _\varphi `$, where $`\rho _\gamma `$ and $`\rho _\varphi `$ are energy densities of the radiation and modulus field, respectively. Therefore, at some point, the energy density of the universe is dominated by that of the modulus field. (We call this epoch as “modulus dominated” or “$`\varphi `$D” epoch.)

To study this system, it is convenient to define the entropy between the modulus and the radiation:

$`S_{\varphi \gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\varphi }{\rho _\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }},`$ (9)
where $`\delta \rho _\gamma `$ and $`\delta \rho _\varphi `$ are fluctuations in $`\rho _\gamma `$ and $`\rho _\varphi `$, respectively. Since $`S_{\varphi \gamma }`$ is independent of time when $`\omega _\varphi `$ becomes 0, we need to know its initial value. For this purpose, it is convenient to use the fact that, for a given $`\overline{\varphi }(t)`$ which is a solution to Eq. (6), $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is given by

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}(k)}{\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}}}\overline{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)\dot{\overline{\varphi }}t,`$ (10)
where we used an approximation that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a constant, which is a good approximation in the radiation dominated universe. In addition, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ is the initial value of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ which is given in Eq. (5). We identify the first and second terms as isocurvature and adiabatic fluctuations in the modulus amplitude, respectively. Indeed, with the second term (with relevant perturbation in the radiation sector to generate $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$), $`S_{\varphi \gamma }`$ vanishes. On the contrary, with the first term, $`S_{\varphi \gamma }`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\varphi \gamma }(t)=\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}(k)\stackrel{~}{S}_{\varphi \gamma }(t0)={\displaystyle \frac{2\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}(k)}{\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}}}.`$ (11)
Notice that, if $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ is independent of $`k`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}`$ is also independent of $`k`$.

We numerically followed the evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ from the RD1 to the modulus dominated epoch. In Fig. 1, we plot the evolution of the gravitational potential as a function of the scale factor $`a`$. Notice that, for the line (A) (line (B)), the epochs with $`a_{}^<10^3`$ and $`a_{}^>10^3`$ ($`a_{}^<10^2`$ and $`a_{}^>10^2`$) correspond to the RD1 and modulus dominated epochs, respectively. It is interesting to compare cases with different values of $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$. As $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ decreases, the modulus dominated universe is realized at later stage, as seen in Fig. 1. However, the resultant value of the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\delta \varphi )}/\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}`$ is independent of $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ and is always $`0.2`$. We also checked that the result is independent of $`k`$ as far as we consider fluctuations at the superhorizon scale .

Behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ given in Fig. 1 can be understood by denoting that the evolution of the density fluctuations in this case is exactly like the conventional isocurvature case. When the universe is radiation dominated, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ is proportional to $`a`$. On the other hand, once the universe is dominated by the non-relativistic matter (i.e., the modulus field), $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ becomes the constant. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at the modulus dominated epoch is related to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\varphi \mathrm{D}}^{(\delta \varphi )}(k)=0.2\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}(k),`$ (12)
where the suffix $`(\delta \varphi )`$ means that this quantity is induced by $`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{i}`$. The relation (12) holds until the modulus field decays.

When the expansion rate of the universe becomes comparable to the decay rate of $`\varphi `$, the modulus field decays and energy density stored in the modulus sector is transferred to that of radiation. Then, a radiation dominated universe is again realized. (We call this epoch as “RD2” epoch.) When $`\varphi `$ decays, the density fluctuation in the modulus sector is also transferred to the radiation. This results in a change in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$: with the decay, the equation of state of the dominant component of the universe changes from $`0`$ to $`1/3`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ varies by the factor of $`10/9`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\delta \varphi )}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{10}{9}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\varphi \mathrm{D}}^{(\delta \varphi )}(k).`$ (13)
After the decay of the modulus field, we assume that scenario of the standard cosmology (like the neutrino decoupling, standard BBN, recombination, and so on) follows.

Now, we are at the position to discuss the CMB angular power spectrum from the scenario with the modulus field. First, we should emphasize that there are two independent sources of the CMB anisotropy, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$. Therefore, the resultant CMB angular power spectrum is given in the following form:

$`C_l=C_l^{(\mathrm{adi})}+C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}.`$ (14)
Here, $`C_l^{(\mathrm{adi})}`$ is from the perturbation in the inflaton field, which is of order $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}^2`$. On the contrary, $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ is from the primordial fluctuation of the modulus amplitude, which is of order $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}^2`$. (Notice that there is no term which is of order $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$, since two fluctuations are uncorrelated.) $`C_l^{(\mathrm{adi})}`$ can be calculated by following the standard method.

In calculating $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$, we must specify the origin of the CDM and baryon. Here, we assume that the CDM is generated by the decay of the modulus field. (For example, if the lightest superparticle (LSP) is stable, decay of the modulus field may generate right amount of the LSP for the CDM .) In this case, after the decay of the modulus field, there is no entropy between the CDM and radiation.

On the contrary, origin of the baryon asymmetry is more controversial. Here, we consider two possibilities: (i) the baryon asymmetry is (somehow) generated at the time of (or after) the decay of the modulus field, or (ii) the Affleck-Dine (AD) mechanism  generates the baryon number much before the decay of the modulus field.

Let us first consider the case where the baryon number is generated by the decay of the modulus field. In this case, there is no entropy between the baryon and the radiation, so the cosmic fluctuations are exactly like the conventional adiabatic case once the modulus field decays. Thus, if we neglect the scale dependences of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$, $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ is proportional to $`C_l^{(\mathrm{adi})}`$. Therefore, in this case, the CMB angular power spectrum is the same as the usual adiabatic case if the normalization of the initial fluctuations are properly chosen. However, this fact has significant implications when we construct a model of inflation. First of all, since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{(\delta \varphi )}O(H_{\mathrm{inf}}/\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i})`$, we may generate large cosmic perturbation by lowering $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ even if $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ is small. Furthermore, usually, scale dependence of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$ is milder than that of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$. Consequently, when $`C_l^{(\mathrm{adi})}C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ is realized, the resultant CMB angular power spectrum may be like that from the scale-invariant adiabatic perturbation even if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}`$ has a strong scale dependence. These facts relax constraints on the potential of the inflaton field. For example, this scenario provides an interesting mechanism to lower the scale of inflation (i.e., $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$).

Now we consider the case where the baryon asymmetry is due to the AD mechanism. In this case, the amplitude of the AD field may fluctuate and it can provide a new source of the cosmic perturbations. In general, perturbation in the AD field may be generated during the inflation, which is $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}/2\pi `$ if the effective mass of the AD field during inflation is much smaller than $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$. If such a fluctuation exists, it becomes a source of an uncorrelated isocurvature perturbation in the baryonic sector. To make our point clearer, we assume that the initial value of the fluctuation in the AD field is negligibly small. This may happen when, for example, the effective mass of the AD field is comparable to $`H_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ during the inflation. It should be also noted that, if the initial amplitude of the AD field is much larger than $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$, effects of the fluctuations in the AD field becomes also negligible. (Effects of the fluctuations in the AD field will be discussed elsewhere .)

Even when there is no primordial fluctuation in the AD field, however, non-vanishing isocurvature fluctuation is eventually generated in the baryonic sector if $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}0`$. If we calculate the entropy between the baryon and $`\varphi `$ before the decay of the modulus field, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{b\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_b}{\rho _b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi }{\rho _\varphi }}=\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i},`$ (15)
where we have used the fact that $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_b0`$ as $`a0`$. This entropy is conserved until the modulus field decays, and it becomes the entropy between the photon and baryon after the decay of the modulus field. Therefore, in calculating $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ which is generated by the primordial fluctuation in the modulus amplitude, initial condition for the baryonic density fluctuation is different from the conventional adiabatic case, and is given by, in deep radiation dominated epoch,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_b}{\rho _b}}|_{\mathrm{RD2}}=\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{i}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}|_{\mathrm{RD2}}=4.5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\delta \varphi )}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}|_{\mathrm{RD2}}.`$ (16)
Notice that the first term in the right-handed side of the above equation does not exist in the usual adiabatic ones. Initial conditions for other perturbations are the same as the usual adiabatic case. The first term in Eq. (16) gives rise to the non-vanishing entropy in the baryonic sector and hence we call it as the “isocurvature” term. Here, it should be emphasized that such an isocurvature fluctuation is correlated with the contribution from $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ which gives rise to the effect like the conventional adiabatic fluctuation. Thus, the effect of this “isocurvature” fluctuation is completely different from the conventional uncorrelated isocurvature fluctuation and, as we will see below, its effect may be observable in future satellite experiments.

In Fig. 2, we show $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ for the case with the correlated isocurvature perturbation in the baryonic sector. For comparison, we also plot the angular power spectra with purely adiabatic perturbation and with purely baryonic isocurvature perturbation. As we can see, $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$ is completely different from other two cases; for the case with correlated isocurvature perturbation, the CMB angular power spectrum at higher multipoles is enhanced relative to that for the lower ones compared to other cases . Thus, if the total angular power spectrum has some contamination of $`C_l^{(\delta \varphi )}`$, $`C_l`$ at higher multipoles is enhanced relative to that at lower ones. Notice that such a signal is distinguishable from that with uncorrelated isocurvature perturbation, and that it may provide an interesting evidence of the cosmological moduli fields.

Now, we show the total CMB angular power spectrum with such a correlated isocurvature fluctuation in the baryonic density fluctuation. Since there are two sources of the cosmic perturbations, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{i}`$ (or equivalently, $`\delta \varphi _\mathrm{i}`$), we define#3#3#3For simplicity, we neglect the scale dependence of $`R`$.

$`R{\displaystyle \frac{S_\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\mathrm{adi})}}},`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\mathrm{adi})}`$ is the gravitational potential in the adiabatic mode during the RD2 epoch, which is related to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{i}`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RD2}}^{(\mathrm{adi})}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{i}.`$ (18)
For the case of $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}M_{}`$, $`R`$ is expected to be $`O(1)`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mathrm{i}O(H_{\mathrm{inf}}/M_{})`$, which is the case in, for example, the chaotic inflation models. However, in general, $`R`$ can be much larger or smaller than $`1`$ depending on the model of the inflation as well as on $`\overline{\varphi }_\mathrm{i}`$, and hence we treat $`R`$ as a free parameter.

In Fig. 3, we plot the total CMB angular power spectrum for several values of $`R`$. Here (and in the following analysis), the overall normalization of $`C_l`$ is determined such that the goodness-of-fit parameter $`\chi ^2=2\mathrm{ln}L`$, where $`L`$ is the likelihood function, is minimized. In our analysis, following Ref. , the offset lognormal approximation is used. In addition, we take account of the data from COBE , BOOMERanG , MAXIMA , and DASI . For our numerical analysis, we use RADPACK package  to calculate $`\chi ^2`$, which is based on 24, 19, 13, and 9 band powers from COBE, BOOMERanG, MAXIMA, and DASI, respectively.#4#4#4For the BOOMERanG and MAXIMA data, the cross-correlations between the band powers are not included in our analysis since they are not available. As one can see, correlated isocurvature perturbation in the baryonic sector may result in an enhancement of $`C_l`$ at higher multipoles relative to that at lower ones. Therefore, future satellite experiment will give us interesting tests of the scenario with the cosmological moduli fields.

In fact, even the existing data for the CMB power spectrum provides a constraint on the parameter $`R`$. Since $`C_l`$ at higher multipoles becomes larger as $`R`$ increases, too large $`R`$ is excluded. In Fig. 4, we plot the $`\chi ^2`$ variable as a function of $`R`$, where we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.019`$, and several values of $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. As one can see, the value of $`\chi ^2`$ is sensitive to the cosmological parameters since the heights and locations of the acoustic peaks depend on them. For example, taking $`(h,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m})=(0.65,0.019,0.3)`$, which results in the most conservative upper bound on $`R`$ among the data sets used in Fig. 4, and requiring $`\chi ^284`$, which gives 95 % C.L. allowed region for the $`\chi ^2`$ statistics with 64 degrees of freedom, we obtain the constraint $`R4.5`$. Thus, we can exclude the case where the CMB anisotropy is purely from the primordial fluctuation in the modulus amplitude (i.e., the case of $`R\mathrm{}`$).

In summary, we have studied the effects of the cosmological moduli fields on the CMB anisotropy. Importantly, if a cosmological modulus field exists, it may significantly affect the CMB. In particular, in the scenario with the cosmological moduli fields, correlated isocurvature fluctuation may exist in the baryonic sector which results in enhanced CMB angular power spectrum at higher multipoles relative to that at lower ones. Such an effect can be a striking signal from the cosmological moduli fields, and it may be observed in future satellite experiments. In addition, even in the case where there is no isocurvature perturbation, the cosmological modulus field may have important implication to the model-building of the inflation; it may relax constraints on the inflaton potential. In particular, the cosmological modulus field provides an interesting possibility to lower the scale of the inflation adopting smaller value of the initial amplitude of the modulus field. In fact, similar mechanism of changing the constraints on the inflaton potential may work with the AD field; in this case the baryon asymmetry is from the decay of the AD field and the correlated isocurvature perturbation in the baryonic sector is absent. More detailed discussion in this case will be given elsewhere .

Note added: While preparing the manuscript, we found a paper by D.H. Lyth and D. Wands , which has some overlap with our analyses.

Acknowledgment: This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, No. 12047201 and No. 13740138.


format: text

text:
# Was GRB 990123 a unique optical flash?

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of a prompt and extremely bright optical flash in GRB 990123 (Akerlof et al. 1999), implying an apparent peak (isotropic) optical luminosity of $`5\times 10^{49}`$ erg s-1, has lead to widespread speculation that the observed radiation arose from the reverse shock component of the burst. The reverse shock propagates into the adiabatically cooled particles of the coasting ejecta, decelerating the shell particles and shocking the shell material with an amount of internal energy comparable to that of the material shocked by the forward shock. The typical temperature in the reverse-shocked fluid is, however, considerably lower than that of the forward-shocked fluid. Consequently, the typical frequency of the synchrotron emission from the reverse shock peaks at lower energy. It is believed to account for the bright prompt optical emission from GRB 990123. The reverse shock emission stops once the entire shell has been shocked and the reverse shock reaches the inner edge of the fluid. The ejecta cool adiabatically after the reverse shock has passed through and settled down into a part of the Blandford & McKee 1976 (BM) solution that determines the late profile of the decelerating shell and the external medium.

Given the importance of this prediction, we estimate the prompt reverse shock emission expected from bursts in which multi-frequency data has been able to constrain the burst physical parameters. We find a broad range of model parameters for which a strong optical flash is expected from most of these bursts. Unfortunately, no observations to search for an optical flash were performed for these cases. The possible reasons for the absence of detectable optical flux in other bursts are highlighted, along with the predictions that may be useful for designing search strategies for the rapid follow up of optical flashes. Unlike the continuous forward shock, the hydrodynamic evolution of the reverse-shocked ejecta is more fragile. As we will demonstrate, the temperature of the reverse-shocked fluid is expected to be non-relativistic for most of these bursts and thus the evolution of their ejecta deviates from the BM solution. The detection of optical flashes, or firm upper limits, would play an important role in discriminating between cold and hot shell evolution. Moreover, the strong dependence of the peak time of this optical flash on the bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ provides a way to estimate this elusive parameter. We discuss how different constraints on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for GRB 990123 are consistent with optical emission from the reverse shock. We assume $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

## 2 The Role of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

Relativistic source expansion plays a crucial role in virtually all current GRB models (Piran 1999; Mészáros 2001). The Lorentz factor is not, however, well determined by observations. The lack of apparent photon-photon attenuation up to $`0.1`$ GeV implies only a lower limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }30`$ (Mészáros, Laguna & Rees 1993), while the observed pulse width evolution in the gamma-ray phase eliminates scenarios in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>>10^3`$ (Lazzati, Ghisellini & Celotti 2001; Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore 2000). The initial Lorentz factor is set by the baryon loading, that is $`m_0c^2`$, where $`m_0`$ is the mass of the expanding ejecta. This energy must be converted to radiation in an optically-thin region, as the observed bursts are non-thermal. The radius of transparency of the ejecta is

$$R_\tau =\left(\frac{\sigma _TE}{4\pi m_pc^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)^{1/2}10^{12}10^{13}\mathrm{cm},$$
(1)
where $`E`$ is the isotropic equivalent energy generated by the central site. The highly variable $`\gamma `$-ray light curves can be understood in terms of internal shocks produced by velocity variations within the relativistic outflow (Rees & Mészáros 1994). In an unsteady outflow, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ were to vary by a factor of $``$ 2 on a timescale $`\delta T`$, then internal shocks would develop at a distance $`R_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c\delta TR_\tau `$. This is followed by the development of a blast wave expanding into the external medium, and a reverse shock moving back into the ejecta. The inertia of the swept-up external matter decelerates the shell ejecta significantly by the time it reaches the deceleration radius (Mészáros & Rees 1993),

$$R_\mathrm{d}=\left(\frac{E}{n_0m_pc^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2}\right)^{1/3}10^{16}10^{17}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(2)
Given a certain external baryon density $`n_0`$, the initial Lorentz factor then strongly determines where both internal and external shocks develop. Changes in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ will modify the dynamics of the shock deceleration and the manifestations of the afterglow emission.

## 3 Reverse Shock emission and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$

It has been predicted that the reverse shock produces a prompt optical flash brighter than 15th magnitude with reasonable energy requirements of no more than a few $`10^{53}`$ erg emitted isotropically (Mészáros & Rees 1999; Sari & Piran 1999a; hereinafter MR99 and SP99). The forward shock emission is continuous, but the reverse shock terminates once the shock has crossed the shell and the cooling frequency has dropped below the observed range. The reverse shock contains, at the time it crosses the shell, an amount of energy comparable to that in the forward one. However, its effective temperature is significantly lower (typically by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). Using the shock jump conditions and assuming that the electrons and the magnetic field acquire a fraction of the equipartition energy $`\epsilon _e`$ and $`\epsilon _B`$ respectively, one can describe the hydrodynamic and magnetic conditions behind the shock.

The reverse shock synchrotron spectrum is determined by the ordering of three break frequencies, the self-absorption frequency $`\nu _a`$, the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ and the characteristic synchrotron frequency $`\nu _m`$, which are easily calculated by comparing them to those of the forward shock (MR99; SP99; Panaitescu & Kumar 2000). The equality of energy density across the contact discontinuity suggests that the magnetic fields in both regions are of comparable strength.

Assuming that the forward and reverse shocks both move with a similar Lorentz factor, the reverse shock synchrotron frequency is given by

$$v_m=5.840\times 10^{13}ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}n_{0,0}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^2(1+z)^{1/4}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(3)
while the cooling frequency $`\nu _c`$ is equal to that of the forward shock. Here we adopt the convention $`Q=10^xQ_x`$ for expressing the physical parameters, using cgs units. The spectral power $`F_{\nu _m}`$ at the characteristic synchrotron frequency is

$$F_{\nu _m}=4.17D_{28}^2ϵ_{B,2}^{1/2}E_{53}n_{0,0}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}(1+z)^{3/8}\mathrm{Jy}.$$
(4)
The distribution of the injected electrons is assumed to be a power law of index $`p`$, above a minimum Lorentz factor $`\gamma _i`$. For an adiabatic blast wave, the corresponding spectral flux at a given frequency above $`\nu _m`$ is $`F_\nu F_{\nu _m}(\nu /\nu _m)^{(p1)/2}`$, while below $`\nu _m`$ is characterised by a synchrotron tail with $`F_\nu F_{\nu _m}(\nu /\nu _m)^{1/3}`$. Similar relations to those found for a radiative forward shock hold for the reverse shock (Kobayashi 2000; hereinafter K00).

Unlike the synchrotron spectrum, the afterglow light curve at a fixed frequency strongly depends on the hydrodynamics of the relativistic shell, which determines the temporal evolution of the break frequencies $`\nu _m`$ and $`\nu _c`$. The forward shock is always highly relativistic and thus is successfully described using the relativistic generalisation of the theory of supernova remnants. In contrast, the reverse shock can be mildly relativistic. In this regime, the shocked shell is unable to heat the ejecta to sufficiently high temperatures and its evolution deviates from the BM solution (Kobayashi & Sari 2000; hereinafter KS00). Shells satisfying

$$\xi 0.01E_{52}^{1/6}\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,2}^{4/3}n_{0,1}^{1/6}>1,$$
(5)
are likely to have a Newtonian reverse shock111 It should be remarked that equations (3) and (4) refer to this reverse shock regime. Equations for the relativistic case are realtively similar, the biggest discrepancy being that the peak flux is inversely proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see equations (7)-(9) of K00)., otherwise the reverse shock is relativistic and it considerably decelerates the ejecta. The width of the shell, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, can be inferred directly from the observed burst duration by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=cT_{\mathrm{dur}}/(1+z)`$ assuming the shell does not undergo significant spreading (Piran 1999).

If $`\xi >1`$, then the reverse shock is in the sub-relativistic temperature regime for which there are no known analytical solutions. In order to constrain the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in this regime it is common to assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }R^g`$ where $`3/2g7/2`$ (MR99; KS00). For an adiabatic expansion, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^{g/(1+2g)}`$ and so $`\nu _mT^{3(8+5g)/7(1+2g)}`$ and $`F_{\nu _m}T^{(12+11g)/7(1+2g)}`$. The spectral flux at a given frequency expected from the reverse shock gas drops then as $`T^{2(2+3g)/7(1+2g)}`$ below $`\nu _m`$ and $`T^{(7+24p+15pg)/14(1+2g)}`$ above. For a typical spectral index $`p=2.5`$, the flux decay index varies in a relatively narrow range ($`0.4`$) between limiting values of $`g`$.

## 4 Constraints on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of GRB 990123

Despite ongoing observational attempts, the optical flash associated with GRB 990123 remains the only event of its kind detected to date. Observations of this optical flash appear to be in good agreement with early predictions for the reverse shock emission (Sari & Piran 1999b). As a result, numerous studies have been done on this event in which reverse shock theory has been applied to burst observations in order to constrain physical parameters and burst properties, including $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Current estimates on the bulk Lorentz factor for GRB 990123 stretch over nearly an order of magnitude, with values ranging from $`200`$ (SP99) to $`1200`$ (Wang, Dai & Lu 2000). It should be noted, however, that these estimates were made before accurate burst parameters for GRB 990123 were known, and consequently they include approximations and parameters from other GRB afterglows.

By fitting multi-frequency afterglow light curves, physical parameters for 8 GRBs have recently been reported (Panaitescu $`\&`$ Kumar 2001b, hereinafter PK01). Best fit values presented for GRB 990123 are $`E_{j,50}=1.5_{0.4}^{+3.3}`$ (initial jet energy), $`\theta _0=2.1_{0.9}^{+0.1}`$, $`n_{0,3}=1.9_{1.5}^{+0.5}`$ , $`ϵ_{e,2}=13_4^{+1}`$, $`ϵ_{B,4}=7.4_{5.9}^{+23}`$, and $`p=2.28_{0.03}^{+0.05}`$ with a rough estimate for the bulk Lorentz factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1400\pm 700`$ (Panaitescu & Kumar 2001a). Using these physical parameters, we present a comprehensive examination of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and report a best-fit value based on an analysis of these constraints.

Observational estimates for the time of peak flux enabled a measurement of the initial Lorentz factor with reasonable accuracy using the physical parameters specific to GRB 990123. Assuming the optical flash was the result of the reverse shock, the initial bulk Lorentz factor

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=237E_{52}^{1/8}n_{0,0}^{1/8}T_{\mathrm{d},1}^{3/8}(1+z)^{3/8}$$
(6)
where $`T_\mathrm{d}`$ is the time of peak flux in the observer frame. Light curves for the optical flash and $`\gamma `$-ray emission are shown in Figure 1. Dashed lines represent theoretical predictions for the rise $`T^{3p3/2}`$ and decay $`T^{(21+73p)/96}`$ of an adiabatic reverse shock light curve, assuming the shell is thin, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }<(E/(2n_0m_\mathrm{p}c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^8))^{1/3}`$, and cooling slowly (K00). Using the recently reported physical parameters, one finds GRB 990123 to have a marginal thickness, as predicted by K00. The observed rise time is, however, in good agreement with that of a thin shell $`T^{5.5}`$ (in contrast with $`T^{1/2}`$ for a thick shell). The shape of the light curve is determined by the time evolution of the three spectral break frequencies, which in turn depend on the hydrodynamical evolution of the fireball. In the case of GRB 990123, the typical synchrotron frequency $`\nu _m=1.5\times 10^{14}`$ Hz is well below the cooling frequency $`\nu _c=1.0\times 10^{19}`$ Hz, and therefore places the burst in a regime with a flux decay governed by the relation $`F_\nu T^{(21+73p)/96}`$. This implies a decay of $`T^2`$ for the optical flash of GRB 990123. Applying these light curve predictions to the prompt optical data and taking observational uncertainties as well as burst parameter uncertainties into account, we predict that the optical flash peaked $`T_{\mathrm{peak}}41\pm 6`$ s after the GRB started. Substitution for $`T_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ in equation (6) gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=770\pm 50`$.

Observations of the optical peak brightness enable further accurate constraints on the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The synchrotron spectrum from relativistic electrons comprises four power-law segments, separated by three critical frequencies. The prompt optical flash in GRB 990123 is observed at a frequency that falls well below the cooling frequency, but above the typical synchrotron frequency: $`\nu _a<\nu _m<\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}<\nu _c`$. The synchrotron spectrum for this spectral segment is given by $`F_{obs}=F_{\nu _m}(\nu _{obs}/\nu _m)^{(p1)/2}(1+z)^{1/2p/8}`$ where $`\nu _{obs}`$ is taken to be the ROTSE optical frequency. Assuming the optical peak flux $`F_{obs}`$ observed in GRB 990123 is radiation arising from the reverse shock, we find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1800_{500}^{+600}`$.

Although observations of a reverse shock induced optical peak enable fairly accurate calculations of the bulk Lorentz factor, it remains possible to obtain information on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in situations when an optical flash has not been detected. Consider an internal shock which produces an instantaneous burst of isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray emission at a time, $`t`$, and radius, $`R_i`$, in the frame of the central engine. The kinematics of colliding shells implies that although photons are emitted simultaneously, the curvature of the emitting shell spreads the arrival time of the emission over a period of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{p}`$, thereby producing the observed width in individual pulses. The delay in arrival time between on-axis photons and those at $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is a function of the radius of emission and the Lorentz factor according to: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{p}/(1+z)=R_\mathrm{i}/(2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in the early phase of the expansion (Fenimore, Madras & Nayakshin 1996). In order to allow photons to escape, $`R_\mathrm{i}`$ must be larger than the radius of transparency $`R_\tau `$. This imposes a lower limit on the initial bulk Lorentz factor such that: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>(R_\tau /2c\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{p})^{1/2}(1+z)^{1/2}`$. We determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{p}`$ for GRB 990123 by measuring the average pulse width through autocorrelation methods based on those described in Fenimore, Ramirez-Ruiz & Wu (1999) and find $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{p}0.45`$ s. Using the burst parameters to estimate $`R_\tau `$ from equation (1) and applying the inequality relation defined above, we find a lower limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>200`$. Figure 2 displays the collective constraints on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for GRB 990123. An additional lower limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>300`$ constraint from afterglow modelling is also included (Panaitescu & Kumar 2002). The combination of these constraints leads to an average bulk Lorentz factor for GRB 990123 of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=900\pm 100`$ and thus $`R_\tau 1.3\times 10^{14}`$.

## 5 GRB 991023: A unique optical flash?

Throughout the two years since its discovery, the optical flash associated with GRB 990123 has provoked continuous study in order to determine whether it was consistent with current reverse shock theory. More importantly, if it can be proven that this optical flash was the result of a typical reverse shock event, then we need to understand why it is the only event detected to date. Important information may be gained by estimating the prompt reverse shock emission expected from bursts with known physical parameters. In our analysis, we use all 7 bursts from PK01 with secure redshifts: 990123; 990510; 991208; 991216; 000301c; 000926; 010222. Reverse shock analytic light curves were derived for each of the bursts to produce a set of predicted optical flash spectra given various values of the bulk Lorentz factor. Figure 3 displays the reverse shock peak spectra predicted for the sub-relativistic regime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=10^2`$, upper pannel) and the relativistic regime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=10^3`$, lower panel). The mildy-relativistic reverse shock spectrum for GRB 990123 is included in both panels assuming our best fit value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=900`$. The visible ROTSE spectral range is displayed in the upper panel, while the multi-frequency bands of Swift are shown in the lower panel. It is critical to note that the only optical flash which has been successfully detected (GRB990123, solid thick line) has one of the lowest predicted optical fluxes. If it is assumed that the six GRBs did in fact produce optical flashes resulting from reverse shocks, then it is clear that their non-detection was not due to comparably low peak fluxes. Unfortunately, no early observations were performed for this set of bursts. Moreover, the predicted reverse shock emission is too faint in X-rays to be detected along with the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission.

Akerlof et al. (2000) reported non-detections of optical flashes for six long duration GRBs with localisation errors of 1 deg2 or better (see also Kehoe et al. 2001). One possible explanation for these non-detections, apart from both positional uncertainties and lack of deep imaging222K00 found that the ROTSE limits in at least two of these bursts (GRB 981121 and GRB 981223) does not give strong constraints and the lack of detections can easily be explained either by invoking a lower $`n_0`$ or if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ slighlty deviates from that of GRB 990123., could be related to the time at which the optical flash reached its maximum brightness. It is clear that the time at which the reverse shock emission peaks plays an important role in the ability to detect a prompt optical flash. Current instruments aimed at detecting flashes are limited by their response times, often $`10`$ seconds after the initial trigger (Akerlof et al. 1999; Paczynski 2001). Consequently, there exists the possibility that a significant fraction of optical flashes peak before images were taken. The peak time can be estimated with $`T_{peak}=\mathrm{max}[\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{d},\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{c}]`$. The time of the peak in the the reverse shock emission is shown as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ in Fig. 4, along with the lower limits on the bulk Lorentz factor reported by Panaitescu & Kumar (2002). We find that for reasonable values values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_010^210^3`$, $`50`$ per cent of the optical flashes would have peaked before GRB 990123 and the rest within 3 minutes of their initial trigger.

Another possible explanation for these non-detections involves the hydrodynamical evolution of the reverse shock. If the reverse shock is only mildly relativistic ($`\xi 1`$), then it cannot heat the ejecta to sufficiently high temperatures and so the Blandford-McKee solution is not valid (KS00). Since the flux brightness and photon energy are both directly proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, determining whether the burst is relativistic constrains the flux decay. Therefore, to understand and detect GRB flashes, we should examine whether events go undetected due to the behaviour of the Lorentz factor decay. Using PK01 physical parameters and equation (5), we calculate $`\xi `$ for GRB 990123 and six additional bursts for which there was no detected optical flash. Figure 4 (upper panel) displays the dependence of $`\xi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ for each burst. Unsurprisingly, we find that the reverse shock in GRB 990123 is mildly relativistic with $`\xi =1.0\pm 0.1`$, which supports the early prediction that $`\xi =0.7`$ made by KS00, who stated that the value could in fact be larger. The reverse shock in most of these bursts was expected to be mildly relativistic for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0500`$. The hydrodynamics of the cold shocked ejecta is very different from that of the hot ejecta which is described by the BM76 solution. Surprisingly, both cases predict rather similar light curves (KS00), with decay laws that vary in relatively narrow ranges. Hence, it is unlikely that the non-detection of optical flashes is linked to the relativistic regime of their reverse shock.

The absence of detectable optical flux accompanying a strong $`\gamma `$-ray emission could also be due to dust obscuration. There is increasing evidence that GRBs with durations longer than 2 seconds are associated with sites of massive star formation. This environment will strongly attenuate the optical afterglow radiation (Waxman & Draine 2000, Venemans & Blain 2001, Ramirez-Ruiz, Trentham & Blain 2002). The observations of GRB late afterglows are consistent with this picture: 50-70 per cent of all bursts have no optical counterpart down to R=24, which implies a minimum absorption of $`A_R2`$ (Lazzati, Covino & Ghisellini 2002; Reichart & Yost 2002).

## 6 Observational Prospects and Conclusions

An obvious question becomes: how is it that the optical flash associated with GRB 990123 remains the only event of its kind detected to date? Observations of both faint and heavily dust-enshrouded optical flashes could be missing due to the capability of current instruments. With the launch of Swift, the facilities necessary to detect reverse shock emission will be made readily available. Within 20-70 seconds of the initial trigger, the UV and optical telescope (UVOT) will begin collecting images of the burst down to B=24. We have predicted that optical flashes brighter than $`m_V9`$ for at least a subset of bursts, with typical peak times of $`50`$ seconds and peak frequencies of $`10^{15}`$ Hz. However, there exist necessary limitations to our approach: we assumed that the equipartition parameters are the same across the contact discontinuity, and we have used only a subset of bursts bearing relatively bright optical afterglows. A more detailed analysis of the underlying reasons for the non-detections of prompt optical afterglows will require the large and unbiased sample of Swift GRB afterglows.

In summary, we show that reverse shocks are likely to produce strong optical flashes in a subset of GRBs, and that dust obscuration is a possible reason for the reported non-detections. If reverse shock emission turns out to be insignificant, then the explanation for the bright optical flashes will surely be even more remarkable and fascinating.

## Acknowledgements

We thank A. Blain, D. Lazzati, M. J. Rees and E. Rossi for helpful conversations. AMS was supported by the NSF GRFP. ER-R thanks CONACYT, SEP and the ORS for support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The origin of magnetic fields and the dynamics of 3-D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence in astrophysical sources are problems of long standing interest (e.g. Cowling 1957; Moffatt 1978; Parker 1979; Krause & Rädler 1980; Zeldovich et al. 1984). The standard in situ mean field dynamo (MFD) model (Moffatt 1978; Parker 1979; Krause & Rädler 1980) of the large scale (= scales greater than the turbulent forcing) magnetic field origin can be thought of as a framework for understanding an inverse cascade of magnetic helicity, initiated by a forcing of kinetic helicity (Pouquet et al. 1975). While the role of kinetic and magnetic helicities are important for in situ non-local inverse cascade models of large scale fields, or MFDs, the small scale (= scales at or below the turbulent forcing scale) dynamo does not explicitly require helicity to amplify total magnetic energy density (Zeldovich et al 1983; Parker 1979). Non-helically forced turbulent amplification of the small scale fields, and fully helical forced growth of large scale fields have been recently simulated (Cho & Vishniac 2001; Chou 2001; Brandenburg 2001; Maron & Cowley 2001).

But there is an important subtlety which has not yet been addressed. Though numerical work generically shows that the total energy of the small scale field in turbulent media saturates to of order equipartition with the kinetic energy spectrum, non-helical small scale dynamos produce a peak of the magnetic energy spectrum on the resistive scale for magnetic Prandtl number $`1`$, not on the forcing scale (Chou 2001; Maron & Cowley 2001). This contradicts, for example, observations of the Galactic magnetic field which has a peak in the spectrum on the turbulent forcing scale (Beck et al. & 1996) and maximally helical simulations (Brandenburg 2001). Here we show that forcing with varying levels of fractional kinetic helicity affects the overall spectral shape at large $`and`$ small scales.

In section 2 we discuss the equations and the simulations. In section 3 we give the results and in section 4 the interpretations. We conclude in section 5.

## 2 Equations and Numerical Scheme

We investigate forced helical MHD turbulence. We write the magnetic field in velocity units and so define $`𝐛𝐁/\sqrt{4\pi }`$, where $`𝐁`$ is the magnetic field. Incompressibility is assumed throughout, so we set density $`\rho =1`$, and $`𝐯=0`$, where $`𝐯`$ is velocity. We include the thermal pressure $`P`$, and the magnetic pressure in the total pressure $`p=P+b^2/2`$ and assume isotropic kinetic and magnetic viscosities, $`\nu _v`$. The MHD equations become,

$$_t𝐯=𝐯𝐯p+𝐛\mathbf{}𝐛,+\nu _v^2𝐯,$$
(1)
$$_t𝐛=𝐯\mathbf{}𝐛+𝐛\mathbf{}𝐯+\nu _b^2𝐛,$$
(2)
To relate $`p`$ to $`𝐯`$ and $`𝐛`$, we take the divergence of equation 1, which upon inversion, yields

$$p=\frac{d^3x^{}}{4\pi }\frac{(\mathbf{}𝐯:\mathbf{}𝐯\mathbf{}𝐛:\mathbf{}𝐛)}{|𝐱^{}𝐱|}.$$
(3)
A random forcing field with energy $`ϵ_f\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is generated at each time step and added to the existing velocity field, where $`ϵ_f`$ is the average forcing power. The amplitudes of the forcing field Fourier modes are assigned according to a specified power spectrum, with the energy selected from a Boltzmann distribution. The mode phases are random within the constraint of divergencelessness. We input kinetic helicity $`𝐯\times 𝐯`$ at the forcing wavenumber of $`s=k/2\pi =4.5`$ by making a randomly determined subset of the Fourier modes maximally helical, leaving the rest unchanged. The fraction of maximally helical modes is $`f_h`$, which we denote “fractional helicity.” In contrast, simulations of Maron & Cowley (2001) invoked zero mean magnetic field and zero mean kinetic helicity. Only fractional random fluctuations of the kinetic helicity of order 10% were present. The magnetic helicity was also initially zero and subsequently fluctuated about zero at an amplitude of 10% of the maximum. The equations of MHD are solved spectrally. The turbulence is incompressible and the boundaries are periodic. (Including compressibility, while ultimately important for detailed applications, is not expected to have a dramatic effect on the qualitative conclusions herein regarding the role of helicity.) Wave numbers and physical scales are related by $`\lambda k=2\pi `$. Viscosity and resistivity are of the $`k^2`$ type ($`\nu _v^2v`$ and $`\nu _b^2b`$). The code is exhaustively discussed in Maron & Goldreich (2001). We note that at each time step, the time derivative of the magnetic helicity is equal to the volume integral of the current helicity times the resisitivity. The helicity conservation equation is satisfied and this is important in what follows.

The other key parameters are as follows: the magnetic Prandtl number is $`Pr=\nu _v/\nu _b\lambda _{\nu _v}^2/\lambda _{\nu _b}^2`$, the ratio of the viscosity to magnetic diffusivity, where $`\lambda _{\nu _v}`$ and $`\lambda _{\nu _b}`$, are the viscous and resistive scales respectively. We denote $`v_\lambda `$ and $`b_\lambda `$ as the speed and magnetic field at scale $`\lambda `$, and $`v_f`$ and $`\lambda _f`$ as the forcing scale RMS velocity and forcing scale respectively. When $`Pr1`$, the scales have the ordering $`\lambda _f>\lambda _{\nu _v}\lambda _{\nu _b}`$.

## 3 Results

We show results here for a selection of $`64^3`$ simulations which is sufficient to identify the basic effects of fractional helicity on the location of energy peaks. The $`f_h`$ ranges from $`0`$ to $`1`$ by increments of $`0.1`$ for simulations A0 through A10. For all A0-A10, we used a $`64^3`$ grid, $`s_f=4.5`$, $`\nu _v=3\times 10^3`$, $`\nu _b=1\times 10^3`$, and $`Pr=3`$.

The usual kinetic and magnetic energy spectra are defined as the quantities inside the energy integrals $`E_v=E_v(s)𝑑s`$ and $`E_b=E_b(s)𝑑s`$ respectively. The spectra for a range of values of $`f_h`$ are shown in Fig 1. The time evolution of the $`f_h=1`$ case is shown in Fig 2 and the time growth of magnetic helicity is shown in Fig 3. Notice in these figures that for $`f_h\text{ }>f_{h,crit}0.5`$ the peak at the forcing scale grows as does the large scale field. For $`f_h<f_{h,crit}`$, the large scale field decays, no peak appears at the forcing scale, and the magnetic helicity in the box grows very weakly, if at all. Though we have presented only $`Pr=3`$ cases in the figures, we have also performed simulations with $`Pr=9`$ and found that $`f_{h,crit}0.7`$. Thus we find that $`f_{h,crit}`$ increases with $`Pr`$.

We checked for hysteresis by using the saturated state of the $`f_h=1`$ simulation of Fig. 3 as the initial condition for another simulation with $`f_h=0.4`$. We found that the magnetic helicity subsequently decayed to the same value as in the simulation which started with a weak mean field with initial $`f_h=0.4`$. There was no evidence for hysteresis.

Figure 1: Saturated kinetic and magnetic energy spectra for successive values of $`f_h`$. The simulations are A0, A4, A5, and A10. The kinetic spectra are identical for $`f_h0.4`$

Figure 2: Time sequence of kinetic and magnetic energy spectra for simulation A10.

Figure 3: Evolution of the magnetic helicity as a function of $`f_h`$ for simulations from series A. At $`t=7`$, simulation A10 ($`f_h=1`$) has developed a large scale magnetic field.

## 4  Discussion

Forced helical turbulence was studied systematically in Pouquet et al. (1976) using the Eddy Damped Quasi-Normal Markovian (EDQNM) closure scheme (Orsag 1970). Forcing with kinetic helicity leads to segregation of magnetic helicity because the magnetic helicity growth equation has a source term that depends on the kinetic helicity. The kinetic helicity inputs one sign of magnetic helicity at small scales but the opposite sign is generated on large scales. The growth of the large scale field, represents a non-local inverse cascade of the magnetic helicity from the forcing scale and can be interpreted as an $`\alpha ^2`$ MFD (Pouquet et al. 1976; Brandenburg 2001; Blackman & Field 2001b; Field & Blackman 2002; also Verma 2001). Averaged over a periodic box, the time evolution of the total magnetic helicity satisfies $`_t𝐀𝐁=2\nu _b𝐉𝐁`$, where $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential and $`𝐉`$ is the current density. If we divide $`𝐀𝐁`$ into small scale and large scale contributions, we can see that after the large scale helical field energy grows to $`k_sB_s^2/k_l`$, where $`s,l`$ refer to the dominant small and large scale, the large scale magnetic helicity dominates (Fig. 3). The growth saturates as long as there remains a net current helicity, but the growth rate is resistively limited, implying a “slow” (decreases with increasing $`k_{\nu _b}`$) MFD. The large scale field growth of Fig. 3 for all $`f_hf_{h,crit}`$ is slow in this sense. (Note however that there is a short initial “fast” phase. Field & Blackman (2002) and Blackman (2002), discuss this in the context of a dynamical quenching model which fits Brandenburg (2001) and the results herein, and the asymptotic quenching of Gruzinov & Diamond 1994; Bhattacharjee & Yuan 1995).

The sign of the magnetic helicity of the growing large scale field is opposite to that of the kinetic helicity. This is consistent with MFD theory if the kinetic helicity dominates the $`\alpha `$ effect of the MFD: A positive kinetic helicity means that $`\alpha `$ would be negative. But the growth of the magnetic helicity associated with the large scale field is $`\alpha B_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (Brandenburg 2001, Blackman & Field 2001; Field & Blackman 2002) so that a positive input kinetic helicity, which gives a negative $`\alpha `$, produces a negative large scale magnetic helicity. Fig. 3 shows that $`𝐀𝐁`$ is dominated by the large scale contribution.

That the large scale field growth proceeds asymptotically “slow”, would seem to threaten the relevance for e.g. the Galaxy as it is commonly argued that the MFD of the Galaxy has to be “fast.” (c.f. Ruzmaikin et al 1988; Zweibel & Heiles 1997). Unlike a periodic box, real astrophysical rotators have boundaries, shear, and have helicity driven by the combination of the underlying rotation and stratification with a spatial variation in transport coefficients. So these differences will ultimately need to be studied before results from periodic box solutions like ours can be directly applied to astrophysical large scale field growth (Blackman & Field 2001). Also, the large scale field for $`f_h>f_{h,crit}`$ in the simulation becomes super-equipartition as seen in Figs. 1 & 2, because it is nearly force-free. That being said, the enterprise of periodic box simulations is very worthwhile; even comparing the difference between periodic boxes with more realistic simulations will be important to our further understanding MHD turbulence and allows the demonstration of some principles that emerge in the simplest possible forced non-linear dynamo system.

In spite of these caveats, the results of the present simulations are provocative: the same $`f_{h,crit}`$ determines both whether the large scale field grows $`and`$ whether a peak grows at the forcing scale. The large scale field growth and the presence of the small scale peak at the forcing scale appear to be intimately related. Magnetic helicity undoubtedly also plays a role drain of the small scale peak from the resistive scales for $`f_h>f_{h,crit}`$. Consider the role of magnetic helicity conservation in mode interactions via a slightly more general version of the argument of (Frisch et al. 1975): Suppose an initial state of maximal magnetic helicity is confined to wave numbers $`k_m`$ and $`k_n`$, with $`k_m<k_n`$ and suppose the magnetic field dominates the energy at these wavenumbers. We then have $`E_b(k_m)+E_b(k_n)=E_T(k_p)`$ and $`H_b(k_m)+H_b(k_n)=E_b(k_m)/k_m+E_b(k_n)/k_nE_T(k_p)/k_p`$, where $`E_T`$ means the total energy. The last inequality can only be satisfied if $`k_p<k_n`$. This argument applies only when the scales $`k_m`$ and $`k_n`$ are magnetically dominated, though $`k_p`$ need not be (a point not addressed in Frisch et al. 1975). An initial state for which the field is dominant, and therefore satisfies the validity criterion, is the small scale saturated state shown in Fig. 1 for $`f_h=0`$. We can reason that when sufficient magnetic helicity is imposed, it, and its associated energy would drain from the small scales, at least until the field reaches equipartition with the velocity. This is qualitatively consistent with the observed deficit in the magnetic energy from the large $`k`$ region in figures 1 and 2 for $`f_h>f_{h,crit}`$, as compared to $`f_h<f_{h,crit}`$.

The growth of the actual peak in magnetic energy at the forcing scale is also aided by the fact that a forced kinetic helicity reduces the non-linear transfer term in the Navier-Stokes equation. The non-linear term $`𝐯𝐯=𝐯\times \omega v^2`$. When helicity is present, the $`𝐯\times \omega `$ term is reduced. For sub-sonic turbulence, the $`v^2`$ contribution to the evolution equation should be inconsequential. Thus, since the main cascade driver is reduced for helical turbulence, the kinetic energy requires more time to cascade, providing a bit more time for this energy to be transfered directly into stretching the magnetic field near the input scale. Though a cascade of magnetic energy steadily drains the field from the input scale, the hold up of the kinetic energy cascade means that there is more time to resupply the field to a larger amplitude before draining, compared to the $`f_h<f_{h,crit}`$ case.

The total kinetic energy density for $`kk_f`$ is fixed and is always larger than the total magnetic energy density for $`kk_f`$. If $`f_h<f_{h,crit}`$, then there is a significant non-helical part of the field which feels no tendency to inverse cascade. This fraction piles up quickly on the small scales (Chou 2001; Maron & Cowley 2001). If this fraction dominates, then the spectrum will be dominated by the non-helical turbulence dynamics. If $`f_h>f_{h,crit}`$, the magnetic energy associated with the helicity, which inverse cascades, dominates. A lower limit on $`f_{h,crit}`$ can be found from modeling the large scale field growth as an $`\alpha ^2`$ dynamo, which has a growth rate of $`\alpha \beta s_1`$, where $`\beta `$ is turbulent diffusion and $`s_1=1`$ is the growing large scale wave number. But initially $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ have their kinematic values and $`\alpha /s_1\beta 2f_hs_f/(3s_1)`$, and so initial growth requires at least $`f_h>s_1/s_f0.33=f_{crit}`$. This is roughly consistent with our results within small factors of order 1.

At risk of applying our “slow” dynamo spectral shape results too cavalierly, we consider the implications for the Galaxy. The Galactic field has both a large scale ($`\text{ }>2`$kpc) and a small scale component ($`\text{ }<100`$pc) (e.g. Zweibel & Heiles 1997). The small scale field (which has magnitude $``$ few times larger than the large scale field) appears to have a peak at the forcing scale, as does the kinetic energy (Armstrong et al. 1995), and the two are in near equipartition with $`vb10`$km/s. Ignoring the “slow” vs. “fast” issue for the moment, our results would imply that the Galactic magnetic spectrum (with its small scale peak at the forcing scale) is only consistent with turbulence forced with $`f_h>f_{h,crit}`$. Note that we have been considering only externally forced turbulence, as opposed to self-generated turbulence from shear. This particular assumption, at least, is consistent with the Galaxy, where supernovae are the primary driver (Sellwood & Balbus 1999). (Given that our box dynamo is “slow” we should note that well motivated analytic interpretations for generation of “fast” large scale magnetic energy in sheared rotators which appeal less explicitly to kinetic helicity, or not at all have been studied (see Balbus & Hawley 1998; Vishniac & Cho 2000), as do specific proposals for how boundaries might enable fast helical $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ dynamos (Blackman 2002). We do not discuss these further but note that in the Galaxy, a net magnetic flux in the Galactic disk in addition to magnetic energy seems to be needed.)

Our results might also suggest that kinetic helicity would play a role in the protogalactic small scale dynamo model (Kulsrud et al. 1997) of the large scale Galactic field. In this model, the large scale field of the Galaxy results from gravitational collapse and flux freezing of the small scale protogalactic field. The model requires that small scale dynamos generate significant power at the forcing scale, and our results would suggest this is only possible in $`Pr1`$ plasmas when $`f_hf_{h,crit}`$.

## 5 Conclusions

The magnetic spectrum of MHD turbulence forced in a periodic box with fractional kinetic helicity above a critical value $`f_{h,crit}`$, saturates with two peaks: a large scale peak and a peak at the forcing scale, when $`Pr1`$. If $`f_h<f_{h,crit}`$ there is only one peak in the spectrum, and it is at the resistive scale. Though the turbulence is not strictly Alfvénic for any $`f_h`$, it is much more nearly Alfvénic for larger $`f_h`$. The range of scales, the boundary conditions, and the actual nature of helical forcing pose obstacles when comparing non-sheared periodic box simulations with real astrophysical rotators. Nevertheless, the important qualitative implication of our results is that helical forcing not only influences the large scale magnetic field spectra of forced turbulent systems but may also help account for observed peaks at the forcing scale.

EB acknowledges DOE grant DE-FG02-00ER54600. JM benefitted from supercomputers at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at UIUC (1000 CPU hours), and from their very helpful staff. We thank S. Boldyrev, A. Brandenburg, S. Cowley, G. Field, J. McWilliams, V. Pariev, A. Schekochihin, and E. Vishniac for discussions.

References

Armstrong J.W., Rickett B.J., and Spangler S.R., ApJ, 1995, 443 209

Balbus S.A & Hawley J., 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1.

Beck R., Brandenburg A., Moss D., Shukurov A.M., Sokoloff D.D., 1996, ARAA, 34 155

Bhattacharjee A. & Yuan Y., 1995, ApJ 449 739.

Blackman E.G. and Field G.B., 2000, ApJ. 534 984

Blackman E.G. and Field G.B. Physics of Plasmas, 2001, 8 2407

Blackman E.G., 2002, in “Simulations of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in astrophysics: recent achievements and perspectives”, 2002, eds. T. Passot and E. Falgarone, in press.

Brandenburg A., 2001, ApJ 550 824

Cho J. & Vishniac E.T., 2000, ApJ 538 217

Chou, H. ApJ, 2001, 556 1038.

Cowling T.G., 1957, Magnetohydrodynamics, (Wiley Interscience, New York).

Field G.B., & Blackman E.G., 2002, submitted to ApJ, astro-ph/0111470

Frisch U., Pouquet A., Léorat J., and Mazure A., 1975, J. Fluid Mech. 68 769

Gruzinov, A. & Diamond, P. H. 1994, PRL 72, 1651.

Krause F. & Rädler K.-H., 1980, Mean-field magnetohydrodynamics and dynamo theory, (Pergamon Press, New York).

Kulsrud R.M. & Anderson S.W., 1992, Astrophys. J. 396 606.

Kulsrud R., Cen R., Ostriker J.P., and Ryu D., 1997, ApJ, 480 481

Maron J., & Cowley S., 2001, submitted to ApJ, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0111008

Maron J., and Goldreich P. ApJ, 2001, 554 1175.

Moffatt, H. K., 1978, Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

Orsag S.A., 1970, J. Fluid Mech., 41 363.

Parker E.N., 1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Pouquet A., Frisch U., & Leorat J., J. Fluid Mech, 1976 77 321

Ruzmaikin A.A., Shukurov A.M., Sokoloff D.D., 1988, Magnetic Fields of Galaxies, (Kluwer Press, Dodrecht)

Sellwood J.A., and Balbus S.A., 1999, ApJ, 511 660

Verma M.K., 2001, submitted to Physica D, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/nlin.CD/0107069

Zeldovich Ya. B., Ruzmaikin A.A., and Sokoloff D.D., 1983, Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics , (Gordon and Breach, New York).

Zweibel E.G. and Heiles C., 1997, Nature, 385 131


text:
# A Two-Dimensional Lattice Model with Exact Supersymmetry

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry is thought to be a crucial ingredient in any theory which attempts to unify the separate interactions contained in the standard model of particle physics. On rather general grounds we expect that supersymmetry must be broken non-perturbatively in any such theory. This has led to attempts to formulate such theories on lattices .

However, most lattice models break supersymmetry explicitly and lead generically to the appearance of relevant, SUSY violating interactions in the lattice effective action. The continuum limit will not then correspond to a supersymmetric theory without fine tuning.

In this talk we show that models exist which may be discretized in such a way as to preserve a subset of the continuum SUSY transformations exactly. Such models may evade this fine tuning problem.

## 2 Simple Model

Consider a set of discrete, real, commuting fields $`x_i`$ and real, anticommuting fields $`\psi _i,\overline{\psi }_i`$ where $`i=1\mathrm{}K`$ with action

$$S=\frac{1}{2}N_i^2(x)+\overline{\psi }_i\frac{N_i}{x_j}\psi _j$$

which admits a ‘supersymmetry’

$`\delta x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _i\xi `$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`N_i\xi `$
$`\delta \psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
Corresponding to this symmetry the quantum theory exhibits Ward identities eg.

$$\psi _i\overline{\psi }_j+\overline{N}_ix_j=0$$

If we choose the fields $`x,\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ to lie on a spatial lattice equipped with periodic boundary conditions and take the fermion matrix $`M_{ij}=\frac{N_i}{x_j}`$ to be of the form

$$M_{ij}=D_{ij}^S+P_{ij}^{\prime \prime }(x)$$

we recover a Euclidean lattice version of SUSY QM

$$S=\frac{1}{2}(D_{ij}^Sx_j+P_i^{})^2+\overline{\psi }_i(D_{ij}^S+P_{ij}^{\prime \prime })\psi _j$$

Notice that if we include a Wilson term in $`P^{\prime \prime }`$ we can eliminate double modes in both fermionic and bosonic sectors. Notice also that the lattice action contains a term which behaves as a total derivative in the naive continuum limit. However, on the lattice it is non-zero for an interacting theory and its inclusion is necessary if the theory is to possess an exact SUSY invariance.

## 3 Mean Action

For $`P^{}=mx+gx^Q`$ we can show using a simple scaling argument and a supersymmetric Ward identity that the mean action $`<S>=K`$, the number of degrees of freedom, which we recognize as a Euclidean analog of the vanishing of the vacuum energy $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}=0`$ in a supersymmetric theory. Notice also that S is approximately invariant under 2nd SUSY

$`\delta ^{}x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_i\xi `$
$`\delta ^{}\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`(D_{ij}x_jP_i^{})\xi `$
$`\delta ^{}\overline{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
where

$$\delta ^{}S=\delta ^{}\left(2D_{ij}^Sx_jP_i^{}\right)$$

Since QM is a finite theory we hence expect the continuum model to have the full $`N=2`$ SUSY. Fig 1 shows a plot of the massgap in the model where $`P^{}=mx+gx^3`$ for $`m=10`$ and $`g=100`$, as a function of the lattice spacing which clearly exhibits the degeneracy between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom at finite lattice spacing.

## 4 Wess Zumino Model

Imagine promoting the indices $`i(i,\alpha )`$ where $`i`$ labels the spacetime point and $`\alpha =1,2`$ a spinor component for a theory in two dimensions. Notice immediately that the target theory will contain two real scalars. We take a fermion matrix of the form

$$M_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu D_{ij}^\mu +A_{ij}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+B_{ij}i\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^5$$

We find that this matrix can only be obtained by differentiating some vector field if the bosons possess a complex structure $`\varphi _i=x_i^1+ix_i^2`$ and

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }^{(1)}\eta ^{(1)}+\overline{\psi }M\psi $$

where

$$\eta _i^{(1)}=D_z\varphi _i+W_i^{}(\varphi )$$

and $`W(\varphi )`$ is an arbitrary analytic function.

We can also write down three other complex fields which yield the same continuum bosonic action

$`\eta ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z\overline{\varphi }W^{}(\varphi )`$
$`\eta ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z\varphi W^{}(\overline{\varphi })`$
$`\eta ^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z\varphi +W^{}(\overline{\varphi })`$
All these lead to same value for $`\mathrm{det}M`$ and generate approximate symmetries on the lattice $`\delta Sga^2`$ eg.

$`\delta _2x_i`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _5^{\alpha \beta }\psi _i^\beta \xi `$
$`\delta _2\overline{\psi }_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _5^{\alpha \beta }\overline{N}_i^\beta \xi `$
$`\delta _2\psi _i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
with

$$\eta _i^{(2)}=(\overline{N}_i^1+i\overline{N}_i^2)$$

We can also derive Ward identities corresponding to all these exact and approximate supersymmetries.

## 5 Simulations

We have checked these conclusions by explicit dynamical fermion simulations for the case $`W=m\varphi +g\varphi ^2`$ with $`m=10`$ and $`g=0,3`$. We employed a HMC algorithm  in which the fermions were replaced by (real) pseudofermions $`\chi `$ with action

$$S_F=\chi (M^TM)^1\chi $$

We obtained substantial improvement by use of Fourier acceleration techniques described in . Using these ideas we amassed data for lattices from $`L=4`$ through $`L=32`$ (1 million and $`2\times 10^4`$ trajectories respectively) both for $`g=0`$ and $`g=3`$ . Table 1 illustrates the mean action obtained at $`g=3`$ as a function of lattice size

By fitting the zero-momentum correlation functions we obtained the following massgaps as a function of lattice spacing $`a=1/L`$.

Fig 2 shows a plot showing the bosonic and fermionic contributions to the Ward identity in eqn.2. If the Ward identity is satisfied these two curves should sum to zero as the figure confirms.

## 6 Conclusion and Discussion

We have shown that it is possible to write down a local lattice action for the 2D Wess Zumino model with extended ($`N=2`$) supersymmetry which admits an exact, local supersymmetry. The presence of an exact SUSY-like symmetry together with the finiteness of the theory then guarantees that the full $`N=2`$ supersymmetry will be regained in the continuum limit without fine tuning. We have tested these ideas by explicit dynamical fermion simulations.


text:
# Hilbert’s Theorem 90 and algebraic spaces

## Introduction

Originally, Hilbert’s Theorem 90 is the following number theoretical result : Given a cyclic Galois extension $`KL`$ of number fields, each $`yL^\times `$ of norm $`N(y)=1`$ is of the form $`y=x/x^\sigma `$ for some $`xK^\times `$ and a given generator $`\sigma G`$ of the Galois group. More generally, Speiser  proved that $`H^1(G,L^\times )=1`$ for arbitrary Galois extensions (compare the discussion in ).

The latter statement has a geometric interpretation: Each line bundle on the étale site of $`\mathrm{Spec}(k)`$ is trivial. In this form, it admits a far-reaching generalization: If $`ϵ:X_{\text{ét}}X_{\mathrm{zar}}`$ is the canonical map from the étale site to the Zariski site of a scheme $`X`$, then $`R^1ϵ_{}(𝔾_m)=0`$ (see , page 124). The result entails, among other things, that the map of Picard groups $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is bijective, and that the map of Brauer groups $`\mathrm{Br}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Br}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is injective.

It is natural to ask whether a similar statement holds for algebraic spaces instead of schemes. Recall that an *algebraic space* is the quotient $`X=U/R`$ of a scheme $`X`$ by an étale equivalence relation $`RX`$. Here the quotient takes place in the topos $`(\mathrm{Sch})_{\text{ét}}^{}`$, that is, as a sheaf on the étale site.

Unfortunately, such a generalization does not hold. The goal of this paper is to construct counterexamples, that is, algebraic spaces $`X`$ and invertible $`𝒪_X`$-modules $``$ such that the open subspaces $`VX`$ trivializing $``$ do not cover $`X`$. The first example is a nonseparated smooth 1-dimensional *bug-eyed cover* in Kollár’s sense . The second example is a nonnormal proper algebraic space obtained by identifying points on suitable nonprojective smooth proper schemes.

###### Acknowledgement.

The author wishes to thank the Department of Mathematics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for its hospitality, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support. The author also thanks the referee for his interesting remarks.

## 1. Line bundles on algebraic spaces

In this section we recall some basic facts on algebraic spaces and their line bundles. Let $`(\mathrm{Sch})_{\text{ét}}`$ be the site of schemes endowed with the Grothendieck topology generated by the étale surjective morphisms, and $`(\mathrm{Sch})_{\text{ét}}^{}`$ be the corresponding topos of sheaves. By definition, a sheaf $`X(\mathrm{Sch})_{\text{ét}}^{}`$ is an *algebraic space* if $`X=U/R`$ for some scheme $`U`$ and some étale equivalence relation $`RU`$ such that the induced morphism $`RU\times U`$ is quasicompact .

Given an algebraic space $`X`$, let $`\text{Ét}(X)`$ be the category of algebraic $`X`$-spaces whose structure map $`YX`$ is étale. The étale surjections $`Y_1Y_2`$ define a topology on $`\text{Ét}(X)`$, and we write $`X_{\text{ét}}`$ for the corresponding site. Let me give a down-to-earth description of sheaves $``$ on this site. For each scheme $`U`$ endowed with an étale map $`UX`$, we obtain via restriction a sheaf $`_U`$ on the étale site of étale $`U`$-schemes. If $`f:UV`$ is an $`X`$-morphisms, we have a map $`\theta _f:_Vf_{}_U`$. Such systems $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ are not arbitrary. Consider the following two conditions: (1) If $`f:UV`$ and $`g:VW`$ are $`X`$-maps, then the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_W& \stackrel{\theta _{gf}}{}& (gf)_{}_U\\ \theta _g& & & & \\ g_{}(_V)& \underset{g_{}(\theta _f)}{}& g_{}(f_{}_U)\end{array}$$

is commutative. (2) If $`f:UV`$ is étale, then the map $`\theta _f^{\mathrm{}}:f^1_V_U`$ is bijective. Here the mapping $`\theta _f^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds to $`\theta _f`$ with respect to the canonical adjunction $`\mathrm{Hom}(f^1_V,_U)\mathrm{Hom}(_V,f_{}_U)`$.

###### Proposition 1.1.

The assignment $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ yields an equivalence between the category of sheaves on $`X_{\text{ét}}`$ and the category of systems $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ satisfying conditions (1) and (2).

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒞`$ be the site of étale $`X`$-schemes with the induced étale topology. By the Comparison Lemma (, Exposé III, Théorèm 4.1), the inclusion $`𝒞X_{\text{ét}}`$ induces an equivalence on the corresponding categories of sheaves. Now suppose $``$ is a sheaf on $`𝒞`$. Then the system $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ satisfies condition (1) because $``$ is a presheaf. If $`f:UV`$ is étale, then $`\theta _f^{\mathrm{}}`$ is bijective because $``$ is a sheaf in the étale topology, and condition (2) holds as well.

Conversely, given such a system, we define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,_U)`$. Indeed, this is a presheaf by condition (1), and a sheaf by condition (2). One easily checks that the functors $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ and $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ are inverse equivalences of categories. ∎

For example, the sheaves $`𝒪_U`$, together with the maps $`\theta _f:𝒪_Vf_{}(𝒪_U)`$, correspond to the structure sheaf $`𝒪_X`$ of an algebraic space $`X`$. Similar, we have the sheaf of units $`𝒪_X^\times `$. The cohomology group $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})=H^1(X_{\text{ét}},𝒪_X^\times )`$ is the group of isomorphism classes of invertible $`𝒪_X`$-modules.

Besides the étale topology, the category $`\text{Ét}(X)`$ carries the coarser *Zariski topology* as well. Here the covering families are the surjections of the form $`X_iX`$, where the $`X_iX`$ are open subspaces, and we demand that $`X_i\times _XX^{}X^{}`$ remains an open embedding for any base change $`X^{}X`$. Write $`X_{\mathrm{zar}}`$ for the corresponding site. The sheaves on $`X_{\mathrm{zar}}`$ admit a similar description in terms of families $`(_U,\theta _f)`$ satisfying condition (1), and condition (2’), where we demand that $`\theta _f^{\mathrm{}}:f^1_V_U`$ is bijective whenever $`f:UV`$ is of the form $`U=V_i`$ with open subschemes $`V_iV`$. In particular, we have a structure sheaf $`𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{zar}}}`$ and a unit sheaf $`𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{zar}}}^\times `$. Let $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})=H^1(X_{\mathrm{zar}},𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{zar}}}^\times )`$ be the corresponding group of line bundles.

The identity functor on $`\text{Ét}(X)`$ is a continuous functor $`ϵ:X_{\text{ét}}X_{\mathrm{zar}}`$ of sites, and we have $`ϵ_{}(𝒪_{X_{\text{ét}}})=𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{zar}}}`$ by descent theory. So for each invertible $`𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{zar}}}`$-module $``$, the canonical map $`ϵ_{}ϵ^{}`$ is bijective, and we obtain an injection $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let $``$ be an invertible $`𝒪_X`$-module. Its isomorphism class lies in the subgroup $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ if and only if there is a covering with open subspaces $`Y_iY`$ with $`_{Y_i}𝒪_{Y_i}`$.

###### Proof.

The spectral sequence for the composition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X_{\text{ét}},𝒪_{X_{\text{ét}}}^\times )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(X_{\mathrm{zar}},ϵ_{}𝒪_{X_{\text{ét}}}^\times )`$ yields an exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})H^0(X_{\mathrm{zar}},R^1ϵ_{}𝒪_{X_{\text{ét}}}^\times ).$$

The condition precisely means that the image of the invertible sheaf $``$ under the canonical map $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})H^0(X_{\mathrm{zar}},R^1ϵ_{}𝒪_{X_{\text{ét}}}^\times )`$ vanishes. The statement now follows from the exact sequence. ∎

## 2. Bug-eyed covers

In this section, we use Kollár’s bug-eyed covers to construct a smooth 1-dimensional *nonseparated* algebraic space $`X`$ and an invertible sheaf $``$ such that the open subspaces $`WX`$ trivializing $``$ do not form a covering.

Fix a ground field $`k`$ of characteristic $`2`$. Set $`A=k[[T]]`$ and $`A^{}=k[[T^2]]`$, and let $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}(A)`$ and $`Y^{}=\mathrm{Spec}(A^{})`$ be the corresponding affine schemes. The inclusion $`A^{}A`$ defines a flat double covering $`p:YY^{}`$. The open subset $`UY`$ given by the generic point is the locus where $`f`$ is étale. The generator $`\sigma G`$ of the group $`G=/2`$ acts on $`A`$ via $`T^\sigma =T`$, which defines a free $`G`$-action on $`U`$. Consider the étale equivalence relation

$$R=\mathrm{\Delta }_YUY\times Y,$$

where the embedding of $`U`$ is given by $`U\stackrel{\mathrm{id}\times \sigma }{}U\times UY\times Y`$. Let $`X=Y/R`$ be the corresponding quotient sheaf in $`(\mathrm{Sch}/k)_{\text{ét}}^{}`$. By definition, $`X`$ is a smooth algebraic space. It is nonseparated because the injection $`RY\times Y`$ is not closed.

The map $`p:YY^{}`$ factors over $`X`$, and the induced projection $`XY^{}`$ induces a bijection of points. The algebraic space $`X`$ is a *bug-eyed cover* in Kollár’s sense . It is not a scheme. Otherwise, the morphism $`XY^{}`$ would be an isomorphism by Zariski’s Main Theorem, and $`YX`$ would be both étale and ramified.

###### Proposition 2.1.

We have $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})=/2`$.

###### Proof.

The scheme $`Y`$ is local, hence every invertible $`𝒪_X`$-module $``$ has $`_Y𝒪_Y`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is the cohomology of the complex

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,𝒪_X^\times )\stackrel{d_0}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y^2,𝒪_X^\times )\stackrel{d_1}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y^3,𝒪_X^\times ).$$

Here $`Y^n`$ are the $`n`$-fold fiber products over $`X`$. If $`p_i:Y^{n+1}Y^n`$ denotes the projection omitting the $`i`$-th factor, the differentials are $`d_0(s)=p_0^{}(s)/p_1^{}(s)`$ and $`d_1(s)=p_0^{}(s)p_2^{}(s)/p_1^{}(s)`$.

Clearly, we have $`Y^n=U^n\mathrm{\Delta }_Y`$, where $`U^n\mathrm{\Delta }_Y=\mathrm{\Delta }_U`$. Since the $`G`$-action is free on the open subset $`UY`$, we have a bijection

$$U\times G^nU^{n+1},(u,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)(u,ug_1,\mathrm{},ug_1g_2\mathrm{}g_n).$$

In turn, we may identify the $`n`$-cochains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y^{n+1},𝒪_X^\times )`$ with the the group of functions $`c:G^nP^\times `$ satisfying $`c(0,\mathrm{},0)A^\times `$. Here $`P=k[[T]][T^1]`$ is the fraction field of $`A=k[[T]]`$. The differentials take the form

$$d_0(c)(g)=c(0)/c(0)^g\text{and}d_1(c)(g,h)=c(h)^gc(g)/c(gh),$$

conforming with the usual definition of group cohomology (, page 59). We have $`d_0(c)(0)=1`$, and $`d_0(c)(\sigma )`$ is a power series of the form $`\lambda _0+\lambda _1T+\lambda _2T^2+\mathrm{}`$ with $`\lambda _0=1`$. One easily checks that a 1-cochain $`c:GP^\times `$ is a 1-cocycle if and only if $`c(0)=1`$, and $`p=c(\sigma )`$ satisfies $`pp^\sigma =1`$. Clearly, the 1-cocycle $`c:GP^\times `$ with $`c(0)=1`$ and $`c(\sigma )=1`$ is not a coboundary, so $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is nonzero. On the other hand, by Hilbert’s Theorem 90, each $`pP^\times `$ with $`pp^\sigma =1`$ is of the form $`p=r/r^\sigma `$ for some $`rP^\times `$. Writing $`r=T^ns`$ with $`sA^\times `$, we have $`p=(1)^ns/s^g`$, and infer $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})=/2`$. ∎

The smooth 1-dimensional nonseparated algebraic space $`X`$ is our first counterexample to Hilbert’s Theorem 90 for algebraic spaces:

###### Theorem 2.2.

The canonical inclusion $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is not surjective.

###### Proof.

The scheme $`Y`$ is local, so the space of points for $`X`$ has a unique closed point. Consequently, any Zariski covering of $`X`$ contains a copy of $`X`$. So any line bundle on $`X_{\mathrm{zar}}`$ is trivial, that is, $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})=0`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})0`$ by Proposition 2.1. ∎

## 3. Nonnormal proper algebraic spaces

Fix an algebraically closed ground field $`k`$. In this section, we shall construct a *proper* algebraic space $`X`$ and an invertible sheaf $``$ such that the open subspaces $`WX`$ trivializing $``$ do not form a covering.

The starting point is a proper smooth $`k`$-scheme $`Y`$ containing two irreducible closed curves $`C_1,C_2Y`$ such that $`C_1+C_2`$ is numerically trivial. This implies that the generic points $`\eta _iC_i`$ do not admit any common affine neighborhood in $`Y`$. Examples of such schemes appear in , page 75. Obviously, they are nonprojective. Even worse, they do not admit embeddings into toric varieties (, Theorem A). Recall that the support $`\mathrm{Supp}(D)Y`$ of a Cartier divisor $`D\mathrm{Div}(Y)`$ is the union of its positive and negative part. We have the following useful property:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Each $`D\mathrm{Div}(Y)`$ with $`DC_1>0`$ and $`C_1\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$ has $`C_2\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$.

###### Proof.

Decompose $`D=n_iD_i`$ into prime divisors with $`n_i0`$. Since $`C_1D_i`$, the intersection number $`D_iD_1`$ is the length of the scheme $`D_iC_1`$, hence nonnegative. So there is at least one prime divisor with $`D_iC_1>0`$. It follows $`D_iC_2<0`$, hence $`C_2D_i`$. In other words, $`C_2\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$. ∎

Now fix two closed points $`y_1C_1`$ and $`y_2C_2`$. Let $`Y^{}Y`$ be the reduced closed subscheme corresponding to $`\{y_1,y_2\}`$, and define an étale sheaf $`X(\mathrm{Sch}/k)_{\text{ét}}^{}`$ by the cocartesian square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y^{}& & Y\\ & & p& & \\ \mathrm{Spec}(k)& & X\end{array}$$

Note that $`(\mathrm{Sch}/k)_{\text{ét}}^{}`$, being a topos, admits all colimits (, Exposé II, Theorem 4.1). Intuitively, $`X`$ is obtained from $`Y`$ by identifying the points $`y_1,y_2Y`$. The sheaf $`X`$ is not a scheme. Otherwise, an affine open neighborhood for the point $`p(y_1)=p(y_2)X`$ would give a common affine open neighborhood for the pair $`y_1,y_2Y`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

The étale sheaf $`X`$ is a proper algebraic space.

###### Proof.

That $`X`$ is an algebraic space follows immediately from , Theorem 6.1. Let me give a more direct argument as follows. Fix two copies $`v_1^{},v_2^{}V^{}`$ and $`v_1^{\prime \prime },v_2^{\prime \prime }V^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`y_1,y_2Y`$, and set $`V=V^{}V^{\prime \prime }`$. Identifying $`v_1^{}V`$ with $`v_2^{\prime \prime }V`$ and $`v_2^{}V`$ with $`v_1^{\prime \prime }V`$, we obtain a scheme $`U`$. The group $`G=/2`$ acts freely on $`U`$ by interchanging $`V^{}`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }`$. Clearly, $`X=U/G`$ is the quotient of this action in the topos of étale sheaves. So $`R=U\times _XU`$ is nothing but $`U\times G`$, which is a scheme. Consequently, $`X=U/R`$ is an algebraic space.

The algebraic space $`X`$ is separated because the embedding $`Y\times GY\times Y`$, $`(y,g)(y,yg)`$ is closed. As $`Y\mathrm{Spec}(k)`$ is universally closed and $`p:YX`$ is surjective, $`X\mathrm{Spec}(k)`$ is universally closed as well. Therefore, $`X`$ is proper. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

There is an exact sequence $`1k^\times \mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})\mathrm{Pic}(Y)0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`p:YX`$ be the canonical projection. Then the sequence

$$1𝒪_X^\times p_{}(𝒪_Y^\times )k^\times p_{}(𝒪_Y^{}^\times )1$$

is exact. Indeed, one easily checks this, as in , Lemma 5.1, after base change with an affine étale cover $`UX`$. In turn, we obtain an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_Y^\times )k^\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_Y^{}^\times )\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})\mathrm{Pic}(Y)\mathrm{Pic}(k)\mathrm{Pic}(Y^{}).$$

Being semilocal, the schemes $`\mathrm{Spec}(k)`$ and $`Y^{}`$ have no Picard groups. The cokernel for the map on the left is isomorphic to $`k^\times `$, and the result follows. ∎

The proper algebraic space $`X`$ is another counterexample to Hilbert’s Theorem 90 for algebraic spaces:

###### Theorem 3.4.

The canonical inclusion $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ is not surjective.

###### Proof.

Choose an invertible $`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$ with $`C_1>0`$. For example, $``$ could by the invertible sheaf corresponding to the reduced complement of any affine open neighborhood for $`y_1Y`$.

Let $`p:YX`$ be the canonical map. According to Proposition 3.3, there is an invertible $`𝒪_X`$-module $``$ with $`=p^{}()`$. Suppose there is an open subset $`WX`$ containing the point $`p(y_1)=p(y_2)`$ and trivializing $``$. Then $``$ is trivial on the open subscheme $`p^1(W)Y`$. By , Theorem 3.3, there is a Cartier divisor $`D\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ representing $``$ with support disjoint from $`y_1,y_2Y`$. In particular, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are not contained in $`\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$, contradicting Proposition 3.1. ∎

###### Question 3.5.

Does $`\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\mathrm{zar}})=\mathrm{Pic}(X_{\text{ét}})`$ at least hold for smooth proper algebraic spaces? What about the case that $`X`$ is normal and proper?