text:
# Untitled Document

CUQM-87HEPHY-PUB 744/01UWThPh-2001-34math-ph/0110015 May 2003

RELATIVISTIC N-BOSON SYSTEMS

BOUND BY OSCILLATOR PAIR POTENTIALS

Richard L. Hall1, Wolfgang Lucha2, and Franz F. Schöberl3

(1)Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3G 1M8 (2)Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nikolsdorfergasse 18, A-1050 Wien, Austria (3)Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Wien, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria

rhall@mathstat.concordia.ca, wolfgang.lucha@oeaw.ac.at, franz.schoeberl@univie.ac.at

Abstract

We study the lowest energy $`E`$ of a relativistic system of $`N`$ identical bosons bound by harmonic-oscillator pair potentials in three spatial dimensions. In natural units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ the system has the semirelativistic “spinless-Salpeter” Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}_i^2}+\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma |\text{r}_i\text{r}_j|^2,\gamma >0.$$

We derive the following energy bounds:

$$E(N)=\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[N\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)P^2}{Nr^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{N}{2}(N1)\gamma r^2\right],N2,$$

where $`P=1.376`$ yields a lower bound and $`P=3/2`$ yields an upper bound for all $`N2.`$ A sharper lower bound is given by the function $`P(\mu ),`$ where $`\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}},`$ which makes the formula for $`E(2)`$ exact: with this choice of $`P,`$ the bounds coincide for all $`N2`$ in the Schrödinger limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. PACS: 03.65.Ge, 03.65.Pm, 11.10.St

I. Introduction and Main Result

Many-body problems form essential links between quantum-theoretical models and real nuclear, atomic, or macroscopic systems. However, even for nonrelativistic quantum theory, there are very few many-body problems that have explicit analytic solutions; the harmonic oscillator and the attractive delta interaction are well-known exceptions. In relativistic quantum theories the situation is even worse, in spite of the fact that the phenomenon of particle creation allowed by quantum field theory would suggest that there is no such thing as a one-body problem in that theory. Therefore, it is of considerable interest to study model $`N`$-body systems within the framework of the semirelativistic “spinless-Salpeter” equation. For this problem there exists a well-defined nonrelativistic limit which yields a useful consistency check. Specifically, we investigate in this paper the relative energy $`E`$ of a system of $`N`$ identical bosons represented by a semirelativistic “spinless-Salpeter” Hamiltonian  of the form

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}_i^2}+\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma |\text{r}_i\text{r}_j|^2,$$
$`(1.1)`$
where $`m`$ is the boson mass, and $`\gamma >0`$ is a coupling parameter, and we have chosen units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=1.`$ The operators $`\text{p}_i`$ are defined  in the momentum-space representation where they become multiplicative operators ($`c`$-variables). The present work is an extension to the case of $`N`$ bosons of our earlier study  in which we derived energy bounds for the corresponding $`1`$-body problem. We may compare $`H`$ with the corresponding Schrödinger $`N`$-body problem with Hamiltonian

$$H_\mathrm{S}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\text{p}_i^2}{2m}+\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma |\text{r}_i\text{r}_j|^2.$$
$`(1.2)`$
Given our goal of investigating the relative (that is, binding) energies, both of these Hamiltonians have the unwelcome feature that they include the kinetic energy of the center-of-mass motion. This is easy to remedy for $`H_\mathrm{S},`$ but a correct form is not so immediate in the relativistic case $`H.`$ The exact solution to the $`N`$-body harmonic-oscillator problem is periodically “rediscovered” but has been known at least since 1935 when Houston  solved it. Later, Post  studied the non-relativistic translation-invariant problem: the exact ground-state energy $`E_\mathrm{S}`$ may be expressed  for $`N2`$ (in three dimensions) by the simple formula

$$\epsilon =3v^{\frac{1}{2}},\epsilon =\frac{mE_\mathrm{S}}{N1},v=\frac{mN\gamma }{2}.$$
$`(1.3)`$
Thus $`\epsilon `$ is exactly the bottom of the spectrum of the $`1`$-body Hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Delta }+vr^2.`$ In this paper we shall prove the following statement. Theorem 1 Bounds on the ground-state energy eigenvalue $`E`$ of the semirelativistic Hamiltonian (1.1) are provided by the formula

$$E=\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[N\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)P^2}{Nr^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{N}{2}(N1)\gamma r^2\right],N2,$$
$`(1.4)`$
which yields an upper bound on $`E`$ when $`P=3/2,`$ and a lower bound on $`E`$ when $`P=P(\mu ),`$ where $`\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}},`$ a function that makes the approximation (1.4) exact in the case $`N=2.`$ The function $`P(m)`$ is monotone increasing with $`m,`$ has bounds

$$1.376<P(m)<\frac{3}{2},$$
$`(1.5)`$
and has the limit

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P(m)=\frac{3}{2}.$$
$`(1.6)`$
In the large-$`m`$ limit, the upper and lower bounds coalesce to the corresponding exact (nonrelativistic) Schrödinger energy $`E_{\mathrm{NR}}=E_\mathrm{S}+Nm.`$

The paper is primarily concerned with proving Theorem 1. The main technical difficulties are twofold: to keep the fundamental symmetries of translation invariance and boson permutation symmetry, and to find ways of “penetrating” the square-root operator of the Salpeter kinetic energy. Our policy is to work with Jacobi relative coordinates to guarantee translation invariance of the wave functions, and to accept the concomitant complications of permutation symmetry. We discuss the relative coordinates and some of their properties in Sec. II. We shall exploit the necessary permutation symmetry to relate the $`N`$-body energy to that of a scaled and reduced $`2`$-body problem. The exact solution of the $`1`$-body problem is discussed in Sec. III. It is well known that the $`1`$-body Salpeter problem is equivalent to a Schrödinger problem with Hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{m^2+r^2}`$ . We take the position in this paper that the lowest eigenvalue $`e(m)`$ of this problem, which is easy to find numerically, is at our disposal. In Fig. 1 we exhibit graphs of the functions $`\{e(m),P(m)\}.`$ The extension of these results to the $`2`$-body problem is treated in Sec. IV. The lower bound discussed in Sec. V is rendered possible by an operator property introduced in Sec. II that allows us, in a sense, to remove certain annihilation operators from inside the square-root operator. For the $`N`$-body upper bound discussed in Sec. VI we use a Gaussian wave function and minimize the energy expectation with respect to a scale variable. The calculation is helped by special factoring properties of the Gaussian and by the use of Jensen’s inequality. The bounds corresponding to $`P=\{1.376,1.5\}`$ are depicted in Fig. 2, and the convergence of the bounds $`P=\{P(\mu ),3/2\}`$ with increasing $`m`$ (where $`\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}}`$) is shown in Fig. 3, for $`2N8.`$

II. Relative Coordinates

Jacobi relative coordinates may be defined with the aid of an orthogonal matrix $`B`$ relating the column vectors of the new $`[\rho _i]`$ and old $`[\text{r}_i]`$ coordinates according to

$$[\rho _i]=B[\text{r}_i].$$
$`(2.1)`$
The first row of $`B`$ defines a center-of-mass variable with every entry $`1/\sqrt{N},`$ the second row defines a pair distance $`\rho _2=(\text{r}_1\text{r}_2)/\sqrt{2},`$ and the $`k`$th row, $`k2,`$ has the first $`k1`$ entries $`B_{ki}=1/\sqrt{k(k1)},`$ the $`k`$th entry $`B_{kk}=\sqrt{(k1)/k},`$ and the remaining entries zero. We define the corresponding momentum variables as

$$[\pi _i]=(B^1)^\mathrm{t}[\text{p}_i]=B[\text{p}_i].$$
$`(2.2)`$
These coordinates have some nice properties which we shall need. Firstly, we have

$$k\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}\rho _i^2=\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(\text{r}_i\text{r}_j)^2,k=2,3,\mathrm{},N,$$
$`(2.3)`$
and similarly for the momenta

$$k\underset{i=2}{\overset{k}{}}\pi _i^2=\underset{j>i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(\text{p}_i\text{p}_j)^2,k=2,3,\mathrm{},N.$$
$`(2.4)`$
It follows immediately that if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a translation-invariant wave function which is symmetric (or antisymmetric) under the permutation of the individual-particle indices, then it follows that

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },\rho _i^2\mathrm{\Psi })=(\mathrm{\Psi },\rho _2^2\mathrm{\Psi }),2iN,$$
$`(2.5)`$
and

$$(\mathrm{\Psi },\pi _i^2\mathrm{\Psi })=(\mathrm{\Psi },\pi _2^2\mathrm{\Psi }),2iN.$$
$`(2.6)`$
These expectation symmetries might suggest that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is symmetric under permutation of the relative coordinates; but this stronger property is not generally true; it is the case for Gaussian wave functions. Moreover, Gaussian boson wave functions of Jacobi relative coordinates uniquely  have the further factoring property that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _2,\rho _3,\mathrm{},\rho _N)=\varphi (\rho _2)\theta (\rho _3,\mathrm{},\rho _N),$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ are also Gaussian.

III. The 1-Body Problem

We consider the $`1`$-body problem with Hamiltonian

$$H_1=\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}^2}+r^2e(m),$$
$`(3.1)`$
where, for coupling $`\gamma =1,`$ $`e(m)`$ is the lowest eigenvalue as a function of the mass $`m.`$ By transforming this problem into momentum space we obtain the equivalent problem

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_1=\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{m^2+r^2}e(m).$$
$`(3.2)`$
Since this Schrödinger problem is easy to solve numerically to arbitrary accuracy, we shall take the position that $`e(m)`$ is “known” and at our disposal. We note that in the large-$`m`$ (nonrelativistic or Schrödinger) limit, we have

$$e(m)e_{\mathrm{NR}}(m)=m+\frac{3}{(2m)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$
$`(3.3)`$
We now define, for a given value of $`m,`$ the (lowest) “kinetic potential” \[13–15\] $`\overline{h}(s)`$ associated with the relativistic-kinetic-energy square-root operator $`\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}^2}`$ and the harmonic-oscillator potential $`r^2`$ by

$$\overline{h}(s)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi 𝒟(H_1)}{\psi =1}}{(\psi ,\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}^2}\psi )=s}}{inf}(\psi ,r^2\psi ),$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`\psi (\text{r})`$ is a wave function in the domain $`𝒟(H_1)`$ of $`H_1.`$ That is to say, we find the minimum mean-value of the potential, subject to the constraint that the mean kinetic energy is held constant at the value $`s.`$ It follows that the eigenvalue may now be recovered from $`\overline{h}(s)`$ by a further minimization with respect to the kinetic energy $`s.`$ Thus we have

$$e(m)=\underset{s>m}{\mathrm{min}}\left[s+\overline{h}(s)\right].$$
$`(3.5)`$
It may be difficult to find the kinetic potential $`\overline{h}(s)`$ exactly from (3.4). Instead we construct an effective kinetic potential $`\overline{h}_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ which, when substituted in (3.5), yields $`e(m)`$ exactly. We do this by changing the minimization variable from $`s>m`$ to $`r>0`$ according to the following equations:

$$\overline{h}_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=r^2,s=\sqrt{m^2+\left(\frac{P(m)}{r}\right)^2}.$$
$`(3.6)`$
Now, by rewriting (3.5) in terms of the minimization variable $`r`$ we obtain the defining relation for $`P(m)`$ as follows:

$$e(m)=\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\sqrt{m^2+\left(\frac{P(m)}{r}\right)^2}+r^2\right].$$
$`(3.7)`$
In fact, by inverting (3.7), we find the following expression for $`P(m)`$ in terms of the $`1`$-body energy $`e(m)`$:

$$P(m)=\left(\frac{2\left(e(m)+\sqrt{e^2(m)+3m^2}\right)}{27}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(2e(m)\sqrt{e^2(m)+3m^2}\right).$$
$`(3.8)`$
The graphs of $`e(m)m`$ and $`P(m)`$ are shown in Fig. 1: both $`e(m)`$ and $`P(m)`$ are monotone increasing with $`m;`$ $`e(m)m,`$ however, is monotone decreasing, in agreement, for large $`m,`$ with the Feynman–Hellmann theorem for the corresponding nonrelativistic case. In the (ultrarelativistic) limit $`m0`$ we have $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1\mathrm{\Delta }+r,`$ that is to say, the operator limit is the Schrödinger operator for the linear potential in three dimensions, with lowest energy $`e(0)=2.33810741.`$ In the (nonrelativistic) large-$`m`$ limit we have $`H_1m(1/2m)\mathrm{\Delta }+r^2,`$ that is to say, the Schrödinger harmonic oscillator with energy $`e(m)m+3/\sqrt{2m}.`$ By substituting these “outer” energies in (3.8), we obtain the bounds

$$1.376<P(m)<\frac{3}{2}.$$
$`(3.9)`$
It is clear from Eq. (3.7) that the expression for $`e(m),`$ as a function of $`m`$ and $`P,`$ is monotone increasing in $`P.`$ Thus, by substituting, respectively, the constants $`P=1.376`$ and $`P=1.5,`$ we obtain from this formula lower and upper bounds on the $`1`$-body energy $`e(m).`$ These bounds agree exactly with the bounds we obtained earlier  for this $`1`$-body harmonic-oscillator problem.

For later application to the $`N`$-body problem, we now consider a more general $`1`$-body problem with Hamiltonian

$$H=\beta \sqrt{m^2+\lambda \text{p}^2}+\gamma r^2$$
$`(3.10)`$
and positive parameters $`\{\beta ,\gamma ,\lambda \}.`$ We find by elementary scaling arguments that the eigenvalue $`\epsilon (m,\beta ,\gamma \lambda )`$ corresponding to the operator $`H`$ may be expressed in terms of the energy function $`e(m)`$ by the explicit formula

$$\epsilon (m,\beta ,\gamma \lambda )=\left(\beta ^2\gamma \lambda \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}e\left(m\left(\frac{\beta }{\gamma \lambda }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\right).$$
$`(3.11)`$
In terms of $`P,`$ we therefore have

$$\epsilon (m,\beta ,\gamma \lambda )=\underset{r>0}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta \left(m^2+\lambda \left(\frac{P}{r}\right)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\gamma r^2\right].$$
$`(3.12)`$
For each $`\beta >0,\gamma >0,\lambda >0,`$ this formula is therefore exact when

$$P=P(\mu ),\mathrm{where}\mu =m\left(\frac{\beta }{\gamma \lambda }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}},$$
$`(3.13)`$
it yields a lower bound when $`P=1.376,`$ and an upper bound when $`P=1.5.`$ As we shall see in the next section, the $`2`$-body energy is obtained from (3.11) or (3.12) by simply setting $`\lambda =1,\beta =2.`$ It is an extension of this reasoning that will allow us, in Sec. V, to obtain also the $`N`$-body, $`N2,`$ lower energy bound by using suitable values for $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma ,`$ and $`\lambda .`$

IV. The 2-Body Problem

For the case $`N=2`$ we have explicitly

$$H=\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}_1^2}+\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}_2^2}+\gamma |\text{r}_1\text{r}_2|^2.$$
$`(4.1)`$
Let $`\psi (\rho _2)`$ be a normalized boson wave function. Then the lowest relative eigenvalue of the operator $`H`$ is the infimum of expectation values of the form $`(\psi ,H\psi ).`$ But the boson symmetry of $`\psi (\rho _2)`$ means that the two kinetic-energy terms in $`(\psi ,H\psi )`$ must have the same value. Moreover, in terms of relative coordinates, the operator $`\text{p}_2^2`$ may be written

$$\text{p}_2^2=\frac{(\pi _1\pi _2)^2}{2}.$$
$`(4.2)`$
Now, the operator $`\pi _1`$ would immediately annihilate $`\psi (\rho _2)`$ if it were not contained in the square root. We claim that, inside the expectation value, the operator $`\pi _1`$ may simply be removed; this may be seen as an immediate generalization of the following observation. Lemma 1 Suppose $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\psi (x),`$ then

$$\left[1\left(\frac{}{x}\frac{}{y}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(1\frac{^2}{x^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
$`(4.3)`$
Proof of Lemma 1 If $``$ indicates the 2-dimensional Fourier transform and our new variables are $`\{p,q\},`$ then we find $`(\mathrm{\Psi })(p,q)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\delta (q),`$ and, by definition, the Fourier transform of the left-hand side of (4.3) becomes

$$\left(1+(pq)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\delta (q)=\left(1+p^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)\delta (q).$$
$`(4.4)`$
By transforming back to the variables $`\{x,y\},`$ we obtain the right-hand side of (4.3).

Applying the generalization of this lemma to our problem in three dimensions, we find, for $`\psi =\psi (\rho _2),`$

$$(\psi ,H\psi )=(\psi ,\left(2\sqrt{m^2+\frac{1}{2}\pi _2^2}+2\gamma \rho _2^2\right)\psi ).$$
$`(4.5)`$
By defining the pair-distance variable $`\text{r}=\text{r}_1\text{r}_2=\sqrt{2}\rho _2,`$ and the corresponding momentum as $`\text{p}=\mathrm{i}_\text{r}=\pi _2/\sqrt{2},`$ we may rewrite (4.5) as

$$(\psi ,H\psi )=(\psi ,\left(2\sqrt{m^2+\text{p}^2}+\gamma r^2\right)\psi ).$$
$`(4.6)`$
By using a formal relative coordinate $`\text{r},`$ we have thus recovered the well-known  $`2`$-body result: the minimum of the right-hand side of (4.6) is the bottom of the spectrum of $`H`$ which corresponds precisely to the energy of a $`1`$-body problem with the kinetic-energy parameter $`\beta =2.`$ This result may also be expressed in terms of the $`1`$-body energy function $`e(m)`$ by means of Eq. (3.11). Thus we have explicitly for $`N=2`$

$$E=\left(4\gamma \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}e\left(m\left(\frac{2}{\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\right).$$
$`(4.7)`$
In the next section we shall apply a similar reasoning to the $`N`$-body problem; however, for $`N>2`$ we obtain, instead of the exact energy, a lower energy bound.

V. The Lower Bound

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\rho _2,\rho _3,\mathrm{},\rho _N)`$ is a normalized translation-invariant $`N`$-boson wave function. Boson symmetry and, in particular, formula (2.3) allow us to write

$$E(\mathrm{\Psi },H\mathrm{\Psi })=N(\mathrm{\Psi },\left(m^2+\text{p}_N^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi })+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma (\mathrm{\Psi },2\rho _N^2\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
$`(5.1)`$
Now, from the definition of the relative coordinates, we have

$$\text{p}_N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\pi _1\sqrt{\frac{N1}{N}}\pi _N.$$
$`(5.2)`$
Consequently, an application of an immediate generalization of Lemma 1 allows us to “remove” the operator $`\pi _1`$ from the square root of the kinetic-energy term and write

$$EN(\mathrm{\Psi },\left(m^2+\frac{N1}{N}\pi _N^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi })+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma (\mathrm{\Psi },2\rho _N^2\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
$`(5.3)`$
Adapting the argument presented in Sec. IV for the $`2`$-body case $`N=2,`$ we define a relative coordinate $`\text{r}=\sqrt{2}\rho _N,`$ and the corresponding momentum $`\text{p}=\pi _N/\sqrt{2}.`$ The expression for the upper bound to the lowest $`N`$-boson energy $`E`$ then becomes

$$EN(\mathrm{\Psi },\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)}{N}\text{p}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi })+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma (\mathrm{\Psi },r^2\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
$`(5.4)`$
The inequality (rather than an equality) in (5.4) comes only from the choice of wave function. If we find the infimum of such expressions over all normalized translation-invariant $`N`$-boson wave functions, we would obtain the exact energy $`E;`$ if we find this minimum but without the constraint of boson symmetry, then the right-hand side of (5.4) will in general fall below $`E`$ but will in any case be bounded from below by the bottom of the spectrum of the $`1`$-body semirelativistic Salpeter Hamiltonian

$$H=N\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)}{N}\text{p}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma r^2.$$
$`(5.5)`$
But this latter problem corresponds precisely to Eq. (3.7) if we make the parameter substitutions

$$\beta =N,\lambda =\frac{2(N1)}{N},\gamma \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma =\frac{N(N1)}{2}\gamma .$$
$`(5.6)`$
Thus, in view of the $`P`$ representation (3.12), it is clear by choosing $`P=P(\mu ),`$ where $`\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}}>1.376,`$ that we have established the lower bound (1.4) of Theorem 1.

It is interesting to note that we can also substitute the $`N`$-body values (5.6) for the parameters $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma ,`$ and $`\lambda `$ into the result (3.11) for the $`1`$-body ground-state energy $`\epsilon (m,\beta ,\gamma \lambda )`$ in order to obtain the following explicit expression for the lower bound:

$$E\left(N^2(N1)^2\gamma \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}e\left(m\left(\frac{N}{(N1)^2\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\right).$$
$`(5.7)`$
This expression—which is equivalent to the lower bound (1.4) of Theorem 1—gives the exact energy and agrees with Eq. (4.7) when $`N=2.`$ Meanwhile, for all $`N2,`$ in the nonrelativistic large-$`m`$ (Schrödinger) limit it yields the exact $`N`$-body energy

$$E_{\mathrm{NR}}=Nm+3\left(\frac{\gamma }{2m}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}N^{\frac{1}{2}}(N1),$$
$`(5.8)`$
reproducing thus the old result of Houston and Post recalled in Eq. (1.3).

VI. The Upper Bound

For the upper bound we employ a Gaussian wave function of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _2,\rho _3,\mathrm{},\rho _N)=C\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _i^2\right),\alpha >0,$$
$`(6.1)`$
where $`C`$ is a normalization constant. The factoring property (2.7) of this function and the boson-symmetry reduction leading to (5.4) allows us to write

$$EN(\varphi ,\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)}{N}\text{p}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi )+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma (\varphi ,r^2\varphi ),$$
$`(6.2)`$
where the function $`\varphi (r)`$ is given by

$$\varphi (r)=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha r^2}{2}\right).$$
$`(6.3)`$
Since the kinetic-energy operator is a concave function of the square $`\text{p}^2`$ of the momentum, we can use Jensen’s inequality  to move the expectation value $`\text{p}^2`$ inside the square root and thus estimate the mean value of this operator from above and write

$$EN\left(m^2+\frac{2(N1)}{N}(\varphi ,\text{p}^2\varphi )\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{2}\right)\gamma (\varphi ,r^2\varphi ).$$
$`(6.4)`$
We shall minimize this upper bound with respect to the scale variable $`\alpha >0.`$ We parametrize the basic kinetic-energy and potential-energy expectation values in terms of a variable $`r>0`$ by the following relations:

$$(\varphi ,r^2\varphi )=\frac{3}{2\alpha }:=r^2,(\varphi ,\text{p}^2\varphi )=\frac{3\alpha }{2}=\left(\frac{P}{r}\right)^2,P:=\frac{3}{2}.$$
$`(6.5)`$
By substituting these expressions in Eq. (6.4) and minimizing over the variable $`r,`$ we establish the upper bound (1.4) of Theorem 1.

VII. Summary and Conclusion

This paper is devoted to the investigation of the ground-state eigenvalue of the semirelativistic (“spinless-Salpeter”) Hamiltonian (1.1) which governs the dynamics of a system of $`N`$ identical bosons that experience pair interactions described by a harmonic-oscillator potential with coupling strength $`\gamma `$. For a fixed coupling $`\gamma =1,`$ we have represented the exact ground-state energy eigenvalue of the corresponding $`1`$-body problem, regarded as a function $`e(m)`$ of the boson mass $`m,`$ by a monotone rising function $`P(m),`$ which is bounded by $`1.376<P(0)P(m)P(\mathrm{})=1.5.`$ Our bounds (1.4) on the energy of the $`N`$-body problem are expressed in terms of a formula which has this function $`P`$ as a parameter.

In Fig. 2 we have plotted the energy bounds corresponding to fixed lower and upper limiting values of $`P(m),`$ namely, $`P=\{1.376,1.5\}.`$ In Fig. 3 we have kept the same upper energy bound, obtained with the help of a Gaussian trial wave function and corresponding to $`P=1.5,`$ but added the best lower energy bound of this type, using a “running” $`P=P(\mu ),`$ $`\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}}.`$ The lower energy bound of Fig. 3 is identical to the exact energy for the case $`N=2.`$ For higher $`N>2,`$ Fig. 3 shows the approach of both upper and lower bounds to the well-known exact nonrelativistic solution (1.3) in the large-$`m`$ limit.

A key ingredient in this analysis is the use of relative coordinates: only in such a framework could the upper and lower energy bounds be made to converge in the Schrödinger limit. This study of the semirelativistic harmonic-oscillator problem is a first step towards energy bounds valid for more general central pair interactions.

Acknowledgements

We thank W. Thirring for a discussion about the $`N`$-body problem and G. Dafni for confirming the reasoning in the proof of Lemma 1. Partial financial support of this work under Grant No. GP3438 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and hospitality of the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna is gratefully acknowledged by one of us \[R. L. H.\].

References

 E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 84, 1232 (1951).

 E. E. Salpeter, Phys. Rev. 87, 328 (1952).

 E. H. Lieb and M. Loss, Analysis (American Mathematical Society, New York, 1996). The definition of the Salpeter kinetic-energy operator is given on p. 168.

 W. Lucha and F. F. Schöberl, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3790 (1996).

 R. L. Hall, W. Lucha, and F. F. Schöberl, J. Phys. A 34, 5059 (2001).

 W. M. Houston, Phys. Rev. 47, 942 (1935).

 H. R. Post, Proc. Phys. Soc. London 66, 942 (1953).

 R. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3499 (1995).

 W. Lucha and F. F. Schöberl, Phys. Rev. A 60, 5091 (1999).

 W. Lucha and F. F. Schöberl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15, 3221 (2000).

 R. L. Hall, Can. J. Phys. 50, 305 (1972).

 R. L. Hall, Aequ. Math. 8, 281 (1972).

 R. L. Hall, J. Math. Phys. 24, 324 (1983).

 R. L. Hall, J. Math. Phys. 25, 2708 (1984).

 R. L. Hall, W. Lucha, and F. F. Schöberl, J. Math. Phys. 42, 5228 (2001).

 W. Lucha and F. F. Schöberl, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 2309 (1999).

 W. Feller, An introduction to probability theory and its applications, Volume II (John Wiley, New York, 1971). Jensen’s inequality is discussed on p. 153.

Figure 1. The monotone energy function $`e(m)`$ of the $`1`$-body problem defined by (3.1), and the monotone function $`P(m)`$ used in our standard representation (3.8) for $`e(m);`$ the function $`P(m)`$ is bounded by $`P(0)=1.376P(m)P(\mathrm{})=3/2.`$

Figure 2. Upper (full lines) and lower (dashed lines) bounds to the lowest energy $`E(m)`$ of the $`N`$-boson relativistic harmonic-oscillator problem for $`N=2,3,\mathrm{},8`$ obtained by employing the constant values $`P=1.376`$ and $`P=1.5,`$ respectively, in Eq. (1.4) of Theorem 1.    Figure 3. Upper (full lines) and lower (dashed lines) bounds to the lowest energy $`E(m)`$ of the $`N`$-boson relativistic harmonic-oscillator problem for $`N=2,3,\mathrm{},8`$ obtained by employing the values $`P=P(\mu ),\mu =m(N/(\gamma (N1)^2))^{\frac{1}{3}},`$ and $`P=1.5,`$ respectively, in Eq. (1.4) of Theorem 1. For $`N=2,`$ the lower bound is exact.


format: text

text:
# Asteroseismology and forced oscillations of HD 209295, the first member of two classes of pulsating star

## Abstract

We report the discovery of both intermediate-order gravity mode and low-order pressure mode pulsation in the same star, HD 209295. It is therefore both a $`\gamma `$ Doradus and a $`\delta `$ Scuti star, which makes it the first confirmed member of two classes of pulsating star.

This object is located in a close binary system with an unknown, but likely degenerate companion in an eccentric orbit, and some of the $`\gamma `$ Doradus pulsation frequencies are exact integer multiples of the orbital frequency. We suggest that these pulsations are tidally excited. HD 209295 may be the progenitor of an intermediate-mass X-Ray binary.

## 1. Introduction

The variability of HD 209295 was discovered by the HIPPARCOS mission (ESA 1997). Handler (1999) performed a frequency analysis of these data and found multiperiodic variability only explicable by $`\gamma `$ Doradus-type pulsation. As this object is also located in the $`\delta `$ Scuti instability strip, Handler & Shobbrook (2002) examined it for short-term variability and indeed discovered short-period pulsations superposed on the $`\gamma `$ Doradus light curve.

It was then clear that HD 209295 was the first confirmed member of two classes of pulsating star. Consequently, follow-up observations, including a multi-site campaign were organized, resulting in 280 h of photometric and 135 h of spectroscopic monitoring. We show an example light curve in Fig. 1.

## 2. Results

The analysis of our measurements yielded several surprises. Firstly, it turned out that the star shows quite large radial velocity variations, in excess of 100 km/s. This was reconciled with binary motion: HD 209295 is a single-lined spectroscopic binary with an orbital period of 3.10575 d and a rather high eccentricity of 0.35. The absence of ellipsoidal variability results in an upper limit of the orbital inclination of 44, which in turns requires a companion mass $`>0.98M_{}`$.

We searched for the binary companion which should make itself obvious through an infrared excess if it was a main-sequence star, but could not detect it. However, we noticed that TD-1 satellite measurements of HD 209295 showed quite a large ultraviolet excess, but no binary model with a hot companion subluminous in the optical can explain the amount of the excess flux. The high orbital eccentricity and our constraint on the secondary mass suggest a neutron star as the orbital companion, but this explanation also has its weaknesses, as the star seems chemically normal, has normal space motions, and is not an X-Ray source.

Turning back to the pulsations, we noted little correspondence between the frequency analysis of the photometric and radial velocity measurements. This is at first sight also surprising, but can be explained by the low amplitude of the $`\delta `$ Scuti pulsations and toroidal corrections due to stellar rotation (Aerts & Krisciunas 1996) for the $`\gamma `$ Doradus modes.

We were able to obtain a mode identification for the two highest-amplitude photometric modes which are weakly present in the line-profile variations by using the method by Telting & Schrijvers (1997). According to this result, both are $`\mathrm{}=1,|m|=1`$. As we have quite a substantial amount of time-series colour photometry of HD 209295 at our disposal, we also attempted mode identifications following Balona & Evers (1999) and Koen et al. (1999). However, these results were (at best) inconclusive.

## 3. Evidence for forced oscillations

Another intriguing result from our study was that several of the photometrically detected variations have frequencies which are exact integer multiples of the orbital frequency (see Table 1). This raises the suspicion that these are tidally excited modes.

We note that the photometric colour amplitude ratios of the variations at orbital harmonic frequencies are consistent with those of pulsations. Table 1 also shows that these variations are also similarly aligned near periastron (allowing for a 180 phase ambiguity which is explained in this scenario as the dominating components of tidally induced oscillations should be $`\mathrm{}=2`$, $`|m|=2`$ modes (e.g. see Kosovichev & Severnyj 1983).

Consequently, one of us (BW) is currently investigating the case for tidally excited oscillations of HD 209295 theoretically, with initially quite encouraging results. We refer to Willems & Aerts (2001) and Kumar et al. (1995) for more information on theoretical studies of tidal excitation of nonradial oscillations.

## 4. Conclusions

We showed that HD 209295 is not only the first member of two classes of pulsating star (it is both a $`\gamma `$ Doradus and a $`\delta `$ Scuti star), but we have also discovered good evidence for the presence of tidally excited pulsation modes, whereby the responsible binary companion is possibly a neutron star.

The confrontation of photometric and spectroscopic mode identification methods resulted in a reasonable identification for the two dominating $`\gamma `$ Doradus modes of the star, whereas the photometric techniques did not yield meaningful results. The analysis of the suspected tidally excited modes may give us further insight into this problem.

Despite the many fascinating results obtained from the study of HD 209295, several open questions still remain. We do not well understand why there is little correspondence between the photometric and radial velocity frequency analyses. The nature of the companion of HD 209295 is also presently a mystery.

Future observational studies of the star which would be worthwhile would be an even larger multisite photometric and spectroscopic campaign, in particular with larger telescopes for high-resolution spectroscopy. There are still further pulsational signals to be found. UV and infrared spectroscopy would help to find the orbital companion, and an abundance analysis may reveal an unusual chemical composition caused by the previous evolution of the star through, e.g. a mass transfer stage.

## References

Aerts, C., Krisciunas, K., 1996, MNRAS 278, 877

Balona, L. A., Evers, E. A., 1999, MNRAS 302, 349

ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues, ESA SP-1200

Handler, G., 1999, MNRAS 309, L19

Handler, G., Shobbrook, R. R., 2002, MNRAS, in preparation

Koen, C., Van Rooyen, R., Van Wyk, F., Marang, F., 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1051

Kumar, P., Ao, C. O., Quataert, E. J., 1995, ApJ 449, 294

Kosovichev, A. G., Severnyj, A. B., 1983, Pis’ma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal 9, 424

Telting, J. H., Schrijvers, C., 1997, A&A 317, 723

Willems, B., Aerts, C., 2001, A&A, in press


text:
# Timing and Spectral Properties of X-ray Emission from the Converging Flows onto Black hole: Monte-Carlo Simulations

## 1 Introduction

Accreting stellar-mass black holes (BH) in Galactic binaries exhibit so called high-soft and low-hard spectral states (e.g. Borozdin et al. 1999, hereafter BOR99). An increase in the soft blackbody luminosity component leads to the appearance of an extended power law. An important observational fact is that this effect is seen as a persistent phenomenon only in BH candidates, and thus it is apparently a unique black hole signature. Although in Neutron star (NS) systems similar power law components are detected in the intermediate stages (Strickman & Barret 1999; Iaria et al. 2000; Di Salvo et al. 2001), they are of a transient nature, disappearing with increasing luminosity (Di Salvo et al.).

It thus seems a reasonable assumption that the unique spectral signature of the soft state of BH binaries is directly tied to the black hole event horizon. This is the primary motivation for the Bulk Motion Comptonization Model (BMC) introduced in several previous papers, and recently applied with striking success to a substantial body of observational data (Shrader & Titarchuk 1998; BOR99; Titarchuk & Shrader 2002, hereafter TS02). A complete theory of BH accretion must, however, be also able to accommodate in a natural manner a growing number of observational traits exhibited in the temporal domain. For example, it is now well established that BH X-ray binaries exhibit quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) phenomena in three frequency domains: $`0.1`$ Hz, ($`110`$ Hz) and ($`10^2`$ Hz). The $`10^2`$Hz QPOs seem to occur during periods of flaring, and when the spectra (although in the high-soft state) tend to be relatively hard, i.e. the relative importance of the power-law component with respect to the thermal. Furthermore, the QPO amplitudes increase with energy, that is there is a higher degree of modulation of the signal in the hard-power law than in the thermal excess component. In addition to the QPO phenomena, it has been noted by Nowak et al. (2000) (also see Cui et al. 2000) that measures of the coherence between the intensity variations in the hard power law and thermal components is negligible.

We argue that the BH X-ray spectrum in the high-soft state is formed in the relatively cold accretion flow with a subrelativistic bulk velocity $`v_{bulk}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}c`$ and with a temperature of a few keV and less ($`v_{th}c`$). In such a flow the effect of the bulk Comptonization is much stronger than the effect of the thermal Comptonization which is a second order with respect to $`v_{th}/c`$. In this Letter we present results of Monte Carlo simulations probing the spatial, spectral, timing and time-lag properties of X-ray radiation in CI atmosphere in §§2-4. Comparisons are drawn to the recent X-ray observations of BH sources. Summary and conclusions follow in §5.

## 2 Emergent spectrum and hard photon spatial distribution

The geometry used in these simulations is similar to the one used in the Laurent & Titarchuk (1999), hereafter LT99, consisting of a thin disk with an inner radius of 3 $`r_\mathrm{S}`$, merged with a spherical CI cloud harboring a BH in its center, where $`r_\mathrm{S}=2GM/c^2`$ is the Schwarzchild radius and $`M`$ is a BH mass. The cloud outer radius is $`r_{out}`$. The disk is assumed always to be optically thick.

In addition to free-fall into the central BH, we have also taken into account the thermal motion of the CI electrons, simulated at an electron temperature of 5 keV. This is likely to be a typical temperature of the CI in the high-soft state of galactic BHs \[see Chakrabarti & Titarchuk (1995) and BOR99 for details\]. The seed X-ray photons were generated uniformly and isotropically at the surface of the border of the accretion disk, from $`r_{d,in}=3r_\mathrm{S}`$ to $`r_{d,out}=10r_s`$. These photons were generated according to a thermal spectrum with a single temperature of 0.9 keV, similar to the ones measured in Black Hole binary systems (see for example BOR99). In fact, BOR99 also demonstrate that the multicolor disk spectrum can be fitted by the effective single temperature blackbody spectrum in the energy range of interest (for photon energies higher than 2 keV). The parameters of our simulations are the BH mass $`m`$ in solar units, the CI electron temperature, $`T_e=5`$keV, the mass accretion rate, $`\dot{m}=4`$ in Eddington units (see LT99), and the cloud outer radius, $`r_{out}=10r_\mathrm{S}`$. It is worth noting that, for these parameters, the bulk motion effects are not significant at $`r>10r_\mathrm{S}`$.111 In general, the bulk motion Comptonization is effective when $`\tau v_{bulk}/c=\dot{m}r_\mathrm{S}/r`$ is not smaller than unity (e.g. Rees, 1978; Titarchuk et al. 1997).

In Figure 1 we present the simulated spectrum of the X-ray emission emerging from the CI atmosphere. The spectrum exhibits three features: a soft X-ray bump, an extended power law and a sharp exponential turnover near 300 keV. As demonstrated previously (Titarchuk & Zannias 1998, hereafter TZ98; LT99) the extended power law is a result of soft photon upscattering off CI electrons. The qualitative explanation of this phenomena was given by Ebisawa et al. (1996), hereafter ETC and later by Papathanassiou & Psaltis (2001). The exponential turnover is formed by a small fraction of those photons which undergo scatterings near the horizon where the strong curvature of the photon trajectories prevent us from detecting most them. In Figure 1 we indicate, with arrows the places in the CI atmosphere where photons of a particular energy mainly come from.222Recently, Reig et al. (2001) show that the extended power law can be also formed as a result of the bulk motion Comptonization when the rotational component is dominant in the flow. The photons gain energy from the rotational motion of the electrons.

A precise analysis of the X-ray photon distribution in CI atmosphere can be made through calculation of the source function, either by semi-analytical methods solving the relativistic kinetic equation (RKE) (TZ98) or by Monte Carlo simulations (LT99). TZ98 calculate the photon kinetics in the lab frame demonstrating that the source function has a strong peak near the photon bending radius, $`1.5r_s`$ (Fig. 3 there). In Figure 2 we show the Monte Carlo simulated source functions for four energy bands: 2-5 keV (curve a), 5-13 keV (curve b), 19-29 keV (curve c) and 60-150 keV (curve d). The peak at around $`(1.52)r_\mathrm{S}`$ is clearly seen for the second and the third bands which is in a good agreement with TZ98’s source function. 333TZ98 implemented the method of separation of variables to solve the RKE Green’s function. They then showed that the source function of the upscattered photons is distributed according to the first eigenfunction of the RKE space operator defined by equations (21-24) in TZ98.

TZ98 calculated the upscattering part of spectrum neglecting the recoil effect. Our Monte Carlo simulations, not limited by TZ98’s approximation, reproduce the source function spatial distribution for high energy bands (curve d in Figure 2). We confirm that the density of the highest energy X-ray photons is concentrated near the black hole horizon. Comparison of TZ98’s semi-analytical calculations and our Monte-Carlo simulations leads us to conclude that the source function really follows the RKE first eigenfunction distribution until very high energies. At that point the upscattering photon spatial distribution also becomes a function of energy. As seen from Figure 2 the source function in the soft energy band (curve a) has two maxima: one is at 2.2 $`r_\mathrm{S}`$ related to the photon bending radius and another (wide one) is at 5 $`r_\mathrm{S}`$ affected by the disk emission area.

## 3 An Illumination Effect of CI Atmosphere and High Frequency QPO Phenomena

We remind the reader that the emergent spectrum is a result of integration of the product of the photon escape probability and the source function distribution along a line of sight (e.g. Chandrasekhar 1960). The normalization of the upscattering spectrum is determined by the fraction of the soft (disk) photons which illuminate the inner region of the CI atmosphere below $`3r_\mathrm{S}`$, i.e. around the maximum of the upscattered photon source function. From the Monte Carlo simulations we extract the fraction of the soft photons emitted at some particular disk radius $`r`$ which form the high energy part of spectrum (for $`E>10`$ keV). This distribution is presented in the upper panel of Figure 3. As seen from this plot, the strength of the high energy tail is mostly determined by the photons emitted at the inner edge of the disk. Thus any perturbation in the disk should be immediately translated to the oscillation of the hard tail with a frequency related to the inner disk edge. The CI atmosphere manifests the high frequencies QPO of the innermost part of the disk. In the lower panel of Figure 3 we present the power density spectrum for the simulated X-ray emission coming from CI atmosphere in the energies higher than 10 keV. We assume that the PDS is a sum of the red noise component (where the power law index equals to 1) and QPOs power proportional to the illumination factor for a given disk radius, $`r`$ (see the upper panel). We also assume that the perturbation frequency at $`r`$ is related to the Keplerian frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{K}=2.2(3r_\mathrm{s}/r)^{1.5}/m`$ kHz.

There is a striking similarity between the high frequency QPO and spectral energy distribution of the Monte Carlo results and real observations of BHC in their soft-high state. For example, in XTE J1550-564 the $`200`$Hz QPO phenomenon tends to be detected in the high state at times when the bolometric luminosity surges and the hard-power-law spectral component is prominent (TS02). The noted lack of coherence between intensity variations of the high-soft-state low energy bands is also in a good agreement with the our simulations where the high energy tail intensity correlates with the supply of the soft photons from the inner disk edge but it does not correlate with the production of the disk photons at large.

## 4 Positive and Negative Time Lags

Additional important information related to the X-ray spectral-energy distribution can be extracted from the time lags between different energy bands. The hard and soft lags have been observed for several sources (e.g. Reig et al. 2000, hereafter R00: Tomsick & Kaaret 2000 for GRS 1915+105 and Wijnands et al. 1999, Remillard et al. 2001 for XTE J1550-564). It is natural to expect the positive time lags in the case of the unsaturated thermal Comptonization. The primary soft photons gain energy in process of scattering off hot electrons; thus the hard photons spend more time in the cloud than the soft ones. Nobili at al. (2000) first suggested that in a corona with a temperature stratification (a hot core and a relatively cold outer part) the thermal Comptonization can account for the positive and negative time lags as well as the observed colors (see R00).444This Comptonization model with a hot core (for the similar models, see also Skibo & Dermer 1995 and Lehr et al. 2000) may reproduce the intrinsic spectral and timing properties of the converging inflow.

In the bulk-motion Comptonization case, the soft disk photons at first gain energy in the deep layers of the converging inflow, and then in their subsequent path towards the observer lose energy in the relatively cold outer layers. If the overall optical depth of the converging inflow atmosphere (or the mass accretion rate) is near unity, we would detect only the positive lags as in the thermal Comptonization case, because relatively few photons would lose energy in escaping. But with an increase of the optical depth, the soft lags appear because more hard photons lose their energy in the cold outer layers.

In Figure 4 we present the calculations of the of time lags for two energy bands 2-13 keV and 13-900 keV. We first compute the time spent by the photon, drawn in a given direction, to cross the whole system without being scattered. Then, we compute the real time of flight of the photon, taking into account its scattering and its complete trajectory in the system. The general relativistic gravitational time dilatation was also taken into account in these computations. The time lag is then determined as a difference between these two times. In this time-lag definition, a photon which undergoes no scattering has a zero lag. Thus the time lags between two energy bands can be defined a difference of these two time lags, i.e. $`\delta t=t_2t_1`$ where $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are time lags for 2-13-keV and 13-900-keV bands respectively. The time lags for 2-13-keV band are distributed over the interval between 1 and 600 Schwarzschild times, $`t_\mathrm{S}=r_\mathrm{S}/c`$ and the time lags for 13-900-keV band are distributed over the interval between 200 and $`10^3`$ $`t_\mathrm{S}`$. For a ten solar mass BH $`t_\mathrm{S}=0.1`$ ms. Thus, for $`t_1<15`$ ms all time lags $`\delta t`$ are positive, i.e. high energy photons are produced later than the soft energies photons. The $`t_2`$ distribution has a broad peak at 30 ms and $`t_1`$ distribution has a broad peak at 8 ms. Consequently, the positive lags $`\delta t`$ are mostly higher than 20 ms. which is in a good agreement with the time lags detection in GRS 1915+105 (R00). The values of the positive time lags for this source are consistent with the BH mass being around 20 solar masses (see BOR99 for the BH mass determination in GRS 1915+105). We show that the absolute value of the time (phase) lags get higher with the energy. In fact, Wijnands et al. (1999) for XTE J1550-564 (see also Remillard et al. 2001) and Tomsick & Kaaret (2000) for GRS 1915+105 show that the phase lags of both signs increase from 0 to 0.5 radians as the photon energy varies from 3 keV to 100 keV. These phase lag changes correspond to the time lag changes from 0 to 15 ms and from 0 to 50 ms for XTE J1550-564 and GRS 1915+105 respectively. These values are very close to what we obtain in our simulations.

For $`t_1>15`$ ms we get the time lags of both signs. Positive values of $`\delta t`$ should be of order 30 ms and higher. Negative values should not be higher than 20 ms for a 10 solar mass BH. Our simulations demonstrate that for high accretion rates time lags of both signs are present, i.e. the upscattering and down-scattering are equally important in the formation of CI spectrum, whereas for the low mass accretion rates the upscattering process leads to the CI spectral formation and only the positive times lags are present. Our simulations are in a good agreement with the R00’s values of $`\delta =3060`$ ms. The results for the simulated time lags can be understood using the simple upscattering model (see ETC). We assume that at any scattering event the relative mean energy change is constant, $`\eta `$, i.e. $`\eta =<\delta E>/E`$. The number of scatterings $`k`$ which are needed for the soft photon of energy $`E_0`$ to gain energy E is $`k(E)=\mathrm{ln}(E/E_0)/\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta )`$. Then $`\delta t=k\times l(1r_\mathrm{S}/r)^1/c`$ where $`l`$ is the photon mean free path, $`l=[b(E)\sigma _\mathrm{T}n]^1`$, $`(1r_\mathrm{S}/r)`$ is the relativistic dilatation factor (e.g. Landau & Lifshitz 1971) and $`b(E)`$ is an energy dependent factor less than unity (e.g. Pozdnyakov et al, 1983). The free path $`l`$ is estimated as $`l2(r/r_\mathrm{S})^{1.5}r_\mathrm{S}/b(E)\dot{m}`$ with an assumption that the number density $`n`$ is calculated for the free fall distribution, (see LT99, Eq. 2). With $`r/r_\mathrm{S}1.18`$ (see Fig. 2, curve d), $`\dot{m}=4`$ and $`b0.5`$ for $`E=100`$ keV we get $`l1.2r_\mathrm{S}`$. $`b(E)1`$ for $`E=10`$ keV and $`r/r_\mathrm{S}>2`$ and consequently $`l>1.5r_\mathrm{S}`$.555It is worth noting that the emergent high energy photon gains its energy being predominantly close to horizon, $`r=(12)r_\mathrm{S}`$ where the photon trajectory are close to circular (e.g. TZ98). Thus our estimated values of the free path $`l(11.5)r_\mathrm{S}`$ are consistent with the trajectory length. With $`\eta =0.1`$ extracted from our simulations for $`E<100`$ keV where the extended power law is seen in the spectrum (see also Papathanassiou & Psaltis 2001, Fig. 3) the time lags are $`\delta t=7.6`$ ms and $`50`$ ms for $`E=10`$ keV and $`100`$ keV respectively.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

Using Monte Carlo simulations we have presented a detailed timing analysis of the X-ray radiation from a CI atmosphere. (1) We confirm TZ98’s results that the high energy photons are produced predominantly in the deep layers of the CI atmosphere from 1 to 2 Schwarzchild radii. (2) We also confirm that the 100-Hz phenomena should be seen in the high energy tail of the spectrum rather than in the soft spectral component because the inner part of the converging inflow is mostly fed by soft photons from the innermost part of the disk but the contribution of this disk area to the disk emission is small. (3) We find that the characteristic time lags in the converging inflow are order of a few tens of ms at 10 keV and the hard (positive) time lags increase logarithmically with energy. (4) We demonstrate that soft (negative) along with hard (positive) lags are present in the X-ray emission from the converging inflow for the mass accretion higher than Eddington. In the end we can also conclude that that almost all of the X-ray timing and spectral properties of the high-soft state in BHs tends to indicate that the high energy tail of spectrum is produced within the CI region, $`(13)\times r_\mathrm{S}`$ where the bulk inflow (gravitational attraction) is a dominant process.

We acknowledge the fruitful discussions with Chris Shrader and Paul Ray. We also acknowledge the useful suggestions and the valuable corrections by the referee which improve the paper presentation.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently the CLAS Collaboration at JLab has published new data on $`\rho `$\- and $`\varphi `$-meson photoproduction at large momentum transfers . The main goal of these data is to provide understanding for the mechanism responsible for the violation of the OZI rule in strong interactions .

The usual approach to the description of exclusive reactions consists in the use of some effective non-perturbative reaction model at small momentum transfers and hard perturbative gluonic exchange mechanisms at large momentum transfers . These approaches are unable to explain the large spin effects at large $`t`$ in exclusive reactions . One example is the large $`A_{nn}`$ asymmetry in proton-proton elastic scattering which can be understood only if some helicity violating contribution is present at such momentum transfers. The pQCD exchanges in these approaches lead only to quark helicity conserving contributions and therefore can not be the dominant mechanisms for exclusive reactions in the few GeV region.

We have proposed a non-perturbative mechanism  for exclusive reactions at large momentum transfers, whose relevance we have studied in $`\varphi `$ meson electromagnetic production at large momentum transfer, which we here generalize to $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-meson photoproduction off the nucleon. The new ingredient of our model is the gluonic contribution arising from the QCD mechanism associated with the flavor singlet axial anomaly and describable in terms of an additional gluonic pole in the amplitudes. The gluonic pole was introduced in  to describe features of OZI violation in the pseudoscalar meson nonet. It has been shown to provide a natural explanation of proton spin . Recently, applications to radiative decays of pseudoscalar mesons, the muon anomalous magnetic moment and the determination of the photon structure $`g_1^\gamma `$ function in polarized deep inelastic scattering have been discussed . The origin for this pole is the periodicity of QCD the potential as a function of the topological charge and the existence of instantons tunneling between the various classical vacua of the theory .

By showing the relevance of the gluonic pole exchange in vector meson photoproduction at large momentum transfers, we unveil a non-perturbative QCD effect, which is neither contained in the low energy effective theories nor in the pQCD ingredients of previous calculations.

## 2 Vector meson photoproduction off the nucleon

It is very well known that at large energy and small momentum transfer the main contribution to the photoproduction of the vector mesons comes from the pomeron exchange. In the low energy region one can expect the dominance of the pomeron at small $`t`$ only for $`\varphi `$ meson electromagnetic photoproduction due to OZI rule. For $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$-meson production the contribution from secondary Reggeon exchanges might be important. In the case of photoproduction the leading Regge trajectory with appropriate quantum numbers is the $`f_2`$ meson trajectory. Subleading Regge exchanges, which might give a significant contribution, are $`\pi `$-meson exchange for $`\rho `$\- and $`\omega `$-meson production and $`\eta `$-meson exchange for $`\varphi `$-meson production  (Fig.1a).

We use the Donnachie-Landshoff (DL) model  to describe the soft pomeron contribution to the vector meson production differential cross section,

$$\frac{d\sigma _P}{dt}=\frac{81m_V^3\beta _0^2\beta _q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}^V}{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}\frac{F(t)^2\mu _0^4}{(2\mu _0^2+Q^2+m_V^2t)^2(Q^2+m_V^2t)^2}\left(\frac{S}{S_0}\right)^{2\alpha _P(t)2},$$
(1)
where

$$F(t)=\frac{4M_N^22.8t}{(4M_N^2t)(1t/0.7)^2}$$
(2)
is the electromagnetic nucleon form factor. The pomeron-quark couplings $`\beta _0=2`$ GeV-1, $`\beta _s=1.5`$ GeV-1 are obtained from a fit to the total $`pp`$, $`\pi p`$ and $`Kp`$ cross sections , $`\mu _0^2=1.1GeV^2`$, $`S_0=4GeV^2`$ and the pomeron trajectory is $`\alpha _P(t)=\alpha _P(0)+\alpha _P^{}t`$, with $`\alpha _P(0)=1.08`$ and $`\alpha _P^{}=0.25`$ GeV-1. The effect of the $`f_2`$ trajectory can be taken into account by multiplying the equation for the pomeron contribution Eq.(1) by the factor

$$F_{P+f_2}=1+2A(S,t)cos\left(\frac{\pi }{2}(\alpha _{f_2}(t)a_P(t))\right)+A(S,t)^2$$
(3)
with

$$A(S,t)=\frac{\beta _{f_2}^2}{\beta _0^2}\left(\frac{S}{S_1}\right)^{\alpha _{f_2}(t)1}\left(\frac{S}{S_0}\right)^{1\alpha _P(t)},$$

where the $`f_2`$ trajectory is $`\alpha _{f_2}(t)=0.55+0.9t`$, and the coupling to quarks $`\beta _{f_2}=4.32`$ was taken also from the DL fit to the total hadron cross sections .

The contribution of the pseudoscalar exchange to the cross section can be calculated by using the same procedure as in the DL approach to the pomeron contribution  111We do not include the interaction of the $`\eta `$-meson with the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks because its contribution to $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$-meson production is much smaller than the contribution of the $`\pi `$-meson.

Direct calculation of the triangle diagram in Fig.2 222We do not use the conventional approach for the calculation of the pseudoscalar contribution which consists in using as input the experimental values of widths for $`V\gamma \pi ^0(\eta )`$  since one has large uncertainties in the estimates due to the poor knowledge of the $`V\gamma \pi ^0(\eta )`$ form-factors. at the quark level with the quark-meson interactions

$`L_{\pi qq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi ^0qq}}{2m_q}}(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d)^\mu \pi ^0,`$
$`L_{\eta ss}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\eta ss}}{2m_s}}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s^\mu \eta `$ (4)
gives the result

$$\frac{d\sigma _{PS}}{dt}=\frac{K_{PSV}m_Vg_{PSNN}^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{e^+e^{}}^Vt}{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}\frac{FPS(t)^2}{(SM_N^2)^2(tM_{PS}^2)^2},$$
(5)
where $`K_{\pi \rho }=3/100`$, $`K_{\pi \omega }=9K_{\pi \rho }`$, $`K_{\eta \varphi }=3`$ and we have used the constituent quark relations $`2m_q=m_V`$, $`g_{\pi ^0qq}=3/5g_{\pi ^0NN}`$ and $`g_{\eta ss}=2g_{\eta NN}`$.

For numerical estimates the value $`g_{\pi NN}=13.28`$  for pion-nucleon and the $`SU(3)_f`$ value $`g_{\eta NN}=3.52`$ for $`\eta `$-nucleon coupling  have been used. In Eq.(5) the pseudoscalar-nucleon form-factor is taken of monopole form

$$FPS(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M_{PS}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2t}$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8GeV`$ . The Reggeization of the pseudoscalar meson exchange can be perform in the standard way (see for example ). It is done by substituting the pseudoscalar propagator in the following way,

$$\frac{1}{tM_{PS}^2}\left(\frac{S}{S_1}\right)^{\alpha _{PS}(t)}\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{sin\pi \alpha _{PS}(t)}\frac{1+e^{i\pi \alpha _{PS}(t)}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha _{PS}(t))}.$$
(7)
The pseudoscalar trajectories are taken as

$$\alpha _{PS}(t)=\alpha ^{}(tM_{PS}^2)$$
(8)
with slope $`\alpha ^{}=0.9GeV^2`$.

It can be shown that the effect of Reggeization leads to the multiplication of Eq.(5) by the Regge factor

$$R=\left(\frac{S}{S_1}\right)^{2\alpha _{PS}(t)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha _{PS}(t))cos^2(\frac{\pi \alpha _{PS}(t)}{2}).$$
(9)
The pomeron contribution to vector meson photoproduction is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 by long-dashed lines. It underestimates the low $`t`$ cross-section for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ production at JLab energies but describes rather well the low $`t`$ $`\varphi `$-meson production. The total contribution of the DL pomeron and $`f_2`$ exchange to the cross section for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ photoproduction is presented in Figs. 3 and 4 by dashed-dot lines. The contribution of the pion exchange in Figs. 3 and 4 and $`\eta `$-meson exchange in Fig. 5 is shown by short-dashed line. It is apparent that pseudoscalar exchange is important only for $`\omega `$ production at very small momentum transfers. Our result is in contradiction with the result of ref.  where a nonreggeized pion exchange contribution to vector meson production was calculated. In our approach the suppression of the pseudoscalar contribution at large $`t`$ is not very sensitive to the $`t`$ dependence of the $`\pi (\eta )NN`$ and $`\pi (\eta )\gamma V`$ form-factors and the absolute value of the pseudoscalar coupling with quarks. This suppression is due to the smallness of the Regge factor $`(S/S_1)^{2\alpha _{PS}(t)}`$ in the cross-section for large $`t`$. The effect of the Reggeization for the case of the $`\pi `$ contribution to $`\rho `$ production is shown in Fig. 6. This effect is very large and can not be neglected. The pomeron and Regge contributions describe the data for all mesons rather well in the small $`t0.5`$ GeV2 region. However, for large $`t1`$ GeV2, all these contributions deviate strongly from the data.

## 3 Anomalous gluonic exchange

In our previous work  a new gluonic, so-called $`G`$-pole, exchange was introduced to explain the large $`t`$ electromagnetic $`\varphi `$ meson production at JLab. This exchange, not related to the exchange of any mesonic state, arises from the nontrivial topological structure of the QCD vacuum. In some sense this exchange represents the interaction of the quarks in the photon with the quarks in the proton generated by the excitations of the QCD vacuum.

In QCD the anomalous gluonic axial current

$$K_\mu =\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_\nu ^a(_\alpha A_\beta ^a+\frac{g_s}{3}f_{abc}A_\alpha ^bA_\beta ^c)$$
(10)
has a massless pole

$$id^4xe^{ikx}<0|TK_\mu (x)K_\nu (0)|0>_{k0}\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2}\lambda ^4$$
(11)
which is related to the topological susceptibility of the QCD vacuum

$$\chi (0)=\lambda ^4=id^4x<0|TQ(x)Q(0)|0>,$$
(12)
where $`Q(x)=_\mu K_\mu `$ is the density of topological charge. This pole has been called the gluonic ghost pole  in the literature and $`G`$-pole by us .

The diagonalization of the propagator matrix for the ghost operator $`Q`$ and quark nonet states $`\pi ^0,\eta ^8`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ leads to the following propagator

$$<GG>=A$$
(13)
which we called $`G`$-propagator. $`A`$ in Eq.(13) is determined by the topological susceptibility of QCD vacuum

$$A\chi (0)|_{YM}=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{6}(m_\eta ^{}^2+m_\eta ^22m_K^2)(180MeV)^4.$$
(14)
We should stress that the $`G`$-propagator Eq.(13) does not depend on the momentum transfer $`k^2`$ and therefore the effective interaction induced by the ghost exchange is point-like. This property is responsible for the large $`G`$-pole contribution to vector meson photoproduction at large momentum transfers as will be shown next.

Let us estimate the contribution of $`G`$-pole exchange to vector meson photoproduction (Fig.1b). To calculate this diagram the values of couplings $`g_{GNN}`$ and $`g_{G\gamma V}`$ are needed. We will use the fact that the contribution of the $`G`$-pole to the physical amplitudes in the flavor singlet channel leads to results which are different from the predictions of the OZI rule. This mechanism produces, for the isosinglet axial-vector nucleon form factor at zero momentum transfer, the following generalized $`U(1)`$ Golberger-Treiman relation

$$2M_NG_A^0=Fg_{\eta ^{}NN}+2N_fAg_{GNN}=F_{\eta _0}g_{\eta _{0NN}},$$
(15)
where $`F\sqrt{2N_f}f_\pi `$, $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV and $`g_{GNN}`$ is $`G`$-nucleon coupling constant. The experimental value of $`G_A^00.3`$ extracted from experimental data on nucleon spin-dependent structure function $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ , allows us to estimate the value of $`G`$-nucleon coupling constant as

$$g_{GNN}\frac{0.3M_N}{N_fA}89.35GeV^3.$$
(16)
The $`G`$-pole contribution to the $`\eta ^{}(\eta )\gamma \gamma `$ decay has been discussed in  where a modified formula for the effective coupling of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson with photons has been obtained,

$$Fg_{\eta ^{}\gamma \gamma }+2N_fAg_{G\gamma \gamma }=\frac{4}{\pi }\alpha _{em}.$$
(17)
Let us consider the $`G`$-pole contribution to the $`\eta ^{}\gamma V`$ coupling, where $`V`$ stands for $`\rho ^0`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$. The interaction of the vector mesons with the quarks is assumed to be photon-like

$$L_{\rho qq}=C_\rho (\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d)\rho _\mu ,L_{\omega qq}=C_\omega (\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u+\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d)\omega _\mu ,L_{\varphi ss}=C_\varphi \overline{s}\gamma _\mu s\varphi _\mu .$$
(18)
Due to this vector meson-photon analogy the generalization of Eq.(17) to the case of the $`\eta ^{}\gamma V`$ amplitude is straightforward

$$Fg_{\eta ^{}\gamma V}+2N_fAg_{G\gamma V}=k_VC_V\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _{em}}{\pi ^3}},$$
(19)
where $`k_\varphi =1`$, $`k_\rho =3`$ and $`k_\omega =1`$. The values of $`g_{\eta ^{}\gamma \varphi }`$, $`g_{\eta ^{}\gamma \omega }`$ and $`g_{\eta ^{}\gamma \rho }`$ can be extracted from the experimental widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \eta ^{}\gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \eta ^{}\gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\rho \gamma }`$.

The vector meson couplings with quarks are not well known. In order to estimate them we use a constituent quark model calculation for the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ couplings

$$C_\rho =C_\omega =\frac{g_{\omega NN}}{3}3.45,$$
(20)
where $`g_{\omega NN}=10.35`$ is taken from  and for the $`\varphi `$ coupling we use the NJL model prediction

$$C_\varphi =5.33.$$
(21)
Our final estimate for the $`G`$-vector meson couplings is $`|g_{G\gamma \rho }|=11.02`$ GeV-4, $`|g_{G\gamma \omega }|=3.57`$ $`GeV^4`$ and $`|g_{G\gamma \varphi }|=1.91`$ $`GeV^4`$.

We are now ready to calculate $`G`$-pole contribution to vector meson photoproduction. The absolute value of the $`G`$-contribution strongly depends on its couplings with the nucleon, photon and vector meson and is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _G}{dt}=\frac{A^2g_{G\gamma \varphi }^2g_{GNN}^2t(tM_\varphi ^2)^2}{64\pi (SM_N^2)^2}F_1(t)^2,$$
(22)
where $`F_1(t)=1/(1t/M_{f_1}^2)^2`$ is the flavor singlet axial form factor of the nucleon with the value of $`M_{f_1}`$ equals to the mass of the flavor singlet $`f_1(1285)`$-meson .

It should be noted that the $`G`$-exchange induces a nucleon spin-flip, which produces a factor $`t`$ in Eq.(22), and leads to an additional enhancement of the $`G`$-pole contribution at large $`t`$, with respect to the pomeron contribution, which is nonspin-flip Eq.(1). Moreover the energy dependence of the $`G`$ contribution corresponds to that of a fixed pole with zero Regge slope. Therefore the large $`t`$ Regge suppression in vector meson production given by $`(S/M_N^2)^{2\alpha _R^{}t}`$ with the slope $`\alpha _R^{}0.9`$ GeV-2 for the usual Regge trajectories, e.g. $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$, is absent for the $`G`$-exchange.

The result of the calculation of the $`G`$-pole contribution is presented in Fig. 3, 4 and 5 by the dotted lines. The sum of the pomeron, $`f_2`$, $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$ and $`G`$-pole contributions are shown by the solid lines. It is evident that $`G`$-exchange determines the behavior of the cross section at large $`t`$ and our model based only on pomeron, secondary Regge exchange and $`G`$-pole contributions reproduces the main features of a data. The deviation from data at intermediate values of $`t`$ might be related to additional contributions from the pomeron and Regge cuts or to non-linear $`t`$ dependences of Pomeron and $`f_2`$ trajectories.

## 4 Conclusion

The gluonic degrees of freedom play a very important role in the $`\rho `$\- $`\omega `$\- and $`\varphi `$-meson photoproduction at JLab energies. At small $`t`$ the cross-section is described rather well by the Donnachie-Landshoff soft pomeron and secondary Regge exchanges. At large $`t`$ an extremely interesting phenomena, related to the complex structure of QCD vacuum, takes place. We have shown that at large momentum transfers, the point-like interaction induced by the $`G`$\- pole exchange, related to ghost pole in the correlator of the anomalous gluonic axial currents, gives the dominant contribution. We should stress that vector meson photoproduction is only one of the possible exclusive processes where the $`G`$-pole contributes. We plan to extend our considerations here to the study of other reactions at large momentum transfers.

As has been mentioned the G-pole exchange leads to a nucleon helicity flip and therefore can be separated from the helicity conserving pQCD hard gluonic exchanges in processes with polarized particles.

Recently we have shown that at large energy and large momentum transfer a new anomalous trajectory with very large intercept $`\alpha _{f1}1`$ and very small slope $`\alpha ^{}0`$ called $`f_1`$ is needed to explain elastic $`pp`$, $`p\overline{p}`$ and vector meson production at HERA . It would be interesting to find a relation between this $`f_1`$ trajectory and the $`G`$ exchange similarly as was discussed recently for the relation between pomeron and S-channel multi-glueball $`0^{++}`$ exchange .

We are grateful to S.B.Gerasimov, W.-D.Nowak and V.L.Yudichev for useful discussion. We would like to thank M. Battaglieri and R. Schumacher for providing us with the CLAS data. This work was partially supported by DGICYT PB97-1227, RFBR-01-02-16431, INTAS-00-00366 grants and by the Heisenberg-Landau program.


text:
# Simulation of laser-Compton cooling of electron beams for future linear colliders

## I Introduction

An operation of the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider at a center-of-mass energy of 5 TeV beyond the Large Hadron Collider and the 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, requires a luminosity of $`10^{35}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ for a study of particle physics. To achieve the required luminosity in several TeV colliders, the phase space of the electron and positron beams must be significantly reduced before the beam is accelerated in a main linear accelerator.

The technique which could accomplish the required cooling for the linear colliders was proposed by R. Palmer and V.Telnov pal94 ; tel96  and is laser-Compton cooling. In laser-Compton cooling, the beam loses both transverse and longitudinal momentum by Compton scattered photons, during head-on collisions with laser photons. The longitudinal momentum is restored to the beam in a linear accelerator. Since the Compton scattered photons follow the initial electron trajectory with a small additional spread due to much lower energy of photons (a few eV) than the energy of electrons (several GeV), the transverse distribution of electron beams remains almost unchanged and also the angular spread is almost constant. Consequently the emittance $`ϵ_i=\sigma _i\sigma _i^{}`$ remains almost unchanged ($`i=x,y`$), where $`\sigma _i,\sigma _i^{}`$ the transverse beam size and the angular divergence. At the same time, the electron energy decreases from $`E_0`$ to $`E_f`$. Thus the normalized emittances have decreased as follows

$$ϵ_n=\gamma ϵ=ϵ_{n0}(E_f/E_0)=ϵ_{n0}/C,$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{n0}`$, $`ϵ_n`$ are the initial and final normalized emittances, $`\gamma =E/m_ec^2`$, $`m_e`$ is electron mass, and the factor of the emittance reduction $`C=E_0/E_f`$. The method of electron beam cooling, repeated many times, allows further reduction of the transverse emittances after damping rings or guns by 1-3 orders of magnitude tel96 .

In this paper, we have evaluated the effects of the laser-Compton interaction for transverse cooling using the Monte Carlo code che97 ; ohg00 . The simulation calculates the effects of the nonlinear Compton scattering between the laser photons and the electrons during a multi-cooling stage. Next, we examine the optics for cooling with and without chromatic correction. The laser-Compton cooling for JLC/NLC ilc96  at $`E_0=2`$ GeV is considered in section 4. A summary of conclusion is given in section 5.

## II Laser-Electron Interaction

### II.1 Laser-Electron Interaction

In this section we describe the main parameters for laser-Compton cooling of electron beams. A laser photon of energy $`\omega _L`$ (wavelength $`\lambda _L`$) is backward-Compton scattered by an electron beam of energy $`E_0`$ in the interaction point (IP). The kinematics of Compton scattering is characterized by the dimensionless parameter tel96

$$x_0\frac{4E_0\omega _L}{m_e^2c^4}=0.019\frac{E_0[\mathrm{GeV}]}{\lambda _L[\mu \mathrm{m}]}.$$
(2)
The parameters of the electron and laser beams for laser-Compton cooling are listed in Table 1 and 2. The parameters of the electron beam with 2 GeV are given for JLC/NLC case in section 4. The parameters of that with 5 GeV are used for simulation in the next subsection. The wavelength of laser is assumed to be 0.5 $`\mu `$m. The parameters of $`x_0`$ with the electron energies 2 GeV and 5 GeV are 0.076 and 0.19, respectively.

The required laser flush energy with $`Z_Rl_\gamma l_e`$ is tel96

$$A=25\frac{l_e[\mathrm{mm}]\lambda _\mathrm{L}[\mu \mathrm{m}]}{E_0[\mathrm{GeV}]}(C1)[\mathrm{J}],$$
(3)
where $`Z_R`$, $`l_\gamma (2\sigma _{L,z})`$, and $`l_e(2\sigma _z)`$ are the Rayleigh length of laser, and the bunch lengths of laser and electron beams. From this formula, the parameters of $`A`$ with the electron energies 2 GeV and 5 GeV are 56 J and 4 J, respectively.

The nonlinear parameter of laser field is tel96

$$\xi ^2=4.3\frac{\lambda _L^2[\mu \mathrm{m}^2]}{l_e[\mathrm{mm}]E_0[\mathrm{GeV}]}(C1).$$
(4)
In this study, for the electron energies 2 GeV and 5 GeV, the parameters of $`\xi `$ are 2.2 and 1.5, respectively.

The rms energy of the electron beam after Compton scattering is tel96

$$\sigma _e=\frac{1}{C^2}\left[\sigma _{e0}^2[\mathrm{GeV}^2]+0.7x_0(1+0.45\xi )(C1)E_0^2[\mathrm{GeV}^2]\right]^{1/2}[\mathrm{GeV}],$$
(5)
where the rms energy of the initial beam is $`\sigma _{e0}`$ and the ratio of energy spread is defined as $`\delta =\sigma _e/E_f`$. If the parameter $`\xi `$ or $`x_0`$ is larger, the energy spread after Compton scattering is increasing and it is the origin of the emittance growth in the defocusing optics, reacceleration linac, and focusing optics. The energy spreads $`\delta `$ for the electron energies 2 GeV and 5 GeV are 9.8% and 19%, respectively.

The equilibrium emittances due to Compton scattering are tel96

$$ϵ_{ni,\mathrm{min}}=\frac{7.2\times 10^{10}\beta _i[\mathrm{mm}]}{\lambda _L[\mu \mathrm{m}]}(i=x,y)[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}],$$
(6)
where $`\beta _i`$ are the beta functions at IP. From this formula we can see that small beta gives small emittance. However the large change of the beta functions between the magnet and the IP causes the emittance growth. Taking no account of the emittance growth, for the electron energies 2 GeV and 5 GeV, the equilibrium emittances are $`5.8\times 10^9`$ m$``$rad and $`1.4\times 10^{10}`$ m$``$rad, respectively. The equilibrium emittances depended on $`\xi `$ in the case $`\xi ^21`$ were calculated in Ref. tel96 .

### II.2 Simulation of Laser-Electron Interaction

For the simulation of laser-electron interaction, the electron beam is simply assumed to be a round beam in the case of $`E_0=5`$ GeV and $`C=5`$. Taking no account of the emittance growth of optics, the one stage for cooling consists two parts as follows:

1. The laser-Compton interaction between the electron and laser beams.
2. The reacceleration of electrons in the linac.

In the first part, we simulated the interactions by the CAIN code che97 . This simulation calculates the effects of the nonlinear Compton scattering between the laser photons and the electrons. We assumed that the laser pulse interacts with the electron bunch in head-on collisions. The $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ at the IP are fixed to be 0.1 mm. The initial energy spread of the electron beams is 1%. The energy of laser pulse is 20 J. The polarization of the electron and laser beams are $`P_e`$=1.0 and $`P_L`$=1.0 (circular polarization), respectively. When the $`x_0`$ parameter is small, the spectrum of the scattered photons does not largely depend on the polarization combination. In order to accelerate the electron beams to 5 GeV for recovery of energy in the second part, we simply added the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=5\text{GeV}E_{ave}`$ for reacceleration, where $`E_{ave}`$ is the average energy of the scattered electron beams after the laser-Compton interaction.

Figure 1 shows the longitudinal distribution of the electrons after the first laser-Compton scattering. The average energy of the electron beams is 1.0 GeV and the energy spread $`\delta `$ is 0.19. The longitudinal distribution seems to be a boomerang. If we assume a short Rayleigh length of laser pulse, the energy loss of head and tail of beams is small. The number of the scattered photons per incoming particle and the photon energy at the first stage are 40 and 96 MeV (rms energy 140 MeV), respectively.

The transverse sizes of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling are shown in Fig. 2. During collisions with the laser photons, the transverse distribution of the electrons remains almost unchanged. But they decrease when we focus them for the next laser-Compton interaction due to the lower normalized emittance and the fixed $`\beta `$-function at IP ($`\sigma _i=\sqrt{\beta _iϵ_{n,i}/\gamma }`$). The angles of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling, $`\theta _i=\sqrt{\theta _{s,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ where $`\theta _{s,i}`$ is the scattering angle of the electron, are shown in Fig. 3. As a result of reacceleration, the angles of the electrons decrease. They increase when we focus them for the next laser-Compton interaction. Finally the angles attain the average of Compton scattering angle and the effect of cooling saturates.

Figure 4 shows the transverse emittances of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling. From Eq.(6), $`ϵ_{ni,\mathrm{min}}=1.4\times 10^{10}`$ m$``$rad, and the simulation presents $`ϵ_{ni,\mathrm{min}}=1.2\times 10^9`$ m$``$rad. Figure 5 shows the longitudinal emittance of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling. Due to the increase of the energy spread of the electron beams from 1% to 19%, the longitudinal emittance rapidly increases at the first stage. After the first stage, the normalized longitudinal emittance is stable. The 6D emittance of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling is shown in Fig. 6. The second cooling stage has the largest reduction for cooling. The 8th or 9th cooling stages have small reduction for cooling. The initial and final 6D emittances $`ϵ_{6N}`$ are $`1.5\times 10^{13}`$ (m$``$rad)3 and $`1.2\times 10^{19}`$ (m$``$rad)3, respectively.

Figure 7 shows the polarization of the electron beams in the multi-stage cooling. The decrease of the polarization during the first stage is about 0.06. The final polarization $`P_e`$ after the multi-stage cooling is 0.54.

## III Optics Design for Laser-Compton Cooling

### III.1 Optics without chromaticity correction

There are three optical devices for the laser-Compton cooling of electron beams as follows:

1. The focus optics to the first IP.
2. The defocus optics from the first IP to the reacceleration linac.
3. The focus optics from the linac to the next IP.

Figure 8 shows a schematic diagram of the laser-Compton cooling of the electron beams. The optics 1 is focusing the electron beams from a few meters of $`\beta `$-function to several millimeters in order to effectively interact them with the laser beams. The optics 2 is defocusing them from several millimeters to a few meters for reacceleration of electron beams in a linac. In a multi-stage cooling system, the optics 3 is needed for cooling in the next stage. The key problem for the focus and defocus optical devices is the energy spread of electrons and the electron beams with a large energy spread are necessary to minimize or correct the chromatic aberrations avoiding emittance growth.

In this subsection we discuss the optics for laser-Compton cooling without chromatic corrections. For the focus and defocus of the beams, we use the final doublet system which is similar to that of the final focus system of the future linear colliders ilc96 . The pole-tip field of the final quadrupole $`B_T`$ is limited to 1.2 T and the pole-tip radius $`a`$ is greater than 3 mm. The strength of the final quadrupole is

$`\kappa =B_T/(aB\rho )120/E[\mathrm{GeV}][\mathrm{m}^2],`$ (7)
where $`B`$, $`\rho `$, and $`E`$ are the magnetic field, the radius of curvature, and the energy of the electron beams. In our case, the electron energies in the optics 1, 2, and 3 are 5.0, 1.0, and 5.0 GeV, respectively and the limit of the strength of the quadrupole in laser cooling is much larger than that of the final quadrupole of the future linear colliders. Due to the low energy beams in laser cooling, the synchrotron radiation from quadrupoles and bends is negligible.

The difference of three optical devices is the amount of the energy spread of the beams. In the optics 1,2, and 3, the beams have one, several tens, and a few % energy spread. In order to minimize the chromatic aberrations, we need to shorten the length between the final quadrupole and the IP. In this study, the length from the face of the final quadrupole to the IP, $`l`$ is assumed to be 2 cm. Here we estimated the emittance growth in the optics 2, because the chromatic effect in the optics 2 is the most serious. Figure 9 shows the defocus optics for laser-Compton cooling by the MAD code mad96 . The input file is attached to Ref. ohg99 . The parameters of the electron beam for laser-Compton cooling at $`E_0=5`$ GeV and $`C=5`$ are listed in Table 3. The initial $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ after laser-Compton interaction are 20 mm and 4 mm, respectively. The final $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ are assumed to be 2 m and 1 m, respectively. The initial and final $`\alpha _{x(y)}`$ with no energy spread $`\delta =0`$ are 0 in this optics. The strength $`\kappa `$ of the final quadrupole for the beam energy of 1 GeV from Eq. (7) is assumed to be 120 $`\mathrm{m}^2`$.

In our case, the chromatic functions $`\xi _x`$ and $`\xi _y`$ are 18 and 148, respectively. The momentum dependence of the emittances in the defocus optics without chromaticity correction is shown in Fig. 10. In the paper mon87 , the analytical study by thin-lens approximation has been studied for the focusing system, and here the transverse emittances are calculated by a particle-tracking simulation. The 10000 particles are tracked for the transverse and longitudinal Gaussian distribution by the MAD code. The relative energy spread $`\delta `$ is changed from 0 to 0.4. Due to the larger chromaticity $`\xi _y`$, the emittance $`ϵ_y`$ is rapidly increasing with the energy spread $`\delta `$. If we set a limit of 200% for $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i/ϵ_i(i=x,y)`$, the permissible energy spread $`\delta _x`$ and $`\delta _y`$ are 0.11 and 0.012 which mean the momentum band width $`\pm 22\%`$ and $`\pm 2.4\%`$, respectively. The results are not sufficient for cooling at $`E_0=5`$ GeV and $`C=5`$, because the beams through the defocusing optics have the energy spread of several tens %. On the one hand, the optics can be useful as the optics 1 and 3 with the energy spread of a few %.

### III.2 Optics with chromaticity correction

The optics without chromaticity correction for the optics 2 does not work as we seen before subsection. In this subsection we apply the chromaticity correction for the optics 2. The lattice for cooling is designed referring to the final focus system of the future linear colliders by K. Oide oid89 . The final doublet system is the same lattice as the optics before subsection. The method of chromaticity correction uses one family of sextupole to correct for vertical chromaticity and moreover we added two weak sextupoles in the lattice to correct for horizontal chromaticity. Figure 11 shows the defocus optics with chromaticity correction for laser-Compton cooling. The input file is attached to Ref. ohg99 . The total length of the lattice is about 63 m.

The momentum dependence of the emittances in the defocus optics with chromaticity correction is shown in Fig. 12. The 10000 particles are tracked for the transverse and longitudinal Gaussian distribution by the MAD code. The relative energy spread $`\delta `$ is changed from 0 to 0.06 with the conservation $`\kappa _2\theta _B`$, where $`\kappa _2`$ and $`\theta _B`$ are the strength of the sextupole and the angle of the bending magnet. The initial $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ after laser-Compton interaction are 20 mm and 4 mm, respectively. The final $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ are assumed to be 2 m and 1 m, respectively. The initial and final $`\alpha _x(y)`$ with no energy spread $`\delta =0`$ are 0 in this optics. After the chromaticity correction, the chromaticity functions $`\xi _x`$ and $`\xi _y`$ are 9.3 and 1.6, respectively. If we set a limit of 200% for $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i/ϵ_i(i=x,y)`$, the permissible energy spread $`\delta _x`$ and $`\delta _y`$ are 0.040 and 0.023 which mean the momentum band width $`\pm 8\%`$ and $`\pm 4.6\%`$, respectively. By the comparison with the results of the optics with chromaticity correction at a limit of $`200\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_i/ϵ_i(i=x,y)`$, the $`ϵ_y`$ of the optics without chromaticity correction is about two times larger than that of the one with chromaticity correction, but the $`ϵ_x`$ of the optics with chromaticity correction is three times smaller than that of the one before. The results are still not sufficient for cooling with $`E_0=5`$ GeV and $`C=5`$. These results emphasize the need to pursue further ideas for plasma lens che90 .

## IV Laser-Compton Cooling for JLC/NLC at $`E_0=2`$ GeV

### IV.1 Optics without chromaticity correction

For the future linear colliders, the method of laser-Compton cooling is effective to reduce the transverse emittances after damping rings. Where can it be placed? There are two possibilities for JLC/NLC yok99  as follows:

1. After the first bunch compressor (BC1) and before the pre-linac. $`E_0=2`$ GeV and $`\sigma _z=0.5`$ mm.
2. After the second compressor (BC2) and before the main linac. $`E_0=10`$ GeV and $`\sigma _z=0.1`$ mm.

The case 2 needs a large energy for recovery after Compton scattering and we consider the case 1 in this study. The parameters of the electron and laser beams for laser-Compton cooling for JLC/NLC at $`E_0=2`$ GeV and $`C=10`$ are listed in Table 1 and 2. The energy of laser pulse is 300 J. The simulation results of the laser-electron interaction by the CAIN code are summarized as follows. The energy spread of the electron beam is 11%. The decrease of the longitudinal polarization of the electron beam is 0.038 ($`P_e=1.0,P_L=1.0`$). The number of the scattered photons per incoming particle and the photon energy are 200 and 8.9 MeV (rms energy 19 MeV), respectively.

The electron energy after Compton scattering in the case 2 is 0.2 GeV and the strength of the final quadrupole from Eq. (7) is 600 m-2. Table 4 lists the parameters of the defocusing optics for laser-Compton cooling for JLC/NLC at $`E_0=2`$ GeV and $`C=10`$. The final $`\beta _x`$ and $`\beta _y`$ are assumed to be 1 m and 0.25 m, respectively. The chromaticity functions $`\xi _x`$ and $`\xi _y`$ are 18 and 23, respectively. Using the MAD code, the emittance growth in the defocus optics is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,x}^{\mathrm{defocus}}=ϵ_{n,x}ϵ_{n,x0}1.0ϵ_{n,x0}7.6\times 10^8[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}],$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,y}^{\mathrm{defocus}}=ϵ_{n,y}ϵ_{n,y0}1.6ϵ_{n,y0}4.6\times 10^8[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}],$$
(9)
where the normalized emittances before and after the defocus optics are $`ϵ_{n,i0}`$ and $`ϵ_{n,i}`$ ($`i=x,y`$), respectively. The emittance growth in the other two-focus optics is negligible.

### IV.2 Reacceleration Linac

In the reacceleration linac, there are two major sources of the emittance increase yok99  as follows:

1. The emittance growth due to the misalignment of the quadrupole magnet and the energy spread.
2. The emittance growth due to the cavity misalignment.

The emittance growth due to these sources in the reacceleration linac is formulated by K. Yokoya yok99

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,x}^{\mathrm{linac}}0.32ϵ_{n,x0}2.4\times 10^8[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}],$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,y}^{\mathrm{linac}}0.82ϵ_{n,y0}2.4\times 10^8[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}].$$
(11)
The final emittance growth and the final emittance with $`C=10`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,x}1.3ϵ_{n,x0}1.0\times 10^7[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}]ϵ_{n,x}0.23ϵ_{n,x0},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_{n,y}2.4ϵ_{n,y0}7.0\times 10^8[\mathrm{m}\mathrm{rad}]ϵ_{n,y}0.34ϵ_{n,y0}.$$
(13)
The total reduction factor of the 6D emittance of the laser-Compton cooling for JLC/NLC at $`E_0=2`$ GeV is about 13. The decrease of the polarization of the electron beam is 0.038 due to the laser-Compton interaction.

## V Summary

We have studied the method of laser-Compton cooling of electron beams for future linear colliders. The effects of the laser-Compton interaction for cooling have been evaluated by the Monte Carlo simulation. From the simulation in the multi-stage cooling, we presented that the low emittance beams with $`ϵ_{6N}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$(m$``$rad)3 can be achieved in our beam parameters. We also examined the optics with and without chromatic correction for cooling, but the optics are not sufficient for cooling due to the large energy spread of the electron beams.

The laser-Compton cooling for JLC/NLC at $`E_0=2`$ GeV and $`C=10`$ was considered. The total reduction factor of the 6D emittance of the laser-Compton cooling is about 13. The decrease of the polarization of the electron beam is 0.038 due to the laser-Compton interaction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Y. Nosochkov, K. Oide, T. Takahashi, V. Telnov, M. Xie, and K. Yokoya for useful comments and discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.