text:
# Λ⁰ polarization as a probe for production of deconfined matter in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions

## I Introduction

The study of the kind of matter produced during nuclear collisions at relativistic and ultra-relativistic energies has become the subject of an increasing experimental and theoretical effort during the last years. The main drive for such study is the expectation that a phase transition, from ordinary nuclear matter to a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP), should be observed when conditions of sufficiently high baryonic densities and/or temperatures are achieved during the collision. In order to identify this phase transition, a number of experimental observables, such as $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ suppression, strangeness enhancement, fluctuations in particle ratios, flow patterns, etc., have been proposed . At the same time, it has also been recognized that no single signal can, by itself, provide clear cut evidence for the existence of the QGP and that it is only through the combined analysis of all possible signals that the production of such state of matter can be firmly established. This realization has stimulated the search for new probes to aid in the understanding of the properties of the complex environment produced in heavy-ion collisions at high energy.

One of the first proposed signatures to unveil the production of a QGP in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions was to study the change in the polarization properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperons as compared to that observed in proton-proton collisions . At the same time, no quantitative model has been proposed to realize such an idea in this kind of environment.

Recall that, in high-energy proton-induced reactions, the produced hyperons exhibit a strong polarization. Among the hyperons, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ plays a special role due to its rather simple spin structure within the static quark model and to the fact that its self-analyzing main decay mode into $`p+\pi ^{}`$, makes polarization measurements experimentally feasible.

For proton-induced reactions, it has long been established  that the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ is carried by the produced $`s`$-quark and that the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quarks can be thought of as being coupled into a diquark with zero total angular momentum and isospin. However, despite the wealth of experimental information and theoretical insight accumulated during the last three decades, a complete understanding of the hyperon polarization mechanism is still missing, mainly because, as is currently believed, this mechanism has its origin in the recombination processes whose nature belongs to the realm of non-perturbative phenomena.

Nonetheless, a quantitative description of hyperon polarization properties in proton- and meson-induced reactions has been attained by a semi-classical model put forward by DeGrand and Miettinen  (see also Ref. ). In this model, the hyperon polarization is due to a Thomas precession effect during the quark recombination process of slow (sea) $`s`$-quarks and fast (valence) $`ud`$-diquarks.

In the case of relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions, the expectation is that, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s coming from the zone where the critical density for QGP formation has been achieved, are produced through the coalescence of independent slow sea $`u`$-, $`d`$\- and $`s`$-quarks and are emitted via an evaporation-like process. Consequently, these plasma created $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s should show zero polarization .

An accurate estimate of the change of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization observed in high-energy heavy-ion collisions as compared to proton-proton reactions requires knowledge of the relative contribution to the total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ yield both from the plasma zone and from regions where the critical density for QGP formation has not been reached. Moreover, since those $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced in these latter regions experience multiple scattering with the surrounding nuclear environment, the final polarization value should reflect the effects introduced by these processes.

In this paper, we propose a method to extract information from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization measurements in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions as a means to determine the production of a QGP. We study a model where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced in the zone where the critical density for QGP formation is reached are unpolarized while the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced in the rest of the reaction zone are produced polarized, in the same way as they are in free nucleon-nucleon reactions. We use the DeGrand-Miettinen Model (DMM) to describe the polarization of these latter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s. The effects on the polarization arising from multiple scattering are introduced in terms of a sequential model of collisions . We also discuss possible depolarization effects introduced by spin-flip interactions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ within the nuclear medium.

The work is organized as follows: In Sec. II we briefly review the DMM for the polarization of hyperons produced in proton-proton reactions. In Sec. III, we discuss the mechanisms that can induce a change in the polarization of hyperons produced in high-energy nucleus-nucleus reactions as compared to proton-proton collisions. We account for these changes in terms of a sequential model of collisions. To illustrate our results, we introduce the appropriate parameters which we extract from the existing (though scarce) data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions. In Sec. IV, we present our model for the production of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ coming from the regions in the reaction zone with a density of participants below and above the critical density for QGP formation. We show that the polarization of these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s depends on the relative contribution of each of the above production mechanisms to the total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ yield. We also include the modifications to the polarization introduced by multiple scattering of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s in those regions with a density of participants below the critical density for QGP formation. Armed with such expression for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in high-energy nucleus-nucleus reactions, we apply the formalism to study 208Pb – 208Pb collisions and draw quantitative conclusions about the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization behavior as a function of both its transverse momentum and impact parameter of the reaction. We finally summarize and conclude in Sec. V. In what follows, we present the expressions in terms of quantities in the laboratory frame.

## II $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization in the DeGrand-Miettinen model

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ hyperon has spin $`S=1/2`$. Its preferred decay mode $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0p+\pi ^{}`$ ($`64\%`$ branching ratio) is mediated by the weak interaction, therefore, the information from the distribution of its decay products can be used to determine the orientation of its spin.

Since the discovery of a substantial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ transverse polarization in high-energy, hadron-nucleon , nucleon-nucleon  and nucleon-nucleus  reactions, a large amount of theoretical and experimental activity has been devoted to understanding the origin of such polarization. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s were produced with a significant polarization while $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$’s were unpolarized was, at first, surprising. Several models were proposed to explain that phenomena. One of the most successful is the DMM . In this semi-classical model, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization results from a Thomas precession of the spin of the $`s`$-quark in the recombination process. The $`u`$\- and $`d`$-quarks are assumed to form a diquark in a state with total angular momentum $`J=0`$ (and isospin $`I=0`$) and thus, the $`s`$-quark is entirely responsible of the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$.

The recombining quarks in the projectile must also carry a transverse momentum given, approximately by half of the transverse momentum of the outgoing hadron, while the other half is carried by the $`s`$-quark. Since the $`x`$ distribution of the (sea) $`s`$-quarks peeks at very low values and is very steep, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ must get most of its longitudinal momentum from the valence $`ud`$-diquark momentum. In the process, the $`s`$-quark is, on average, accelerated but, since its transverse momentum is different from zero, the force $`𝐅`$ felt by the quark is not parallel to its velocity $`𝜷`$, giving rise to Thomas precession, characterized by a frequency $`𝝎_𝑻`$ given by

$`𝝎_𝑻=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +1}}\right)𝐅\times 𝜷,`$ (1)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz gamma factor. When this frequency is used to account for the spin-orbit term in the Hamiltonian for computing the scattering amplitudes to produce $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s with spin oriented along and opposite to the normal of the production plane, it gives rise to a negative polarization, since it is more likely that the (sea) $`s`$-quark is accelerated than decelerated to recombine into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$.

Notice that in the model, the polarization asymmetry arises as a consequence of a strong momentum ordering where the $`s`$-quark is (on average) slow and the $`ud`$-diquark is (on average) fast. This ordering does not happen when the recombination involves only sea $`s`$\- $`u`$\- or $`d`$-quarks or antiquarks, as is the case of antihyperon production or, more important to our purposes, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ originated from a QGP.

The polarization of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ in proton-proton collisions is given in the DMM by

$`𝒫^{\text{REC}}={\displaystyle \frac{12}{\mathrm{\Delta }x_0M^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13\xi (x)}{[1+3\xi (x)]^2}}\right)p_T,`$ (2)
where

$`M^2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2+p_{TD}^2}{1\xi (x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2+p_{Ts}^2}{\xi (x)}}m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^2p_T^2\right]`$ (3)
with $`m_D`$, $`p_{TD}`$ ($`m_s`$, $`p_{Ts}`$) the mass and transverse momentum of the $`ud`$-diquark ($`s`$-quark), $`m_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}`$ and $`p_T`$ the mass and transverse momentum of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_0`$ a distance scale, on the order of the proton radius, characterizing the recombination length scale and $`\xi (x)=x_s/x`$ the ratio of the longitudinal momentum fraction of the $`s`$-quark to the longitudinal momentum fraction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ with respect to the beam proton.

To give a quantitative description for the polarization, DeGrand and Miettinen take a linear parametrization for $`\xi (x)`$ such that

$`\xi (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1x)+0.1x,`$ (4)
which represents a reasonable interpolation between the values for $`\xi `$ near $`x=0`$, where the distribution for all flavors is roughly equal in shape, and near $`x=1`$, where the distribution of sea and valence quarks is small, the former being even smaller than the latter. Using this parametrization, DeGrand and Miettinen obtain a good description of experimental data . If, on the other hand, use is made of a recombination model  and $`\xi (x)`$ explicitly computed, the results for the polarization do not show a drastic change. We therefore use here, for the sake of simplicity, the linear parametrization for $`\xi (x)`$ given by Eq. (4). To complete the overall parametrization of $`𝒫^{\text{REC}}`$, we also take $`m_D=2/3`$ GeV, $`m_s=1/2`$ GeV and $`p_{Ts}^2=p_{TD}^2=(1/4)p_T^2+k_T^2`$ with $`k_T^2=0.25`$ GeV2 .

## III Depolarization effects in nucleus-nucleus collisions

In the case of nucleus-nucleus collisions, the effects that can possibly produce a diminishing of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization have been enumerated in Refs. . These are: (i) secondary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced by pion-nucleon scattering, (ii) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production from a QGP and (iii) secondary scattering of leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s with nucleons within the interaction zone.

Though production of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s by pion-nucleon scattering becomes important in collisions of large nuclei at high energy, due to both, an increase of the pion-nucleon and the pion production cross sections with increasing atomic number at high energies, these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are mainly produced beyond the free nucleon-nucleon phase space kinematical limit and at low (laboratory) momenta. It is thus possible to set kinematical constraints in the reconstruction of these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s and therefore exclude them from the polarization analysis. Thus, we do not further consider this effect. We postpone the discussion on the polarization modification of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s originating from a QGP to Sec. IV. Here, we concentrate on the effects introduced by secondary scattering of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s with nucleons in the zone where the density of participants is below the threshold for a QGP formation.

Secondary scattering within nuclear matter is an important effect in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions. It is responsible for the transverse spectrum broadening of produced particles and for the longitudinal momentum loss of nucleons, which is related to the degree of stopping in the reaction.

Since at high energies, the trend for the existing (though scarce) data on free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions indicates that elastic scattering dominates the total cross section , we concentrate on describing the effects on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization by these kind of collisions.

Secondary elastic scattering of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s with nucleons can influence the final polarization measurements by producing (a) a shift in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ longitudinal momentum, (b) a shift in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ transverse momentum and (c) a flip in the original $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin direction. We proceed to quantitatively discuss each one of these effects.

### A Longitudinal momentum shift

Multiple elastic scattering can be cast in terms of a sequential model , where it is assumed that the average energy of a particle after $`n+1`$ collisions is given in terms of the average energy after $`n`$ collisions by

$`E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}_{n+1}=(1I)E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}_n,`$ (5)
where $`I`$ is the inelasticity coefficient . In the high energy limit $`(pm_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0})`$

$`E_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}_np_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}_n=px_n`$ (6)
where $`p`$ is the initial momentum value of the nucleon that produced (through recombination) the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`x`$ the fraction of the initial longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ momentum to the nucleon longitudinal momentum. Equations (5) and (6) can be combined to find the average value of $`x`$ after $`n`$ collisions as

$`x_n=(1I)^nx.`$ (7)
We now proceed to find the average value $`x(z,b)`$, after the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ has traveled a longitudinal distance $`z`$, in collisions with impact parameter $`b`$. Recall that the distribution probability $`P_n(z,b)`$ for $`n`$-collisions in reactions with impact parameter $`b`$ is Poissonian, that is

$`P_n(z,b)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\overline{N}^n(z,b)e^{\overline{N}(z,b)},`$ (8)
with

$`\overline{N}(z,b)=\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{tot}}T_A(z,b/2),`$ (9)
being the average number of collisions after the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ has traveled a longitudinal distance $`z`$, given in terms of the total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon cross section, which we take as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{tot}}25`$ mb and

$`T_A(z,s)={\displaystyle _{z/2}^{z/2}}\rho _A(z^{},𝐬)𝑑z^{}`$ (10)
being the average nucleon density per unit area in the transverse plane with respect to the collision axis. Notice that the argument of the function $`T_A`$ in Eq. (9) referring to the location of the trajectory of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ in the transverse planes has been taken as the geometrical average in these planes.

Therefore, $`x(z,b)`$ is given by

$`x(z,b)`$ $`=`$ $`xe^{\overline{N}(z,b)}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1I)^n}{n!}}\overline{N}^n(z,b)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`xe^{I\overline{N}(z,b)}.`$ (12)
It can be shown  that $`I=\lambda /2`$, where

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{inel}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{tot}}}},`$ (13)
with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{tot}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0N}^{\text{inel}}`$ the total and inelastic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon cross sections, respectively. Although these should be taken as the cross sections in nuclear matter, such information has not been experimentally obtained up until now. Nevertheless, from data at low and intermediate energies, it is known that the free cross sections follow the behavior of the corresponding nucleon-nucleon cross sections . Assuming that this is also the case within nuclear matter, we extrapolate the existing data on free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions to high energies  and obtain $`\lambda 0.4`$ which is consistent with the corresponding value obtained for nucleon-nucleon collisions within nuclear matter .

### B Transverse momentum shift

Let $`Q(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢,z)`$ be the probability that the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ ends up traveling in the direction $`𝐬_𝐟`$ after traveling a longitudinal distance $`z`$, having been produced moving in direction $`𝐬_𝐢`$. Let $`q_n(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢)`$ be the probability that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ ends up traveling in the direction $`𝐬_𝐟`$ after $`n`$-collisions with nucleons, having been produced moving in direction $`𝐬_𝐢`$. The vectors $`𝐬_𝐟`$ and $`𝐬_𝐢`$ can be thought of as two dimensional unit vectors, given the isotropy of the angular distribution in each collision.

It is easy to show  that the explicit expression for $`q_n(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢)`$ is

$`q_n(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{n\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\right)e^{\frac{\left(𝐬_𝐟𝐬_𝐢\right)^2}{n\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$ (14)
where the distribution is taken as Gaussian and for the ease of the calculations, the range of each component of $`𝐬_𝐟`$ and $`𝐬_𝐟`$ is taken as $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the average dispersion angle in each collision. We emphasize that the expression in Eq. (14) is valid for small dispersion angles. Since the distribution probability for $`n`$-collisions is given by Eq. (8), $`Q(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢,z)`$ is given as

$`Q(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢,z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_n(z,b)q_n(𝐬_𝐟,𝐬_𝐢).`$ (15)
The average change in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ momentum direction is computed from the r.m.s value of the total dispersion angle, $`\alpha `$, given by

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle d^2s𝐬^2Q(𝐬,z)}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{\overline{N}(z,b)},`$ (17)
where $`𝐬=𝐬_𝐟𝐬_𝐢`$, since $`Q`$ depends only on such difference. It is now a simple matter to express the average value of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ transverse momentum after having traversed a longitudinal distance $`z`$ within the nuclear medium, as

$$p_T(z,b)=\left(\sqrt{p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^2p_T^2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha +p_T\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)e^{I\overline{N}(z,b)},$$
(18)
where the factor $`e^{I\overline{N}(z,b)}`$ comes from considering the average change in the magnitude of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ momentum.

In the high-energy limit $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha 1`$, and we can safely ignore the first term in Eq. (18), writing

$`p_T(z,b)p_Te^{I\overline{N}(z,b)}\mathrm{cos}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{\overline{N}(z,b)}\right\},`$ (19)
where $`p_T`$ is the transverse momentum that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ carried originally and we have used Eq. (17).

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be estimated using the data on angular distributions of free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon elastic scattering. For intermediate energies with $`300\text{MeV/c}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}1500\text{MeV/c}`$, such data exists and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be read off from the parametrization of the angular distribution for $`p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}>800\text{MeV/c}`$ in terms of Legendre polynomials with $`l=1,2,3`$ in Ref. . By doing so it is easy to get that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.2`$ rad., which represents a large value. However, we expect that at higher energies, elastic dispersion takes place with smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In fact, as the energy of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ increases from about 1 GeV to a few tenths of GeV, its deBroglie wavelength $`\overline{\lambda }`$ decreases from about 0.1 fm to 0.01 fm. Since the transverse size $`d`$ of the scatterers (nucleons) is about 1 fm, we can estimate that  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{\lambda }/d=0.01`$. Hereafter, we use this value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in our calculations.

### C Spin flip

The existing data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production by meson-induced reactions on light nuclei  show that the effects on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization produced by final state interactions ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon scattering) are small. Since, within a light nucleus, the average number of collisions experimented by a produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ is $`\overline{N}<1`$, it is to be expected that the effects, if any, reflect the depolarization involving the spin interactions.

Let us first note  that the spin-orbit interactions cannot contribute to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ depolarization, given that this interaction is parity-conserving. Since depolarization requires spin-flip, the only interaction capable to produce it is the spin-spin interaction.

To quantify the degree of depolarization in a single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon collision, it is customary to introduce the polarization transfer coefficient  $`D`$, which, in the case of forward scattering, expresses the final polarization $`𝒫^{}`$ in terms of the original polarization $`𝒫`$ as

$`𝒫^{}=D𝒫.`$ (20)
In a multiple scattering scenario, such as the one considered here, the average depolarization due to two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions can be written as

$`𝒫^{}(z,b)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_n(z,b)D^n`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`𝒫e^{\overline{N}(z,b)(1D)}.`$ (22)
Assuming that the spin-spin interactions are isotropic, $`D`$ can be expressed as

$`D={\displaystyle \frac{\left|\overline{V}\right|^2+\left|S_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|^2+\left|S_N\right|^2\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|^2}{\left|\overline{V}\right|^2+\left|S_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|^2+\left|S_N\right|^2+3\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|^2}},`$ (23)
where $`\overline{V}`$, $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`S_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represent the amplitudes for the spin-independent, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ spin-orbit, nucleon spin-orbit and spin-spin interactions, respectively, appearing in the expression for the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon potential .

The above parameters can be reasonably constrained at low energies (a few MeV’s) from the spectral analysis of hypernuclei levels , however, no further experimental data exists at higher energies. Nevertheless, it is clear that, when in the range of energies of interest, the parameters appearing in Eq. (23) are measured, $`D`$ can be considered to be a constant smaller than unity. Therefore, for a given impact parameter, the spin-flip interactions have a simple effect on the depolarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced in nucleus-nucleus collisions. For the purposes of this work and until experimental information becomes available, we will omit these effects from the analysis.

## IV $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production and polarization in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions

In a QGP the $`s\overline{s}`$ pair production can be reasonably well described by the lowest order QCD processes $`q+\overline{q}s+\overline{s}`$ and $`g+gs+\overline{s}`$ . To simplify the analysis, we assume that in this environment, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are the sole products of the subsequent $`s`$-quark recombination. The enhancement of strangeness production in a QGP plasma leads to an enhancement of hyperon production. However, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ formation in this environment should not show a strong ordering for the momenta of any of the $`u`$-, $`d`$\- or $`s`$-quarks, and consequently, according to the DMM, these $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s should not be polarized .

On the other hand, in the interaction region where nucleon-nucleon collisions take place but the density is not high enough to deconfine quarks and gluons, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s would be produced by recombination of $`(ud)`$-diquarks, coming from the interacting nucleons and, $`s`$ quarks coming from the sea.

The total cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production is then given by these two components

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}=\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}+\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}.`$ (24)
The regions where the two distinct $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production mechanisms take place during the collision are shown schematically in Fig. 1.

### A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production from recombination

To describe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production by recombination we write the production cross section at impact parameter $`b`$ in the collision of ions $`A`$ and $`B`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{NN}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}}=T_{AB}(b),`$ (25)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{NN}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production cross section in nucleon-nucleon collisions, which we take as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{NN}=3.2`$ mb  and $`T_{AB}(b)`$ is given by

$`T_{AB}(z,b)={\displaystyle d^2sT_A(z,𝐬)T_B(z,𝐬𝐛)},`$ (26)
with $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$ given in terms of Eq. (10), extending the limits of integration over $`z`$ in Eq. (10) to $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]`$. For $`\rho _A(𝐫)`$ we use the standard Woods-Saxon density profile

$`\rho _A(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{1+e^{(rR_A)/a}}},`$ (27)
with $`R_A=1.1A^{1/3}`$ fm, $`a=0.53`$ fm and $`\rho _0`$ fixed by normalization

$`{\displaystyle \rho _A(𝐫)d^3r}=A,`$ (28)
giving $`\rho _0=0.17`$ fm-3 for 208Pb.

We assume that each sub-collision produces final state particles in the same way as in free nucleon reactions and thus we can estimate the number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced by recombination from Eq. (26). However, in order to exclude the zone where the density of participants $`n_p`$ is above the critical density $`n_c`$ to produce a QGP, we rewrite Eqs. (26) and (25) as

$$\frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}=\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{NN}T_B(𝐛𝐬)T_A(𝐬)\theta [n_cn_p(𝐬,𝐛)]d^2s,$$
(29)
where $`n_p(𝐬)`$ is the density of participants at the point $`𝐬`$ in the transverse plane and $`\theta `$ is the step function.

The density of participants per unit transverse area during the collision of nucleus $`A`$ on nucleus $`B`$, at an impact parameter vector $`𝐛`$, has a profile given by

$`n_p(𝐬,𝐛)`$ $`=`$ $`T_A(𝐬)[1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_B(𝐬𝐛)}]`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`T_B(𝐬𝐛)[1e^{\sigma _{NN}T_A(𝐬)}],`$ (31)
where $`\sigma _{NN}`$ is the nucleon-nucleon inelastic cross section which we take as $`\sigma _{NN}=32`$ mb. The total number of participants $`N_p`$ at impact parameter $`b`$ is

$`N_p(b)={\displaystyle n_p(𝐬,𝐛)d^2s}.`$ (32)
Following the reasoning in Ref. , we choose $`n_c=3.3`$ fm-2, which results from the observation of a substantial reduction of the $`J/\psi `$ yield in Pb – Pb collisions at the SPS. Figure 2 shows $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}/d^2b`$ (dashed line) as a function of $`b`$, computed from Eq. (29) for the case of Pb – Pb collisions.

### B $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production from a QGP

The average number of strange quarks produced in a QGP scales with the number of participants $`N_p^{\text{QGP}}`$ in the collision roughly as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{N_p^{\text{QGP}}}}=cN_p^{\text{QGP}}.`$ (33)
Assuming for the sake of simplicity that, as a result of hadronization, only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are obtained from these produced $`s`$-quarks, we can estimate the number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s originating in the QGP. $`N_p^{\text{QGP}}`$, as a function of the impact parameter is given, using Eq. (32), as

$`N_p^{\text{QGP}}(b)={\displaystyle n_p(𝐬,𝐛)\theta [n_p(𝐬,𝐛)n_c]d^2s}.`$ (34)
The proportionality constant $`c`$ in Eq. (33) can be read off from Fig. 5a in Ref. . Depending on the precise value of $`\alpha _s`$ and for 208Pb – 208Pb collisions, $`c`$ is found in the range

$`0.001c0.005.`$ (35)
Therefore, we take Eq. (33) as representing the behavior of the differential cross section, $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}/d^2b`$, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}}{d^2b}}=c\left[N_p^{\text{QGP}}(b)\right]^2.`$ (36)
Figure 2 shows $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}/d^2b`$ (dashed-dotted line) as a function of $`b`$, computed from Eq. (36) for the case of Pb – Pb collisions. Shown is also the sum $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}/d^2b+d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}/d^2b`$ (solid line) for the same system.

### C $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization

Recall that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization asymmetry $`𝒫`$ is defined as the difference between the number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced with spin pointing along and opposite to the normal of the production plane. In terms of the differential cross sections, $`𝒫`$ is given by

$`𝒫=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}}{d^2b}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}}{d^2b}}\right]/\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}}{d^2b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}}{d^2b}}\right],`$ (37)
where $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}/d^2b`$ and $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}/d^2b`$ are the spin up and spin down (with respect to the normal of the production plane) differential cross sections, respectively. In the scenario where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s originate from two different processes, one must take into account the corresponding contribution to the polarization.

As we have argued, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s coming from the QGP regions are expected to be produced with their spins isotropically oriented and thus these do not contribute to the net $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization. We define

$`f(b)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}}{d^2b}}\right]/\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}}\right]`$ (38)
as the ratio of the differential cross sections for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ production from the QGP and from recombination processes. Figure 3 shows $`f(b)`$ as a function of the impact parameter $`b`$, for the case of Pb – Pb collisions, where $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}/d^2b`$ and $`d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{QGP}}/d^2b`$ are given by Eqs. (29) and (36), respectively.

Equation (37) can be written in terms of $`f(b)`$ as

$`𝒫={\displaystyle \frac{𝒫^{\text{REC}}}{[1+f(b)]}},`$ (39)
where

$$𝒫^{\text{REC}}=\left[\frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}\frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}\right]/\left[\frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}+\frac{d^2\sigma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^0}^{\text{REC}}}{d^2b}\right],$$
(40)
given in the DMM by Eq. (2), is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization that would be observed in the absence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced by a QGP. Figure 4 shows the polarization obtained from Eqs. (2) and (39). Figure 4(a) shows the polarization as a function of $`p_T`$ for different values of $`b`$. Figure 4(b) shows the polarization as a function of $`b`$ for different values of $`p_T`$.

To incorporate the effects of the shift in momentum experienced by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s traveling in the nuclear medium for densities below the critical density for QGP formation, we recall that, according to the analysis in Sec. III, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ produced within a given phase space cell labeled by the pair of values $`(x,p_T)`$, is scattered into a different phase space cell, which, on average, is labeled by the pair of values $`(x,p_T)`$. Omitting from the analysis the spin-flip depolarization effects, the original $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization computed from Eq. (2) is preserved but corresponds (on average) to a detected $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ with momenta labels $`(x,p_t)`$. This is shown in Fig 5 where, for the purposes of comparison, we plot the polarization with and without considering the shift in transverse momenta due to multiple scattering, computed with the explcit values of $`I=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.01`$ for two different values of the impact parameter $`b`$.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we propose to study the change in polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s, with respect to proton-proton reactions, as a means to identify the production of deconfined matter in ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions.

We have studied a model where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are produced by two competing mechanisms, namely, recombination type of processes, below the critical density for QGP formation, where we expect that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are produced polarized, and coalescence type of processes, above the critical density for QGP formation, where we expect that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s are unpolarized. The overall polarization detected would thus depend on the relative contribution of each process to the overall $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ yield.

To describe the polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s produced by recombination, we use the DMM, accounting for the effects introduced by multiple elastic scattering experienced by the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s in the nuclear environment. Multiple scattering is responsible for two distinct effects: a momentum shift where the polarization of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$’s is preserved but their final momenta change and a depolarization due to spin flip interactions.

We have used the existing data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions to obtain the inelasticity parameter $`I`$ and have estimated the average dispersion angle per collision $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have also given an explicit expression for the depolarization coefficient, in terms of the parameters describing the two-body $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon potential. These last parameters have yet to be measured at high energies.

Though our analysis is as quantitative as the existing data allow it, there is no doubt that in order for the model to have a stronger predictive power, more accurate data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$-nucleon interactions at high energies are needed, which, together with an increasing interest on finding new probes for the existence of a QGP, can make $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ polarization measurements a powerful analyzing tool in high energy heavy-ion collisions.

## Acknowledgments

Support for this work has been received in part by CONACyT under an ICM grant and by DGAPA-UNAM under grant number IN108001.


format: text

text:
# The spin evolution of nascent neutron stars

## 1 Motivation

Neutron stars may, by virtue of their oscillations, act as sources of detectable gravitational radiation. Of particular interest are the r-mode oscillations, quasi-toroidal currents that arise in rotating stars due to the action of the Coriolis force. Andersson (1998) and Friedman & Morsink (1998) first showed that the r-modes of a perfect fluid star succumb to the gravitational radiation driven Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability for all rates of stellar rotation. Subsequent results suggest that the instability might grow on short timescales, with positive feedback increasing the gravitational wave signal to potentially detectable levels (Owen et al 1998). The r-mode instability is likely to be most important in hot young rapidly rotating neutron stars. For such stars there appears to be a window of temperatures and spin rates in which the r-modes can grow faster due to the emission of gravitational waves than they are damped by viscosity. The consequent loss of angular momentum provides a plausible mechanism for achieving the spin rates inferred for young pulsars (Andersson, Kokkotas & Schutz 1999). In fact, the excitement regarding the r-mode instability stems to a large extent from the fact that the first studies suggested that it would spin a newly born neutron star to roughly 20 ms, in good agreement with the inferred initial spin period of the Crab Pulsar.

Recent efforts to improve our understanding of the unstable r-modes have focused on the interior physics, aiming to shed light on issues such as the role of general relativity (Lockitch, Andersson & Friedman 2001), superfluidity (Lindblom & Mendell 2000), the crust/core interface (Bildsten & Ushomirsky 2000; Lindblom, Owen & Ushomirsky 2000), and possible exotic states of matter like hyperons (Jones 2001; Lindblom & Owen 2002). As we will show in this paper, another factor that may significantly affect the r-mode instability is accretion. Neutron stars are born in a messy environment, surrounded by debris from the supernova progenitor. In the first few months some of this material will fall back on to the young star. Intuitively, one would expect this to affect the action of the r-mode in two ways. Firstly, accretion torques could counteract the gravitational wave induced spin-down, and perhaps cause the star to spin up despite the presence of a large amplitude r-mode. One can readily estimate that accretion of a total mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ can spin a neutron star up to a rotation period

$$P3\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{0.1M_{}}\right)^1\text{ ms.}$$

This estimate indicates that rapid supernova fallback may play a key role in determining the spin evolution of a nascent neutron star. Secondly, rapid accretion would be associated with strong heating, which would affect the strongly temperature dependent viscosities, and hence the longevity and strength of the r-mode instability and any associated gravitational wave signal. Accretion is also expected to delay the formation of a crust until the star has cooled to a bulk temperature $`10^9`$ K (Haensel 1997). This should be compared to the case of isolated neutron stars in which the crust is expected to form at $`10^{10}`$ K. This delayed crust formation could be significant since the presence of a crust would suppress considerably any unstable r-mode (Bildsten & Ushomirsky 2000; Andersson & Kokkotas 2001). A delay in crust formation could therefore increase the longevity of any gravitational wave signal.

Our aim with this paper is to address two key questions. Firstly, can the combined action of supernova fallback and r-mode instability give rise to spin rates that match those inferred for young pulsars? Secondly, what are the implications for the gravitational wave signal from the r-mode instability? In order to address these questions we develop a simple model of supernova fallback on to a hot young magnetized neutron star, modelling both spin evolution and gravitational wave emission.

## 2 The model

### 2.1 Spin evolution

In order to be able to compare our results to previous work and assess directly the role of the induced accretion torque, we employ a simple phenomenological spin evolution model analogous to that devised by Owen et al (1998) (see also Ho & Lai 2000; Andersson & Kokkotas 2001).

We assume that we can model the star’s angular momentum as the sum of bulk angular momentum $`J`$ and the canonical angular momentum of the r-mode $`J_c`$. The total torque on the star $`\dot{J}`$ can therefore be written as

$$\dot{J}=\dot{I}\mathrm{\Omega }+I\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\dot{J}_c,$$
(1)
where the dots indicate time-derivatives. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the star’s angular velocity. For simplicity we will assume that the star does not rotate differentially despite the presence of a large amplitude r-mode and a strong accretion torque. $`I=\stackrel{~}{I}MR^2`$ represents the moment of inertia of the star. We will model the star as an $`n=1`$ polytrope, which means that $`\stackrel{~}{I}=0.261`$. For this particular stellar model, accretion will affect the mass $`M`$ of the star but not the radius $`R`$.

In our analysis we will only account for radiation from the (dominant) $`l=m=2`$ current multipole of the r-mode. The canonical angular momentum of the mode is

$$J_c=\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{J}MR^2}{2},$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is the mode amplitude (as defined by Owen et al 1998) and $`\stackrel{~}{J}=1.635\times 10^2`$ for an $`n=1`$ polytrope.

The r-mode is driven by gravitational radiation and damped by viscosity. We thus assume that the canonical angular momentum, which is proportional to the square of the perturbation, evolves according to

$$\frac{\dot{J_c}}{2J_c}=\frac{1}{\tau },$$
(3)
where

$$\tau ^1=|\tau _g|^1+\tau _b^1+\tau _s^1,$$
(4)
and $`\tau _{g,b,s}`$ are the timescales associated with growth of the linear perturbation due to gravitational radiation back reaction and dissipation of energy due to bulk and shear viscosity, respectively. From equation (3) it can be seen that the mode is unstable (in an isolated star) if $`\tau <0`$. In this case a small perturbation will lead to an unbounded growth of the mode.

Equations (1), (2) and (3) can be combined to give equations for the evolution of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\dot{\alpha }=\alpha \left[\frac{1}{\tau }+\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{\dot{M}}{2M}\right],$$
(5)
and

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left[\frac{\dot{J}}{I}\frac{\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }}{M}\frac{3\stackrel{~}{J}\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{\stackrel{~}{I}\tau }\right].$$
(6)
We initiate our evolutions by assuming that a small amplitude r-mode (with $`\alpha =10^6`$) is present. Variation of the initial amplitude has no significant effect on the subsequent evolution.

Equations (5) and (6) only apply when $`\alpha `$ is small. To model the behaviour once the r-mode reaches the non-linear regime we assume that it saturates at some value $`\alpha _s`$. The larger the value of $`\alpha _s`$, the greater the fraction of the star’s angular momentum the r-mode can carry (we consider $`0.01\alpha _s1`$ in this paper). When the mode is saturated the spin evolution is described by

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\dot{J}}{I}\left[1\frac{3\stackrel{~}{J}\alpha _s^2}{2\stackrel{~}{I}}\right]^1\frac{\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }}{M}.$$
(7)
As discussed by Owen et al (1998), the bulk of gravitational wave emission and associated spin-down will occur during the saturated phase.

Eventually the mode will become stable again, de-saturate and die away; when this happens we switch back to using equations (5) and (6). Note that equation (5) indicates that the r-mode is unstable, in the sense that $`\dot{\alpha }>0`$, whenever

$$\frac{1}{\tau }+\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{\dot{M}}{2M}<0.$$
(8)
This is the appropriate criterion for the onset of instability in a star that is spun up by accretion (Ho & Lai 2000). Compare this with the instability criterion for an isolated star, $`\tau <0`$.

We use the estimates given by Andersson & Kokkotas (2001) for the gravitational radiation reaction timescale due to the $`l=m=2`$ current multipole:

$$\tau _g47M_{1.4}^1R_{10}^4P_3^6\mathrm{s},$$
(9)
as well as the bulk and shear viscosity damping timescales:

$$\tau _b2.7\times 10^{11}M_{1.4}R_{10}^1P_3^2T_9^6\mathrm{s},$$
(10)
$$\tau _s=6.7\times 10^7M_{1.4}^{5/4}R_{10}^{23/4}T_9^2\mathrm{s},$$
(11)
where we have used the notation $`M_{1.4}=M/1.4M_{}`$, $`R_{10}=R/10`$ km, $`P_3=P/1`$ ms and $`T_9=T/10^9`$ K. We have used these timescales because it allows us to make a direct comparison with the earlier work of Owen et al (1998). However, it should be noted that this is probably the most optimistic scenario with regard to the lifetime of unstable r-modes. We do not take into account any damping effects that may arise from the interaction of mode and magnetic field (Rezzolla, Lamb & Shapiro 2000), or from the presence of exotic particles such as hyperons (Jones 2001: Lindblom & Owen 2002).

### 2.2 Torques

The total torque on the star $`\dot{J}`$ is taken to be the sum of torques due to gravitational radiation, accretion and magnetic dipole radiation. The torque due to gravitational-wave emission from the $`l=m=2`$ current multipole is

$$\dot{J}_g=3\stackrel{~}{J}\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha ^2MR^2\tau _g^1.$$
(12)
In order to model the accretion torque we need to know the quantity and rate of fallback onto the young neutron star. Several authors have examined this problem and concluded that a significant quantity of matter (up to $`0.1M_{}`$) could fall back onto the neutron star during the first few months of its life (Colgate 1971; Chevalier 1989; Houck & Chevalier 1991). Accretion of such a large amount of matter onto a neutron star is hypercritical; that is, orders of magnitude above the Eddington limit (compare with Bethe, Brown & Lee 2000). Such rapid accretion would be advection dominated, with energy loss occurring via neutrino emission as matter is processed at the surface of the neutron star. Advection dominated accretion flows have been examined in detail by Narayan & Yi (1994,1995). They conclude that advection could dominate in cases where the mass accretion rate is very high; precisely the conditions likely to prevail around a newly-formed neutron star.

Advection dominated accretion onto a magnetized neutron star has been examined by Menou et al (1999). Building on earlier work (for example Illarionov & Sunyaev 1975; Ghosh & Lamb 1978), they model a rotating magnetized neutron star surrounded by a magnetically threaded accretion disk. Accreting matter follows magnetic field lines and gives up angular momentum on reaching the surface, exerting a spin-up torque. The contribution of the magnetically threaded disk is however more complex. Interaction between the stellar field and the disk results in a positive torque for small radii, where the field lines rotate more slowly than the local Keplerian speed of the gas. For larger radii, the field lines rotate more quickly than the local Keplerian speed, resulting in a negative torque. If the spin period becomes very short, or the rate of fallback of material onto the magnetosphere drops, the star can enter what is known as the propeller regime. Then the rapidly rotating magnetosphere exerts a centrifugal barrier that inhibits further accretion. Accreting matter is flung away from the star and the star experiences a spin-down torque. An accreting magnetized star can therefore experience either a spin-up or a spin-down torque.

To proceed we need to determine the likely rate and quantity of supernova fallback. Mineshige et al (1997) model the supernova fallback problem assuming that the fallback material possesses some angular momentum (compare with Chevalier (1989) and Brown & Weingartner (1994), who model the problem under the assumption of Bondi spherical accretion). Mineshige et al find a fallback rate $`\dot{M}_ft^n`$, with $`1<n<2`$. We therefore use

$$\dot{M}_f=Ct^{3/2},$$
(13)
where $`C`$ is set by choosing the total mass to be accreted $`M_{acc}`$ between some initial time $`t_i`$ after the supernova explosion and $`t=\mathrm{}`$. The accretion rate is related to the fallback rate by

$`\dot{M}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\dot{M}_f\hfill & \mathrm{Propeller}\mathrm{off},\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{Propeller}\mathrm{on}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
Following Chevalier (1989) and Mineshige et al (1997) we choose $`M_{acc}`$ to be $`0.1M_{}`$. We choose $`t_i=100`$ s as this is the time after the supernova at which we expect there to be a recognisable compact object (Burrows & Lattimer 1986). If the propeller effect is not active, we assume that hypercritical accretion continues until the accretion rate falls to $`\dot{M}10^4M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This corresponds to the cut-off point below which hypercritical accretion is no longer possible. We follow Chevalier (1989) and Bethe et al (2000) in assuming that below this rate photons begin to diffuse out of the shocked region and further accretion proceeds at (or below) the Eddington rate ($`10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$).

If on the other hand the propeller effect becomes active, the situation is less clear. The propeller effect prevents accretion and trapped photons may escape as soon as the propeller becomes active. But would the pressure of these photons reduce the rate of fallback of material on to the magnetosphere? We model two possibilities: i) continued exponentially decaying fallback, and ii) constant accretion at the Eddington rate. For stars with magnetic fields of $`10^{13}`$ G there is little quantitative difference between the two models, however there are noticeable differences for higher fields.

A typical young neutron star is expected to have a magnetic field $`B10^{12}`$ G (see Table 1), although a magnetar could have a field strength as high as $`10^{15}`$ G (see for example Thompson & Duncan 1996). We assume that the magnetic field strength is not affected by accretion or the action of the mode, even though it is by no means clear that this would be the case in practice. Several authors have suggested that the r-mode might lead to differential rotation and hence to changes in the magnetic field (see for example Spruit 1999 and Rezzolla et al 2000). In the earliest stages after the supernova the accretion rate is likely to be so high that the magnetic field of the neutron star is completely confined. The pressure of accreting material will be so much greater than the magnetic pressure that the magnetospheric radius, defined by

$$r_m=\left[\frac{B^2R^6}{2\dot{M}(2GM)^{1/2}}\right]^{2/7},$$
(17)
with $`B`$ taken to be the polar magnetic field of the star, is smaller than the radius of the neutron star. The magnetic field remains confined to the neutron star until the accretion rate falls sufficiently for the field to begin to exert an influence outside the star.

The accretion torque $`\dot{J}_a`$ will vary depending on whether the magnetic field is confined and whether the propeller effect is operational. When the field is completely confined we use Narayan and Yi’s (1994,1995) results for the accretion torque. Their models of advection dominated accretion flows suggest orbital velocities with $`v^2\frac{2}{7}v_k^2`$, $`v_k`$ being the Kepler velocity of a particle orbiting the star. Hence

$$\dot{J}_a=\dot{M}R\left[\frac{2GM}{7R}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(18)
As the accretion rate falls, $`r_m`$ grows and eventually exceeds the neutron star radius $`R`$. At this stage we switch to the equations of Menou et al (1999), as the torque will now be affected by the interaction of the magnetic field and the fallback material.

$`\dot{J}_a=2r_m^2\mathrm{\Omega }_k(r_m)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_k(r_m)}}\right]\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\dot{M}\hfill & \mathrm{Propeller}\mathrm{off},\hfill \\ \dot{M}_f\hfill & \mathrm{Propeller}\mathrm{on},\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(r_m)`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity evaluated at the magnetospheric radius. This magnetized accretion torque falls as the star spins up, and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }>\mathrm{\Omega }_k(r_m)`$ the torque will in fact be negative. The star is then in the propeller regime. During this phase matter is prevented from accreting onto the star and fallback material is instead expelled from the system by the rotating magnetosphere. Menou et al (1999) review the assumption that accretion ceases and conclude that accretion is indeed minimal when the propeller is active. We do not attempt to model the complicated transition regime between the two phases in detail.

Once magnetic field confinement ends we could also include a torque due to emission of magnetic dipole radiation, $`\dot{J}_m`$, where

$$\dot{J}_m=\frac{2B^2R^6\mathrm{\Omega }^3}{3c^3}.$$
(22)
This term was however found to be negligible compared to the other torques acting on the young neutron star. Its effects will not be discussed further in this paper.

### 2.3 Temperature evolution

Viscosity, the main agent damping the r-mode in our model, depends critically on temperature. We include three factors in modelling the temperature evolution: modified URCA cooling, shear viscosity reheating, and accretion heating. We assume the star to be isothermal even though this may not be appropriate for a newly born accreting star (Burrows & Lattimer 1986). Still, this assumption simplifies the analysis considerably and all previous studies of the r-mode instability have assumed a uniform temperature distribution.

The primary cooling mechanism for a young neutron star will be the modified URCA reaction, in which neutrons decay via the weak interaction, emitting neutrinos. We do not model any rapid cooling effects due to the direct URCA reactions in the core of the star (compare with Lattimer et al 1994 and Page et al 2000). The cooling rate due to the modified URCA reaction, $`\dot{\epsilon }_u`$, is given by Shapiro & Teukolsky (1983):

$$\dot{\epsilon }_u=7.5\times 10^{39}M_{1.4}^{2/3}T_9^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(23)
The neutron star will be heated by the action of shear viscosity on the r-mode oscillations. The heating rate due to shear viscosity, $`\dot{\epsilon _s}`$, is given by Andersson & Kokkotas (2001):

$`\dot{\epsilon }_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2MR^2\stackrel{~}{J}}{\tau _s}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`8.3\times 10^{37}\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\stackrel{~}{J}M_{1.4}^{9/4}R_{10}^{15/4}T_9^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.`$
Accretion heating will have two components. The first contribution arises when accreting matter undergoes nuclear burning at the surface of the star. We assume that accreting matter will release approximately 1.5 MeV of energy per nucleon (Brown & Bildsten 1998). If we assume that every nucleon reaching the surface is burnt, then energy is liberated at a rate:

$`\dot{\epsilon }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{M}}{m_B}}\times 1.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`4\times 10^{51}\dot{M}_{1.4}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$
where $`m_B`$ is the mass of a baryon.

A second contribution arises because the flow is assumed to be advection dominated. Matter falling in towards a star will liberate $`GM/R`$ of potential energy per unit mass. In a non-advection dominated flow most of this energy would be dissipated as heat in the accretion disk. In an advection dominated flow, by contrast, this energy is carried in with the flow of matter. We assume that the advected potential energy is used to generate neutrinos near the surface of the star, and that these neutrinos are radiated isotropically from the point of generation. We therefore assume that half of the neutrinos escape without interacting with the star and that the remaining half are radiated into the star, where they scatter and interact with the stellar material. The mean free path $`\lambda `$ of inelastic scattering of neutrinos with electrons in the neutron star matter is

$$\lambda 2\times 10^{10}\left[\frac{\rho _{nuc}}{\overline{\rho }}\right]^{7/6}\left[\frac{0.1\mathrm{MeV}}{E_\nu }\right]^{5/2}\mathrm{cm},$$
(26)
where $`\rho _{nuc}2.8\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density of the star. For an $`n=1`$ polytrope we have

$$\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\rho _{nuc}}=0.7\frac{M}{M_{}}.$$
(27)
We assume that the neutrino energy is $`E_\nu =1`$ MeV (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). Assuming fully efficient scattering, and noting that $`\lambda >R`$, the heating rate due to advected potential energy may be estimated as

$`\dot{\epsilon }_h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{GM\dot{M}}{R}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`8\times 10^{51}M_{1.4}^{13/6}\dot{M}_{1.4}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1.`$
We estimate the heat capacity $`C_\nu `$ by assuming the thermal energy of the neutron star to reside almost exclusively in degenerate neutrons (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). Neglecting interactions, the heat capacity of such a system is given by

$$C_\nu =1.6\times 10^{39}M_{1.4}^{1/3}T_9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{K}^1.$$
(29)
Equation (29) shows that $`C_\nu T`$, hence the equation of thermal balance of the star is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{1}{2}C_\nu T\right]=\dot{\epsilon }_s\dot{\epsilon }_u+\dot{\epsilon }_n+\dot{\epsilon }_h.$$
(30)
Manipulation of equation (30) yields an expression for the temperature evolution of the star. We initiate our evolutions at $`T=10^{11}`$ K and terminate them at $`T=10^9`$ K, the temperature at which we expect a crust to form (Haensel 1997) and suppress the r-mode instability in an accreting star.

## 3 Observational constraints

Before we proceed to the discussion of the results obtained from our simple model it is useful to consider the constraints provided by observations of young neutron stars. It is standard practice to assume that a pulsar spins down purely as a result of magnetic dipole radiation. Given the observed period and the spin-down rate we can then estimate the magnetic field strength from

$$B=3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{1/2}\mathrm{G}.$$
(31)
Similarly, one can infer the characteristic age $`t_c`$ of the pulsar from the observed data:

$$t_c=\frac{P}{2\dot{P}}.$$
(32)
Here it is assumed that the star was born spinning much faster that its current rate. The use of this estimate is supported by the fact that, in the case of the Crab pulsar, the age calculated in this way accords well with the known age.

If observations also provide the braking index, $`n`$, and an estimate of pulsar age, $`t_{SNR}`$, the initial spin period of the pulsar $`P_0`$ is inferred from

$$P_0=P\left[1(n1)t_{SNR}\frac{\dot{P}}{P}\right]^{1/(n1)},$$
(33)
where $`n`$ is given by

$$n=\frac{P\ddot{P}}{\dot{P}^2}2.$$
(34)
In most cases the largest uncertainty in estimating the initial spin period is associated with the age of the pulsar, $`t_{SNR}`$. Ideally, one would like to make an association with a known historical supernova. This would then, as in the case of the Crab, provide a precise age estimate and a reasonably reliable initial spin period. Unfortunately, this kind of data is the exception rather than the norm. Typically, the independent age is estimated by measuring the size of the supernova remnant and comparing it with theoretical models for the expansion rate. This procedure is complicated by many factors and the results are associated with large error bars.

A sample of data for young pulsars that are claimed to be associated with known supernova remnants is given in Table 1. The reliability of the inferred initial spin periods can be assessed by comparing the characteristic age of the pulsar to the estimated age of the supernova remnant. For most of the cases listed in Table 1, these estimates are consistent. In these cases the association between supernova remnant and pulsar seems correct and the spin of these pulsars appears to have evolved primarily due to the action of magnetic dipole radiation.

The data for young pulsars clearly support the notion that neutron stars are not formed spinning near the Kepler limit. This would be consistent with both the r-mode instability scenario (where a rapidly spinning, newly born neutron star is spun down to a period of say 10 ms in a few months) and the possibility that magnetic core-envelope coupling in the supernova progenitor leads to most neutron stars being born rotating slowly (Spruit & Phinney 1998).

There is ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether the (obviously simplistic) magnetic dipole model adequately describes the spin evolution of young pulsars. Concerns stem from discrepancies between various age estimates for some young pulsars. Calculations would also be complicated by magnetic field decay (Colpi et al 2000) or growth (Gaensler & Frail 2000). Another problem is that all measurements of the braking index $`n`$ are lower than the value of 3 predicted by the magnetic dipole model. Several authors have suggested that the propeller effect, driven by ongoing low rate accretion of supernova remnant material, could explain the discrepancies (Marsden, Lingenfelter & Rothschild 2001; Menou, Perna & Hernquist 2001). The same mechanism might also explain the properties of the Anomalous X-Ray Pulsars (AXPs) (Perna, Hernquist & Narayan 2000; Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000; Alpar 2001; Menou, Perna & Hernquist 2001), without having to invoke large magnetic field strengths (Thompson & Duncan 1996). See Rothschild, Lingenfelter & Marsden (2001) for a review of AXP properties and the competing accretion-driven and magnetar models.

The relation of these propeller/fallback models to the one used in this paper is simple. Because we are interested in gravitational wave emission, we model only the very earliest stages of fallback and terminate our evolutions at crust formation. At crust formation ($`t1`$ year) there is still material in the fallback disk, although the fallback rate has dropped significantly. The papers listed above focus more on the subsequent long period of sub-Eddington accretion. Although they do discuss the early super-Eddington accretion phase (see for example Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000), they do not model this phase in detail and neglect the effects of gravitational wave emission completely.

## 4 Results from the fallback model

We are now prepared to discuss the results obtained from our phenomenological r-mode instability/supernova fallback mode, and compare the predicted spin rates to the data in Table 1.

If we consider the data in Table 1, and the fact that the r-modes are certainly stable for periods longer than (say) 20 ms (see Andersson & Kokkotas 2001), it would seem as if the instability may only be relevant for a small sample of nascent neutron stars. This would be in agreement with Spruit & Phinney’s (1998) model, which suggests that most neutron stars are born rotating slowly. Our study will show, however, that supernova fallback may change this picture considerably, with accretion induced spin-up driving the star into the window where the r-mode is likely to be unstable. In other words, significant supernova fallback enhances the probability that a young neutron star evolves through a phase where the r-mode instability is active.

Let us consider the effect of supernova fallback on a neutron star born spinning at a reasonably small fraction of the Kepler rate. Taking the birth spin period as 10 ms, we evolve the star according to our phenomenological model. Typical results for the resultant spin evolution are shown in Figure 1. The data shown in the figure suggest the following picture. After an initial spin-up phase, the r-mode becomes unstable and begins to grow. For a typical young neutron star with magnetic field $`10^{12}`$ G the r-mode instability provides the main spin-down mechanism. For larger magnetic fields the propeller effect becomes active at an earlier stage of the evolution and is the main spin-down mechanism for highly magnetized stars. Nevertheless, the r-mode is important in even the most highly magnetized stars. Switching off the r-mode leads to a marked reduction in spin-down, despite the fact that the mode never actually saturates in the star with the largest magnetic field. Note also that our model predicts that supernova fallback will delay the appearance of the r-mode signal compared to the case of an isolated star, for which the r-mode is predicted to saturate after $`10`$ minutes (Owen et al 1998). This can be seen from equation (8): the high initial accretion rate overwhelms all of the other terms in the expression and $`\alpha `$ will not grow until $`\dot{M}`$ has fallen.

In our model we have assumed that the magnetic field does not influence $`\dot{M}_f`$ (although it does affect $`\dot{M}`$ via the propeller effect). Recent work by Igumenshchev & Narayan (2002) on spherical fallback, however, suggests that the presence of a magnetic field may reduce $`\dot{M}_f`$ by perhaps a factor of 10. If we assume such a reduced $`\dot{M}_f`$ from the time at which magnetic field suppression ends, we find little impact on spin rate or gravitational wave emission for a $`10^{12}G`$ star. The effect on a $`10^{14}`$ G star is however more pronounced. Initial spin-up and subsequent propeller-driven spin-down are much reduced, as is the emitted gravitational wave amplitude. Note however that we only examine the first $`1`$ year post-supernova and that the effects of slower fallback may be more important at later times.

We have terminated the evolutions once the star reaches a temperature of $`10^9`$ K. At this point one would expect the crust to form, which is predicted to increase dramatically viscous damping of the r-mode (Bildsten & Ushomirsky 2000; Lindblom et al 2000). In Figure 2 we compare the spin period at the end of the our evolutions to the values of $`P_0`$ inferred for young pulsars using the magnetic dipole model (as listed in Table 1). This figure should, of course, be considered with caution since the inferred spin periods are associated with significant error bars. Still, our model clearly captures the main trend of the data, namely that the initial spin period inferred from the magnetic dipole model increases with magnetic field. Given the many uncertainties in both the theoretical model and the observational data the agreement between the results is rather good.

The fallback model suggests that the outcome is insensitive to the spin period at the beginning of the evolution (the true “birth” spin rate). The combined action of supernova fallback and the r-mode instability causes the spin rates of stars with very different birth spins to converge within $`1`$ year. This is shown in Figure 3.

This result is notable given the uncertainty over the spin rates at which neutron stars are formed. It may, in fact, suggest that the true “birth” spin is not the key factor that determines the spin period at (say) one year post-supernova. This observation has implications for determining whether or not a young neutron star undergoes a phase where the r-modes are unstable. This will in turn affect the relevance of the r-modes as a gravitational wave source. Of particular interest is the fact that our results suggest that fallback accretion may lead to even a very slowly spinning neutron star being spun up sufficiently for the r-modes to become unstable after $`10`$ min. However, we conclude that the magnetic field is far more important in determining the spin rate at one year post-supernova than both the birth spin rate and the possible r-mode spin-down phase.

The key parameter in determining the role of the r-mode instability is the saturation amplitude $`\alpha _s`$. As has been demonstrated by recent hydrodynamical simulations (Stergioulas & Font 2001, Lindblom, Tohline & Vallisneri 2001), the r-modes may not saturate until the amplitude has reached values of order unity. The effect of varying $`\alpha _s`$ is shown in Figure 4. These results are exactly what one would expect: the r-mode needs to be able to grow to a large amplitude if it is to counteract the strong accretion torque during the fallback phase.

One might expect fallback accretion to lead to strong heating, and that this would have a significant effect on the duration of the r-mode gravitational-wave signal. We analyse the role of accretion heating in Figure 5. We find that even though rapid accretion increases the temperature by roughly 10 percent throughout the initial evolution, it does not lengthen the r-mode instability phase. Far more important in this respect is reheating due to the action of shear viscosity on the r-mode, which prolongs the r-mode instability phase for both an accreting and a non-accreting star. The amount of viscous heating is essentially the same in our current model as it would be in the case of an isolated young neutron star.

In order to assess the detectability of the gravitational waves due to the r-modes, we use the prescription of Owen et al (1998). The true strain of the gravitational waves, $`h`$, is given by

$$h(t)=7.54\times 10^{23}\alpha \stackrel{~}{J}\mathrm{\Omega }^3M_{1.4}R_{10}^3\frac{15\mathrm{Mpc}}{D}.$$
(35)
We consider sources in the Virgo Cluster, for which the distance to the source, $`D15`$ Mpc. Results from our model are similar to results from previous studies (such as Owen et al 1998). They show that the unstable r-modes may lead to a gravitational wave signal that could be detectable by a second generation detector like LIGO II. The main difference between our results and those of Owen et al (1998) is the duration of the signal. We predict that, if continued accretion were to take place and prevent crust formation until the core temperature has fallen to $`10^9`$ K, the signal may last for several years. We find that the peak gravitational-wave signal amplitude remains almost unchanged as we vary the saturation amplitude by two orders of magnitude, even though this has a noticeable effect on final spin period. Note however that these conclusions are only relevant for neutron stars with fields $`<10^{13}`$ G. It is unlikely that we would observe a signal from the r-modes of neutron stars with larger magnetic fields. This conclusion agrees well with studies of Rezzolla et al (2000) and Ho & Lai (2000). In our case the reduction in signal with increasing magnetic field is due mainly to increased propeller effect spin-down. This is because the gravitational wave amplitude depends so strongly on spin rate (see equation (35)) . It should of course be pointed out that we have not taken account of any possible interaction between the r-mode and the magnetic field, which may further decrease the relevance of the r-modes in magnetized stars.

Finally, we have considered the possibility that the fallback accretion torque might be able to spin the star up to (and beyond) the mass-shedding limit (for the canonical $`n=1`$ polytropic neutron star used in our evolutions this corresponds to $`P0.8`$ ms). Depending on the overall stiffness of the supranuclear equation of state, neutron stars spinning near the mass-shedding limit may be subject to the dynamical bar-mode instability (Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). This would lead to the formation of a highly non-axisymmetric bar-like configuration which is expected to be a strong source of gravitational waves with frequencies of order kHz (Houser, Centrella & Smith 1994). Whether a young neutron star becomes bar-mode unstable is therefore of great interest to gravitational wave theorists. Interestingly, our evolutions indicate that the r-mode instability is remarkably efficient in preventing the star from reaching the mass-shedding limit during the fallback phase. Even stars born with periods as short as 0.85 ms were unable to reach the Kepler threshold. The r-mode grows rapidly and is able to spin down the star, even in the initial stages where the accretion torque is the highest. This suggests that r-mode induced spin-down might counteract accretion spin-up to prevent all but the most rapidly rotating young neutron stars from becoming bar-mode unstable. For comparison we also investigated the case where there was no unstable r-mode. In this case the propeller effect switches on far earlier and can also act to prevent the star from going bar-mode unstable. Consider the $`B=10^{12}`$ G star shown in Figure 1, which is born spinning at $`P=10`$ ms. If the unstable r-mode is present, the propeller effect will not switch on until $`200`$ days. If the r-mode is absent, however, the propeller will come on after only $`20`$ days. For a $`B=10^{12}`$ G star born spinning at $`P=1`$ ms, the difference is even more pronounced. In this case the propeller will switch on after $`3`$ days when there is no r-mode, as compared with $`200`$ days when the unstable r-mode is present.

## 5 Concluding remarks

We commenced this work with two prime objectives: to understand the impact of supernova fallback accretion on the unstable r-modes of neutron stars and any associated gravitational wave signal, and to investigate the combined influence of accretion and r-mode instability on the spin rates of young neutron stars. Our model, simple as it is, has offered insight into both questions. Our results suggest that newly formed neutron stars accreting fallback material will indeed experience a phase of perhaps several years during which the r-mode is unstable. This would have positive ramifications for detection of gravitational waves from the unstable r-modes of neutron stars. Moreover, the model suggests that this is true even for stars that are born with low spin rates. The effect of magnetic field is however crucial. While stars with canonical ($`10^{13}`$ G) field strengths are predicted to go r-mode unstable, the strong propeller effect associated with magnetars appears to preclude the r-mode from growing to the saturation level. The external torque simply spins the star down fast enough that the r-mode is not given time to grow. It is thus unlikely that we will see a strong r-mode gravitational wave signal from a highly magnetized star. The likelihood of obtaining a gravitational wave signal from an unstable bar-mode is also low in our model. Spin-down caused by emission of radiation from the r-modes is able to counteract even the strongest accretion torque and prevent all but the stars with the most rapid initial spins (and obviously those born spinning faster than the Kepler limit) from going dynamically unstable to the bar-mode. The propeller effect has a similar preventive effect for the stars with the highest magnetic fields.

With regard to our second question, the model’s predictions are consistent with spin rates inferred from observations of young pulsars. A canonical neutron star is spun down within a few years by the combined action of fallback and r-mode to a period similar to that inferred for the Crab pulsar at its birth. Neutron stars with stronger magnetic fields, for which the propeller effect is the dominant spin-down mechanism, achieve far longer periods in the first year post-supernova. Even for such highly magnetized stars, however, the effect of an unstable r-mode on spin rate is significant.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ian Jones, John Miller and Bryan Gaensler for helpful discussions. We also acknowledge support from the EU Programme ’Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base’, (Research Training Network Contract HPRN-CT-2000-00137). A.W. acknowledges support from a PPARC postgraduate studentship and N.A. acknowledges support from the Leverhulme Trust in the form of a prize fellowship and PPARC grant PPA/G/1998/00606.

## References

Alpar M.A., 2001, ApJ, 554, 1245.

Andersson N., 1998, ApJ, 502, 708.

Andersson N., Kokkotas K.D., 2001, Int J Mod Phys D, 10, 381.

Andersson N., Kokkotas K.D., Schutz B.F., 1999, ApJ, 510, 846.

Bethe H.A., Brown G.E., Lee C.-H., 2000, ApJ, 541, 918.

Bildsten L., Ushomirsky G., 2000, ApJ, 529, L33.

Brown E.F., Bildsten L., 1998, ApJ, 496, 915.

Brown G.E., Weingartner J.C., 1994, ApJ, 436, 843.

Burrows A., Lattimer J.M., 1986, ApJ, 307, 178.

Camilo F., Bell J.F., Manchester R.N, Lyne A.G., Possenti A., Kramer M., Kaspi V.M., Stairs I.H., D’Amico N., Hobbs G., Gotthelf E.V., Gaensler B.M., 2001, ApJ, 557, L51.

Camilo F., Manchester R.N., Gaensler B.M., Lorimer D.R., Sarkassian J., 2002, ApJ, 567.

Chatterjee P., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2000, ApJ, 534, 373.

Chevalier R.A., 1989, ApJ, 346, 847.

Colgate S.A., 1971, ApJ, 163, 221.

Colpi M., Geppert U., Page D., 2000, ApJ, 529, L29.

Cox D.P., Shelton R.L., Maciejewski W., Smith R.K., Plewa T., Pawl A., Rozyczka M., 1999, ApJ, 524, 179.

Crawford F., Gaensler B.M., Kaspi V.M., Manchester R.N., Camilo F., Lyne A.G., Pivovaroff M.J., 2001, ApJ, 554, 152

Duncan R.C., Thompson C., 1992, ApJ, 392, L9.

Foster R.S., Lyne A.G., Shemar S.L., Backer D.C., 1994, AJ, 108, 175.

Friedman J.L., Morsink S.M., 1998, ApJ, 502, 714.

Gaensler B.M., Frail D.A., 2000, Nat, 406, 158.

Ghosh P., Lamb F.K., 1978, ApJ, 223, L83.

Gotthelf E.V., Vasisht G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Torii K., 2000, ApJ, 542, L37.

Haensel P., 1997, in Marck J.A., Lasota J.P., eds, Relativistic Gravitation and Gravitational Radiation, Cambridge University Press, p.129.

Ho W.C.G., Lai D., 2000, ApJ, 543, 386.

Houck J.C., Chevalier R.A., 1991, ApJ, 376, 234.

Houser J.L., Centrella J.M., Smith S.C., 1994, Phys Rev Lett, 73, 1314.

Igumenshchev I.V., Narayan R., 2002, ApJ, 566, 137.

Illarionov A.F., Sunyaev R.A., 1975, A&A, 39, 185.

Jones P.B., 2001, Phys Rev Lett, 86, 1384.

Kaspi V.M., 2000, in Wex N., Kramer M., Wielebinski R., eds, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 202, Pulsar Astronomy - 2000 and beyond, p.405.

Kaspi V.M., Manchester R.N., Siegman B., Johnston S., Lyne A.G., 1994, ApJ, 422, L83.

Lattimer J.M., van Riper K.A., Prakash M., Prakash M., 1994, ApJ, 425, 802.

Lindblom L., Mendell G., 2000, Phys Rev D, 61, 104003.

Lindblom L., Owen B.J., 2002, astro-ph/0110558.

Lindblom L., Owen B.J., Ushomirsky G., 2000, Phys Rev D, 62, 084030.

Lindblom L., Tohline J.E., Vallisneri M., 2001, Phys Rev Lett, 86, 1152.

Lockitch K.L., Andersson N., Friedman J.L., 2001, Phys Rev D, 63, 024019.

Lyne A.G., Pritchard R.S., Graham-Smith F., Camilo F., 1996, Nat, 381, 497.

Marsden D., Lingenfelter R.E., Rothschild R.E., 2001, ApJ, 547, L45.

Menou K., Perna R., Hernquist L., 2001, ApJ, 554, L63.

Menou K., Esin A.A., Narayan R., Garcia M.R., Lasota J.P., McClintock J.E., 1999, ApJ, 520, 276.

Migliazzo J.M., Gaensler B.M., Backer D.C., Stappers B.W., van der Swaluw E., Strom R.G., 2002, astro-ph/0202063.

Mineshige S., Nomura H., Hirose M., Nomoto K., Suzuki T., 1997, ApJ, 489, 227.

Murray S.S., Slane P.O., Seward F.D., Ransom S.M., Gaensler B.M., 2001, astro-ph/0108489.

Narayan R., Yi I., 1994, ApJ, 428, L13.

Narayan R., Yi I., 1995, ApJ, 444, 231.

Owen B.J., Lindblom L., Cutler C., Schutz B.F., Vecchio A., Andersson N., 1998, Phys Rev D, 58, 084020.

Page,D. Prakash M., Lattimer J.M., Steiner A.W., 2000, Phys Rev Lett, 85, 2048.

Perna R., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2000, ApJ, 541, 344.

Reynolds S.P., 1985, ApJ, 291, 152.

Rezzolla L., Lamb F.K., Shapiro S.L., 2000, ApJ, 531, L139.

Rothschild R.E., Lingenfelter R.E., Marsden D., 2001, astro-ph/0112121.

Shapiro S.L., Teukolsky S.A., 1983, Black Holes White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars, Wiley.

Spruit H.C., 1999, A&A, 341, L1.

Spruit H., Phinney E.S., 1998, Nat, 393, 139.

Stergioulas N., Font J.A., 2001, Phys Rev Lett, 86, 1148.

Torii K., Tsunemi H., Dotani T., Mitsuda K., Kawai N., Kinugasa K., Saito Y., Shibata S., 1999, ApJ, 523, L69.

Zhang W., Marshall F.E., Gotthelf E.V., Middleditch J., Wang Q.D., 2001, ApJ, 554, L177.


text:
# Topological Susceptibility of Monte-Carlo Generated Projected VorticesPresented by Manfried Faber. Supported in part by Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung P13997-TPH (R.B. and M.F.) and by DFG under grant En 415/1-1.

## Abstract

We determine the topological susceptibility from center projected vortices and demonstrate that the topological properties of the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills vacuum can be extracted from the vortex content. We eliminate spurious ultraviolet fluctuations by two different smoothing procedures. The extracted susceptibility is comparable to that obtained from full field configurations.

One of the main aims of present day lattice investigations is to obtain a consistent picture of the QCD vacuum. During the last years, the center vortex model turned out to be a good candidate for that. The vortex model was invented at the end of the seventies . Due to the lack of an identification method for vortices, almost no numerical investigations were done for 25 years. Maximal center gauge  and center projection gave us a means to identify vortices and led to new investigations about the predictive power of the vortex model. The vortex model explains the confinement properties of the QCD vacuum . By the idea that monopoles are located on vortices , it is even strongly related to the dual superconductor picture of confinement. As recently  suggested, the vortex picture is also related to the topological properties of the QCD vacuum. We report on numerical calculations which support this statement.

We extract center vortices from lattice configurations by direct maximal center gauge , i.e. by a maximization of the gauge fixing functional

$$\underset{G}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{}\left|\text{tr}U_i^G\right|^2$$
(1)
under gauge transformations $`G`$, where the $`U_i`$ are the link variables. This functional biases link variables toward the center of the gauge group, e.g. in the $`SU(2)`$ case considered henceforth, toward the elements $`\pm 1`$. Physically, the idea is to transform as much physical information as possible to the center part of the configuration. In a second step, center projection, the magnetic flux is concentrated in tubes (P-vortices) which propagate in time and form closed two-dimensional surfaces in dual space. Since the Pontryagin index $`Q`$, a four-dimensional integral over the scalar product of electric and magnetic field strengths, is a topological quantity, one can hope that it is effectively unchanged by a compression of electric and magnetic fluxes.

For thin center vortices in the continuum, the topological charge $`Q`$ is given by their self-intersection number

$$Q=\frac{1}{16}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_Sd^2\sigma _{\alpha \beta }_Sd^2\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{}\delta ^4(\overline{x}(\sigma )\overline{x}(\sigma ^{})),$$
(2)
where $`\overline{x}(\sigma )`$ parametrizes the two-dimensional vortex surface $`S`$ in four-dimensional space-time. This expression is only well defined if the orientation of $`S`$ is specified. Lattice calculations show that, in the QCD vacuum, projected vortices have a random structure and are in general non-orientable . This demonstrates that vortex surfaces consist of patches of alternating orientation which are separated by closed lines where the orientation switches. These flips of orientation of P-vortices are related to the color structure of the original thick vortices. In an Abelian description, these lines are world-lines of Abelian monopoles with the two halves of the magnetic monopole flux going in opposite directions. The positions of the monopoles depend on the color structure of the vortices and the choice of the U(1) subgroup.

According to Eq. (2), in the continuum an intersection point contributes $`\pm 1/2`$ to $`Q`$. On the lattice, an intersection point joins $`4\times 4`$ plaquettes, see Fig. 1; therefore, every joined pair of electric and magnetic plaquettes contributes $`\pm 1/32`$. There are further contributions to $`Q`$ from “writhing” points. These are lattice sites where electric and magnetic plaquettes share a point of the four-dimensional lattice and belong to the same surface region. In spite of these contributions, $`Q`$ remains quantized.

Using the above prescription, we will determine $`Q`$ for Monte-Carlo generated gauge field configurations. However, first we have to solve three problems. Due to their transverse fluctuations inside the original thick vortices, P-vortices are plagued by spurious ultraviolet fluctuations. We remove them by the elementary cube transformations (a)-(d) in Fig. 2  or by blocking the gauge field configuration such as to arrive at a two or three times coarser lattice. A further problem is that Abelian monopole lines determined by Abelian projection are not always on vortices; some $`3\%`$ of monopole cubes are not pierced by P-vortices . Instead of trying to adjust monopole trajectories to vortices, we randomly assign orientations to the vortex plaquettes, with two different choices of bias allowing us to explore the extreme cases of either maximizing or minimizing the monopole line density. In our measurements, the monopole line density varies between the two extremes by a factor of around ten. The third problem is that, in contrast to the continuum, on the lattice P-vortices in general do not intersect at points, they intersect along lines, and some monopole lines coincide with vortex intersections and writhing points. We remove these artefacts by transfering the P-vortices to finer lattices of $`1/3`$ or, if necessary, $`1/9`$ the lattice spacing. Then we apply elementary cube transformations once at each lattice site whenever this allows us to remove an instance of the above coarse graining problems.

Fig. 3 depicts the results of the numerical measurements of the topological susceptibility $`\chi `$ for the coupling $`\beta =2.5`$ on a $`16^4`$ lattice (filled squares), where $`1156`$ samples were taken, and also for $`\beta =2.3`$ both on a $`16^4`$ lattice (crosses, $`1183`$ samples) and on a $`12^4`$ lattice (open squares, $`4622`$ samples). The displayed results were obtained using the maximal monopole density. Despite the monopole line density varying by a factor of around ten when instead using the minimal monopole density, $`\chi `$ only differs by at most 1%. This observation agrees with the random vortex surface model . The vertical error bars in Fig. 3 are compounded from the statistical uncertainty of the susceptibility and the statistical uncertainty of the string tension measurements. The latter uncertainty in addition leads to the horizontal error bars in the bottom panel in Fig. 3, since the evaluation of $`\sigma a^2`$ was also used to determine the lattice spacing $`a`$ by equating $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV. Since smoothing step (d), cf. Fig. 2, leads already to a lowering of the string tension , we expect the physical $`\chi `$ between the (a)-(c) and (a)-(d) values:

$$(166\text{MeV})^4\chi _{phys}(230\text{MeV})^4$$
(3)
in the upper part of Fig. 3. The lattice spacing which should be reached by blocking is related to the thickness of the physical vortices and roughly lies between $`0.4`$ fm and $`0.6`$ fm. From the bottom panel in Fig. 3 we obtain therefore the estimate:

$$(174\text{MeV})^4\chi _{phys}(224\text{MeV})^4.$$
(4)
These ranges for the topological susceptibility correspond well with values extracted from the full $`SU(2)`$ lattice Yang-Mills ensemble.

It is interesting to consider the contribution of the intersection points alone to the topological susceptibility . It is suppressed by a factor of around $`2^4`$. Therefore, the value of $`\chi `$ is dominated by the contributions from the writhing points. This result agrees with the invariance of $`\chi `$ under strong changes of the monopole configurations, which can only influence the contributions from intersection points . In addition, even the contribution of the intersection points alone varies only by about 5% with the monopole density. Thus, it seems that the minimal monopole density required by the non-orientability of the vortices is sufficient to randomize the relative surface orientations at the intersection points.

The results which we obtain for the topological susceptibility support the vortex picture of the QCD vacuum, i.e. thick random vortices with color structure. These vortices can be located in an appropriate gauge like the maximal center gauge. Center projection of the field configurations corresponds to a compression of the magnetic flux into quantized tubes. Thick vortices can explain the string tension between color charges and its Casimir scaling properties, and, as shown within this work, the topological properties of the QCD vacuum.