text:
# Multiscale nature of hysteretic phenomena: Application to CoPt-type magnets

## Microscopic mean-field method.

Consider a binary alloy AB with the classical Hamiltonian

$`H=H_{\mathrm{conf}}\{n_i\}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}n_in_j\left[J_{ij}\stackrel{}{\mu }_i\stackrel{}{\mu }_j+\stackrel{}{\mu }_i\widehat{D}_{ij}\stackrel{}{\mu }_j\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_i[ϵ_i(\stackrel{}{\mu }_i)𝐇_0\stackrel{}{\mu }_i]`$ (1)
where $`H_{\mathrm{conf}}`$ is the configurational part of the Hamiltonian; $`i`$ and $`j`$ run over lattice sites; $`n_i=1`$ if site $`i`$ is occupied by a magnetic atom A and $`n_i=0`$ otherwise (let B be non-magnetic for simplicity); $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_i`$ is the rigid classical magnetic moment of the atom at site $`i`$; $`J_{ij}`$, the Heisenberg exchange parameters; $`𝐇_0`$, the external magnetic field; $`ϵ_i(\stackrel{}{\mu }_i)`$, the MCA energy equal to $`b_i(\stackrel{}{\mu }_i𝐞_i)^2`$ for easy-axis anisotropy; and $`\widehat{D}_{ij}`$, the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction tensor.

The free energy in the mean-field approximation (MFA) may be related to the ‘mean fields’ $`𝐇_i=𝐇_0+_j(J_{ij}\widehat{D}_{ij})c_j𝐦_j`$ where $`𝐦_i=\stackrel{}{\mu }_i`$ and $`c_i=n_i`$ are local magnetizations and concentrations, respectively:

$$F=E_{J,DD}T\underset{i}{}c_i\mathrm{ln}𝑑\widehat{\mu }_i\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (𝐇_i\stackrel{}{\mu }_iϵ_i)\right].$$
(2)
Here $`E_{J,DD}=c_ic_j𝐦_i(J_{ij}+\widehat{D}_{ij})𝐦_j`$ is the total exchange and dipole-dipole energy. Equilibrium states may be found using self-consistency relation $`𝐦_i=F/𝐇_i`$.

If magnetization $`𝐌(𝐫)`$ slowly varies in space and is constant in magnitude, Eq. (2) reduces to the micromagnetic free energy Aharoni . In this case all choices of $`J_{ij}`$ and $`b_i`$ in the defect-free regions are equivalent if they produce the same macroscopic properties $`A`$ and $`K`$. However, variation of $`J_{ij}`$ and $`b_i`$ near defects like APB’s must be studied using first-principles techniques. Microscopic MFA calculations with these parameters may be used to describe DW interaction with a defect at the length scale of $`\delta `$. At larger, microstructural length scales micromagnetic methods MM  may be used with singularities of $`A`$ and $`K`$ at the defects. However, in hard magnets the microscopic approach also turns out to be convenient for the studies of regions containing up to $`10^6`$ atoms; in such calculations some model $`J_{ij}`$ and $`b_i`$ reproducing the actual defect properties may be used.

Below, we first address the equilibrium structure of MDW’s in a defect-free system and find a peculiar MDW splitting phenomenon. Then we explore the behavior of MDW’s in external field, briefly report our results for pinning at APB’s, and finally deduce the combined effect of MDW splitting and pinning on coercivity.

## Equilibrium macrodomain walls.

It is convenient to use the body-centered tetragonal (bct) representation of the fcc lattice (with $`c/a=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`c`$ equal to the fcc lattice parameter). Two opposite edges of a rectangular simulation box are aligned with the (110) TB’s in the XY-stack; MDW’s are normal to them. The boundary conditions are periodic, and the dipole-dipole fields are computed using the Fourier transforms.

Equilibrium MDW’s of two characteristic (1$`\overline{1}`$0) and (001) orientations are shown in Fig. 1 for the CoPt model. Infinite stack of $`c`$-domains is assumed with ideal TB’s in the (110) planes. Fully ordered $`c`$-domains have the same thickness $`d=64a17`$ nm, which corresponds to an early stage of annealing shortly after the polytwinned stacks are formed Soffa2000 ; BPSV . The anisotropy is uniaxial with $`𝐞_i`$ pointing along the local direction of the tetragonal axis and $`b_i=b`$. Room temperature $`T=0.4T_c`$ is assumed averywhere (for CoPt $`T_c720`$ K). For simplicity, only $`3d`$-metal atoms are assumed to have magnetic moment $`\mu `$. Parameters $`b`$ and $`\mu `$ were chosen so that MFA gives experimental room-temperature values of $`K=4.9\times 10^7`$ erg/cm3 and $`\eta =0.082`$ for CoPt Kandaurova-JMMM . The parameters $`J_{ij}`$ for nearest and next-nearest neighbors were chosen as $`J_2/J_1=2/3`$, $`J_3/J_1=1/6`$; $`A`$ is isotropic with this choice.

MDW’s of both orientations shown in Fig. 1 have a peculiar feature which turns out to be the key to the understanding of MR in polytwinned magnets: the DW segments (DWS) located in adjacent $`c`$-domains are displaced in respect to each other. Such configuration with regularly alternating displacements is beneficial for the exchange energy because magnetization within each DWS is parallel to that in the adjacent $`c`$-domains (note that the color of horizontal DWS’s in Fig. 1a,c matches that of adjacent $`c`$-domains). The magnetostatic energy for this MDW configuration is higher compared to the rectilinear one due to the presence of short magnetically charged (in micromagnetic terms Aharoni ) segments of 90o DW’s at the TB’s (note the red and blue ‘blobs’ in Fig. 1d). Actual MDW configuration emerges as a result of competition between these interactions. However, due to small $`\eta `$ the dipole-dipole interaction is, in fact, unimportant at the length scale of $`\delta `$.

As it is clear from Fig. 1, the magnetic charges both at the DWS’s of a (1$`\overline{1}`$0) MDW and at the TB’s alternate in sign, so that each MDW is magnetically uncharged as a whole, and its magnetic field quickly falls off at $`rd`$. DWS’s of (001) MDW’s do not carry magnetic charge.

The orientation of DWS’s within $`c`$-domains in (1$`\overline{1}`$0) MDW is determined by the anisotropy of the exchange constant $`\alpha _A=A_{}/A_{}`$ ($`A_{}`$ and $`A_{}`$ are values of $`A`$ normal and parallel to $`c`$), and by the parameter $`\xi =\eta d/\delta `$. At $`\xi 1`$ the DW orientation is determined solely by $`\alpha _A`$. At $`\xi 1`$ the DW aligns parallel to the tetragonal axis, and $`\alpha _A`$ is irrelevant. The (1$`\overline{1}`$0) MDW shown in Fig. 1a,b is in the crossover region with $`\xi 0.2`$ and $`\alpha _A=1`$.

## Partial macrodomain walls.

MDW’s behave remarkably in external magnetic field $`𝐇_0`$ because DWS’s are held together only by magnetostatic forces. If these forces were absent ($`\eta 0`$ limit), each DWS would be able to move freely until it meets another DWS in an adjacent $`c`$-domain. Some of this freedom remains at small $`\eta `$. Consider an XY-stack with (110) TB’s , as above. Component $`H_z`$ does not exert any force on DWS’s, and the effect of $`𝐇_0`$ on MDW’s depends only on the orientation of its projection $`𝐇_{}`$ on the $`xOy`$ plane. If $`𝐇_{}`$ is normal to the TB’s ($`H_x=H_y`$), then the forces acting on all DWS’s are in the same direction, and both MDW’s shown in Fig. 1 move as a whole like usual DW’s in a homogeneous crystal. However, if $`𝐇_{}`$ is parallel to the TB’s ($`H_x=H_y`$), the forces acting on X- and Y-DWS’s differ in sign, and the total force acting on the MDW is zero.

Let us call a set of DWS’s of a MDW in all even or odd $`c`$-domains as a *partial macrodomain wall* (PMDW), e.g. X-PMDW. There are two MDW realizations differing in the sign of the relative displacement $`L`$ of the two PMDW’s. For one of them $`𝐇_{}`$ increases $`|L|`$ (‘splitting’), and for the other, reduces it (‘swapping’). If $`𝐇_{}`$ is inverted, splitting turns to swapping and vice-versa. Accordingly, two threshold fields may be introduced. Let us fix, for instance, Y-PMDW and examine the effect of $`H_x`$ on X-PMDW. The *threshold splitting field* $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ is the minimal value of $`H_x`$ required to move the X-PMDW far from the Y-PMDW. The *threshold swapping field* $`H_{\text{sw}}`$ is required to ‘drag’ the X-PMDW through Y-PMDW in the opposite direction, overcoming the exchange barriers at the TB’s . $`H_{\text{sw}}`$ is of lesser importance than $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ because even if $`H_{\text{sp}}<H_{\text{sw}}`$, the existence of some MDW’s in the ‘splitting relation’ with $`𝐇_x`$ is sufficient to complete the MR. Note also that $`H_{\text{sw}}d^1`$ and quickly falls off with increasing $`d`$. Both $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ and $`H_{\text{sw}}`$ are *‘intrinsic’* properties for a given $`d`$, i.e. they exist even if there are no defects (APB’s) in the $`c`$-domains.

$`H_{\text{sp}}`$ may be easily estimated micromagnetically for a (001) MDW. When its two PMDW’s are displaced at distance $`L`$, the alternating magnetic charges appearing at the TB’s form a regular stack of ‘capacitors’ (see Fig. 2). For $`Ld`$, the magnetic field is concentrated inside these capacitors, and the total magnetostatic energy is proportional to $`L`$; the coefficient in this proportionality determines $`H_{\text{sp}}`$. Such calculation gives $`H_{\text{sp}}=\pi M`$ (or, alternatively, $`H_{\text{sp}}=H_a\eta /4`$). The splitting threshold for (1$`\overline{1}`$0) MDW is larger because of the magnetic charges on its segments. In the above estimate we neglected the deviation of $`𝐌`$ from the easy axis at distances $`\delta `$ from the TB’s , which reduces $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ for small $`d`$.

Thus, at $`\eta 1`$ we have $`H_{\text{sp}}H_a`$. In particular, using the room-temperature values of $`M`$ Kandaurova-JMMM , we obtain $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ of 2.5 kOe for CoPt and 3.5 kOe for FePt and FePd. These values are close to the typical fields at which hysteresis is observed in these magnets. Quite naturally, they are much less than the coercive fields corresponding to uniform rotation of magnetization in the $`c`$-domains Kandaurova-JMMM . A peculiar feature of a PMDW in the polytwinned crystal is that it separates qualitatively different magnetic domains with different free energies, and hence there is an intrinsic force acting on an isolated PMDW (its density per unit cross-section of the $`c`$-domain is $`f_s=2MH_{\text{sp}}`$).

## Domain wall segments, pinning and coercivity.

Real polytwinned alloys, as we noted above, usually contain a high density of APB’s in the $`c`$-domains. It is known that DW’s may be pinned by APB’s pinning , and it was argued that this mechanism may explain high coercivity of CoPt type alloys Shur-CoPt ; Zhang94 . Here we show that this pinning is indeed quite strong, but the MDW ‘dissociation’ into segments also has a profound effect on MR.

The APB pattern within $`c`$-domains determines the statistical properties of the random value $`U(x)`$ where $`x`$ is the coordinate of a DWS, and $`U`$ is its APB-induced excess free energy. For the following basic consideration we assume that $`U(x)`$ describes a distribution of similar pinning centers with the typical distance $`l_d`$ between them. The maximal slope of $`U(x)`$ determines the *unpinning threshold* $`H_u`$, i.e. the value of the field $`𝐇_0c`$ required to unpin a single $`c`$-DWS. Thus, in the absence of magnetostatic forces at $`H_0<H_u`$ each $`c`$-DWS is pinned, and at $`H_0>H_u`$ it can move freely to the surface of the polytwinned stack. These assumptions are obvious for patterns with isolated APB’s as in Fig. 5 of Ref. Leroux91  where $`l_d5`$$`10d`$; however, main features of more complex patterns Soffa2000 ; Khach ; BPSV ; Zhang94  may also be described by some characteristic values of $`H_u`$ and $`l_dd`$.

The maximum possible $`H_u`$ is achieved when DWS’s are parallel to isolated plain APB’s. To evaluate this maximum in the studied alloys, we explored the modification of exchange and anisotropy at an isolated (101)-oriented APB in CoPt, FePt and FePd using the tight-binding linear muffin-tin orbital method. We found that MCA is strongly suppressed at the APB leading to a DW *attraction* to the APB with $`H_u`$ of about 11, 7 and 1.5 kOe for CoPt, FePt and FePd, respectively. These values significantly exceed the observed coercivities Zhang94 . Since high MCA is associated with L10 ordering, it is natural that local disorder at an APB suppresses MCA.

Let us now explore the role of intrinsic magnetostatic forces in MR. We restrict ourselves to the case of $`𝐇_0Ox`$ in a single crystal with different types of polytwinned stacks (‘single crystal’ refers to the parent fcc lattice). Such field does not affect YZ-stacks, except for a reversible transverse magnetization. In other stacks $`𝐇_0`$ exerts a force density $`f=2MH_0`$ on X-DWS’s only.

From our definition of $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ it follows that if $`c`$-PMDW in X$`c`$-stack ($`c=`$Y or Z) is held in place (e.g., by pinning), then the free (unpinned) X-PMDW moves to infinity at $`H_xH_{\text{sp}}`$ (neglecting the demagnetizing effects). At $`H_x<H_{\text{sp}}`$ the X-PMDW moves to a finite distance $`L(H_x)`$ from the $`c`$-PMDW. By definition, $`L(H_{\text{sp}})=\mathrm{}`$. Except for a close vicinity of $`H_{\text{sp}}`$, $`Ld`$.

The path of MR differs qualitatively in two cases: (a) $`H_{\text{sp}}>H_u`$, and (b) $`H_{\text{sp}}<H_u`$. In case (a) the MDW can only move as a whole (intrinsic forces $`f_s`$ are strong enough to unpin a PMDW), but DWS’s may to some extent ‘adapt’ to the local pinning potential. Let us define the characteristic displacement $`l_m`$ ‘allowed’ by magnetostatic forces as $`l_m=L(H_u)`$. Obviously, $`l_m`$ increases with $`H_u`$, and $`l_m\mathrm{}`$ at $`H_uH_{\text{sp}}`$. If $`l_m>l_d`$, the effective unpinning field of the MDW is $`H_U2H_u`$ ($`𝐇_0`$ affects one half of the DWS’s, while all DWS’s can be effectively pinned). However, as $`l_m`$ becomes smaller than $`l_d`$, $`H_U`$ is quickly reduced, because only a fraction of DWS’s can be pinned simultaneously (MDW is effectively ‘rigid’ and can not make ‘kinks’ comparable with $`l_d`$).

Now, in case (b) the MDW may split in two PMDW’s at sufficiently large $`𝐇_0`$. The MDW is ‘soft’, and each DWS can be effectively pinned. During the whole cycle of remagnetization pinned Y- and Z-PMDW’s do not move at all, and hence the intrinsic (magnetostatic) force acting on a moving X-PMDW will change its sign every time that it crosses, e.g., an Y-PMDW (in XY-stack). Thus, for an X-PMDW we have $`H_U=H_u+H_{\text{sp}}`$. Different MR properties may, in principle, be observed if the sample was previously magnetized to saturation by $`𝐇_0`$ along, e.g., (111). In this case there are no Y- and Z-PMDW’s, and in some stacks the switching threshold is $`H_U=H_uH_{\text{sp}}`$. The hysteresis loop in this case may have a peculiar double-step feature with magnetization jumps at $`H_0=H_u\pm H_{\text{sp}}`$. Such ‘hysteresis memory’ effects provide a test of the $`H_{\text{sp}}<H_u`$ relation and may be used to design ‘programmable’ magnets.

Thus, for an initially demagnetized sample with the given $`H_u`$ the coercive force $`H_c`$ first rises with $`H_{\text{sp}}`$, reaches its maximum $`2H_u`$ at $`H_{\text{sp}}H_u`$, stays roughly constant in the range $`\mathrm{}>l_m>l_d`$, and finally falls off at $`l_m<l_d`$. High coercivity of CoPt is probably due to the fact that this magnet with suitable processing is close to the optimal $`H_{\text{sp}}H_u`$ condition. By contrast, in FePd $`H_{\text{sp}}`$ is too large ($`H_{\text{sp}}/H_u2.3`$ even for maximal possible $`H_u`$), so that $`l_md`$; this conclusion agrees with the relatively small observed $`H_c/H_a`$ ratio.

In our analysis we neglected the demagnetizing fields. Close to saturation they are comparable to $`H_{\text{sp}}`$, but they have little effect on $`H_c`$, because they are small when the total magnetization is close to zero.

In conclusion, we developed a workable technique for the description of multiscale MR phenomena in hard magnets and applied it to CoPt-type alloys. We have shown that coercivity of these materials has at least two sources originating at different length scales: strong pinning of MDW’s by APB’s and their splitting at TB’s . This DW splitting seems to be a generic effect that may also affect MR in other groups of materials, including some nanostripes nanostripes  and multilayers; it may also occur at grain boundaries of certain misorientations.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to V.G. Vaks for useful discussions. This work was carried out at Ames Laboratory, which is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-82. This work was supported by the Director for Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# Predictions for the unitarity triangle angles in a new parametrization

## 1 Introduction

After the first explicit parametrization for three generations , many different parametrizations have been suggested  for the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Even today we do not have a deep understanding of the observed mixing of the quark flavors in the standard model.

Recently, a new approach to the parametrization of of the CKM-matrix, $`V`$, was suggested motivated by the question whether $`V`$ consists of two parts. That is, a trivial part (taken to be the unit matrix $`I`$) for which the physical (or quark mass-eigenstate) basis and the the gauge basis are the same and a non-trivial part (represented by a non- diagonal diagonal matrix $`U`$) for which the two bases are different and which causes quark flavor mixing. This possibility was explored in some detail in reference 4 where the CKM-matrix was taken to be given by the linear combination

$`V(\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta I+i\mathrm{sin}\theta U.`$ (1)
The value of $`\theta `$ determines the relative importance of the two parts. It also determines the magnitude of CP-violation in this approach. It was shown  that the value of $`\theta `$ near $`\pi /4`$ gave a good fit to the data for the CKM-matrix given in year 1998 by the Particle Data Group . For $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$, it is clear that for $`V`$ to be unitary, $`U`$ (independent of $`\theta `$) has to be hermitian and unitary. For three generations, mathematically, such a $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`U`$ can depend on at most 4 real parameters, namely, two moduli and two phases. In section 2, we give the explicit form of $`U`$ and $`V`$. It is shown that using the freedom of re-phasing transformations on $`V`$, one can eliminate the two phases, so that, in effect, $`U`$ contains only 2 real parameters. Thus, $`V`$ depends on 3 parameters, one less than in the usual parametrizations.

In section 3, $`V(\theta )`$ is confronted with the data  given in the year 2000 by the Particle Data Group. This update of the fits is necessary as the recent data differs from the earlier data of 1998. A satisfactory fit to the latest data is obtained and points strongly to a value of $`\theta `$ equal to $`\pi /4`$.

In section 4, the predictions for the the angles of the triangle implied by the unitarity constraint

$`V_{11}V_{13}^{}+V_{21}V_{23}^{}+V_{31}V_{33}^{}=0,`$ (2)
are considered. This can be written as

$`z_1+z_2+z_3=0,`$ (3)
where the complex numbers $`z_i`$=$`V_{i1}V_{i3}^{};i=1,2,3`$. In standard notation, the three angles of the triangle in terms of $`z_i`$ are $`\alpha =arg(z_3/z_1)`$, $`\beta =arg(z_2/z_3)`$, and $`\gamma =arg(z_1/z_2)`$. Numerical results for these angles in our parametrization are compared with the available data.

Finally, section 5, contains a brief summary with some speculative concluding remarks.

## 2 Parameters and form of $`U`$ and $`V`$

To determine the general form of $`U`$, one starts with a general hermitian matrix and then requires it to be unitary. For the case of three generations, it was shown earlier  that such a matrix can be parametrized in terms of three complex numbers $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ which satisfy two constraints, one on their moduli and the other on their phases $`\varphi _a`$, $`\varphi _b`$ and $`\varphi _c`$. Explicitly,

$`U=I2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|a|^2+|b|^2& b^{}c& a^{}c^{}\\ bc^{}& |a|^2+|c|^2& ab^{}\\ ac& a^{}b& |b|^2+|c|^2\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
with the constraints

$`|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2=1,`$ (8)
$`\varphi _a\varphi _b+\varphi _c=\pi /2.`$ (9)
Mathematically, this is the most general $`U`$ which is hermitian and unitary. It depends on four real parameters, two moduli and two phases. However, this $`U`$ is a part of the CKM-matrix $`V`$ for which one has the freedom to make re-phasing transformations without affecting its physical predictions. This freedom allows one to eliminate the phases in $`U`$ making it a real matrix depending on only two real positive parameters, the two moduli. In our ansatz, $`V`$ and its physical predictions depend on three real parameters, the angle $`\theta `$ and the two moduli in $`U`$. This fact was not realised in reference 4.

We consider the explicit phase transformation which eliminates the phases. Let $`P(\lambda )`$ denote the diagonal phase matrix, diag $`(e^{i\lambda _1},e^{i\lambda _2},1)`$. Then,

$`V^{}(\theta )=P(\lambda )V(\theta )P^{}(\lambda )=\mathrm{cos}\theta I+i\mathrm{sin}\theta U^{},`$ (10)
where the real matrix

$`U^{}=I2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}|a|^2+|b|^2& |bc|& |ac|\\ |bc|& |a|^2+|c|^2& |ab|\\ |ac|& |ab|& |b|^2+|c|^2\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
is obtained by choosing the phases $`\lambda _1=\varphi _b\pi /2`$ and $`\lambda _2=\varphi _c\pi /2`$, while the phase constraint fixes $`\varphi _a`$. It is interesting to note that the particular choice, $`\varphi _a=\varphi _b=\varphi _c=\pi /2`$ (which respects the phase constraint) in Eq.$`(6)`$ will also give Eq.$`(8)`$. This was mistakenly referred to as a special case earlier  as the above points were not realised there. The important point is that the physical predictions are independent of the actual value of the individual phases of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ as long as they satisfy the phase constraint. Since, under a phase transformation $`|V_{ij}|=|V_{ij}^{}|`$, it does not matter whether $`V`$ or $`V^{}`$ is used to confront the data. In either case, $`\theta `$ and the two moduli will determine the matrix elements of the CKM-matrix. Furthermore, the Jarlskog invariant , $`J`$, which gives CP-violation, is the same for $`V`$ or $`V^{}`$, namely

$`J(V(\theta ))=Im(V_{11}V_{22}V_{12}^{}V_{21}^{})=\mathrm{cos}\theta |V_{12}V_{13}V_{23}|=8\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^3\theta |abc|^2.`$ (15)
Note that $`J`$ is independent of the phases of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$.
To confront $`V(\theta )`$ with experiment we need to specify $`\theta `$. A simple and appealing choice is $`\theta =\pi /4`$ which gives equal weight to the two parts in $`V`$. In this case,

$`V(\pi /4)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(I+iU).`$ (16)
In this case two experimental inputs e.g. $`|V_{12}|`$ and $`|V_{23}|`$ are enough to determine all the the other $`|V_{ij}|`$. However, with 3 inputs,$`|V_{12}|`$, $`|V_{23}|`$ and $`|V_{13}|`$ from the data will determine all the $`|V_{ij}|`$ and also the value of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. The numerical results for the 2 input $`(\theta =\pi /4)`$ and the 3 input cases are given in the next section.

## 3  Fits to the recent data.

The experimentally determined CKM-matrix,$`V_{EX}`$, given by the Particle Data Group

$`V_{EX}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97420.9757& 0.2190.226& 0.0020.005\\ 0.2190.225& 0.97340.9749& 0.0370.043\\ 0.0040.014& 0.0350.043& 0.99900.9993\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
The entries correspond to ranges for the moduli of the matrix elements. Since $`U`$ is hermitian, this implies that $`|V_{ij}|`$=$`|V_{ji}|`$ in our approach. It is clear that $`|V_{12}|`$=$`|V_{21}|`$ and $`|V_{23}|=|V_{32}|`$ are satisfied for practically the whole range while the equality $`|V_{13}|=|V_{31}|`$ is merely suggested by the data. Since $`|V_{13}|`$ and $`|V_{31}|`$ are the most difficult to measure experimentally, it is possible they may turn out to be equal. Note that for any unitary matrix $`V`$, unitarity requires that either $`|V_{ij}|=|V_{ji}|`$ for all three pairs or for none of them. To fit the data we convert the range for each modulus into a central value with errors, for example, $`|V_{11}|=0.97495\pm 0.00075`$. For each pair of off-diagonal elements a common value was obtained by averaging the central values. For example, the common value $`|V_{13}|=|V_{31}|=0.00625\pm 0.00325`$ is obtained by taking the average of the central values with errors of $`|V_{13}|=0.0035\pm 0.0015`$ and $`|V_{31}|=0.009\pm 0.005`$. Similar procedure was used for the other two pairs of off-diagonal matrix elements.

a) Two parameter fit. We take the experimentally well determined $`|V_{12}|`$ and $`|V_{23}|`$ as inputs. Given these, for general $`\theta `$, one has

$`|a|=|V_{23}|/(2\mathrm{sin}\theta |b|),`$ (21)
$`|c|=|V_{12}|/(2\mathrm{sin}\theta |b|).`$ (22)
The constraint, Eq.$`(5)`$, gives a quadratic for $`|b|^2`$ with the solutions,

$`|b|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1(|V_{12}|^2+|V_{23}|^2)\mathrm{csc}^2\theta }\right].`$ (23)
Clearly, we need the positive solution since $`|V_{12}|>|V_{23}|>|V_{13}|`$. Further, for $`|b|^2`$ to be real, $`\theta `$ has to be greater than some minimum value. For the numerical input values $`|V_{12}|=0.22225`$ and $`|V_{23}|=0.0395`$, we need $`\theta 13.046^{}`$. For $`\theta =\pi /4`$, Eqs.(12-14) yield

$`|a|=0.028303,|b|=0.986832,|c|=0.159251.`$ (24)
The calculated values of $`|V_{ij}|`$ for $`V(\pi /4)`$ are given in Table I. These are to be compared with the central values of the experimental $`|V_{ij}|`$ given in the first column. The agreement is fairly good.

The values of $`J`$ for $`V_{EX}`$ and $`V(\pi /4)`$ are also given in Table I. The value of $`J(V_{EX})`$ was calculated from the formula

$$J^2=|V_{11}V_{22}V_{12}^{}V_{21}^{}|^2\frac{1}{4}\left[1|V_{11}|^2|V_{22}|^2|V_{12}|^2|V_{21}|^2+|V_{11}V_{22}|^2+|V_{12}V_{21}|^2\right]^2,$$

using the central values of $`|V_{ij}|;i,j=1,2`$ since these four are the best measured. The value of $`J(V(\pi /4))`$ was calculated using Eq.$`(9)`$ and is about a factor 2 smaller than $`J(V_{EX})`$. The two values are in reasonable agreement considering the slight differences in the values of $`|V_{ii}|;i=1,2`$ in the two cases and also because of the strong numerical cancellation between the two terms on the rhs of Eq.$`(16)`$.
b)Three input fit. We now consider a three input fit which determines $`\theta `$ directly from the data. This can be done using the equation

$`2\mathrm{sin}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{12}V_{23}|}{|V_{13}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{12}V_{13}|}{|V_{23}|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{13}V_{23}|}{|V_{12}|}}.`$ (25)
With the numerical inputs $`|V_{12}|=|V_{21}|=0.22225`$, $`|V_{23}|=|V_{32}|=0.0395`$ and $`|V_{13}|=|V_{31}|=0.00625`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ =0.720448 so that $`\theta `$ equal to $`46.09^{}`$. This is remarkably close to our earlier choice of $`\theta =\pi /4`$. The values obtained for the moduli are

$`|a|=0.027765,|b|=0.987331,|c|=0.156223.`$ (26)
The calculated values of $`|V_{ii}|;i=1,2,3`$ and $`J`$ are also given in Table I. These are practically same as the values for the two input case. The reason is that the value obtained for $`|V_{13}|`$ for $`\theta =\pi /4`$ is very close to the input value used in $`(17)`$. The more recent data  suggests more strongly than the earlier data  that the value of $`\theta =\pi /4`$. In other words, the diagonal part ($`I`$) and the non-diagonal part ($`U`$) in the CKM-matrix have equal weight.

## 4 Predictions for the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$

To determine the angles of the unitarity triangle given by Eq.$`(2)`$, it is convenient to denote the complex number

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_2}}=\rho +i\eta ,`$ (27)
so that, using Eq.$`(3)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{z_3}{z_2}}=(1\rho )i\eta .`$ (28)
The notation used here for the real and imaginary parts has been chosen so that it coincides with that used by Wolfenstein  in his approximate parametrization of the CKM-matrix. This notation like that for the angles has become standard. However, the use of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ in Eqs.(19-20) is purely a matter of notation and the formulae such as Eqs.(21-22) below are valid for any exact parametrization of the CKM-matrix. From the definitions of the angles in section 1 and Eqs.(19-20) it follows that

$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{\sqrt{\rho ^2+\eta ^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{\sqrt{(1\rho )^2+\eta ^2}}},`$ (29)
and

$`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =\eta /\rho .`$ (30)
Thus, the knowledge of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ is sufficient to determine the three angles of the unitarity triangle. In general, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ are independent parameters. However, in our parametrization, one expects a relation between them  since $`V`$ depends on 3 parameters only. Using the explicit form of $`V`$ in terms of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ one obtains

$`\rho =(12|c|^2)/2|b|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|b|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{12}|^2|V_{23}|^2}{|V_{12}|^2+|V_{23}|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|V_{12}|^2}{|V_{12}|^2+|V_{23}|^2}},`$ (31)
and

$`\eta =\mathrm{cot}\theta /2|b|^2,`$ (32)
where $`|b|^2`$ is the positive solution given in Eq.$`(14)`$. The second equality in Eq.$`(23)`$ requires the use of Eqs.$`(12),(13)`$ and Eq.$`(5)`$. The relation between $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ is not simple. To derive it one notes that Eq.$`(24)`$ together with Eq.$`(14)`$ can be used to solve for $`|b|^2`$ in terms of $`\eta `$ and $`s=|V_{12}|^2+|V_{23}|^2`$. The result is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2|b|^2}}=1\sqrt{1s\eta ^2s^2}.`$ (33)
Substitution of this in Eq.$`(23)`$ gives $`\rho `$ in terms of $`\eta `$, $`|V_{12}|`$ and $`|V_{23}|`$. Numerical values of $`|V_{13}|`$, $`\rho `$, and $`\eta `$ for some representative values of $`\theta `$ are given in Table II. For input values $`|V_{12}|`$=0.22225 and $`|V_{23}|`$=0.0395, as $`\theta `$ increases from its minimum value of 13.046 to 90 degrees, $`\rho `$ increases from 0.03062 to 0.49386 and $`\eta `$ decreases from 4.31567 to 0. Algebraic expressions for the limits on $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ can be easily derived. Note, the variation with $`\theta `$ of $`\eta `$ is stronger than that of $`\rho `$. The latter increases from about 0.47328 to 0.49386, while former decreases from 0.91532 to 0 as $`\theta `$ goes from $`\pi /6`$ to $`\pi /2`$. For $`\theta =\pi /4`$, we obtain

$`\eta =0.5134\rho =0.4874.`$ (34)
Using these values in Eqs.(21-22) gives

$`\alpha =88.46^{},\beta =45.046^{},\gamma =46.5^{}.`$ (35)
So, the unitarity triangle is predicted to be approximately a right-angled isosceles triangle. The near isosceles nature of the triangle follows from the fact that in our parametrization $`|V_{13}|=|V_{31}|`$ and experimentally $`|V_{11}|`$ and $`|V_{33}|`$ are nearly equal. Since $`\rho `$ and $`1\rho `$ are approximately equal over a wide of $`\theta `$ (approximately from 30 to 90 degrees), there is a simple mnemonic for the variation of the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ with $`\theta `$. A change in $`\theta \theta +\delta `$ implies approximately that $`\beta \beta \delta `$, $`\gamma \gamma \delta `$ while $`\alpha \alpha +2\delta `$ to satisfy $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma =\pi `$. For example, for $`\theta =30^{}`$ (that is, $`\delta =15^{}`$) one obtains from direct calculations $`\alpha =57.26^{},`$ $`\beta =60.08^{}`$ and $`\gamma =62.66^{}`$, an approximate equilateral triangle!

A direct way to obtain the angles is to use Eq.$`(21)`$ in the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{|z_2|}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\beta }{|z_1|}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\gamma }{|z_3|}\lambda >0,$$
(36)
where $`\lambda `$ is a positive real number. Since $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\mathrm{sin}(\beta +\gamma )`$, this gives

$$4|z_1z_2z_3|^2\lambda ^2=(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2)^22(|z_1|^4+|z_2|^4+|z_3|^4).$$
(37)
Since $`|z_1|=|V_{11}||V_{13}|`$ etc. are known one can determine $`\lambda `$ and hence the angles. The results are tabulated in Table III. Using the values of $`|V_{ij}|`$ for the three cases in Table I one obtains nearly the same values, for $`\lambda `$ and the angles. Note that the values of the angles, for the 2-input case when $`\theta =\pi /4`$, are very close to those in Eq.$`(27)`$ as they should be.

The values of the angles in Eq.$`(27)`$ imply that $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$=0.054 and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$=1. The former and the value of $`\gamma `$ in Eq.$`(27)`$ are compatible with a recent theoretical analysis , but which obtains $`0.49<\mathrm{sin}2\beta <0.94`$. The data has a large variation. Our result for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is compatible within errors with the values $`0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$ and $`0.84_{1.04}^{+0.82}\pm 0.16`$ obtained by the CDF and ALEPH collaborations . The values  quoted by BaBar $`(0.34\pm 0.20\pm 0.05)`$ and Belle $`(0.58_{0.340.10}^{+0.32+0.09})`$ are lower, especially that of BaBar. However, the values reported at the Lepton-Photon 2001  are much larger. Babar  and Belle  give the values $`0.59\pm 0.14\pm 0.05`$ and $`0.99\pm 0.14\pm 0.06`$ respectively. The latter agrees with our prediction. Experiments with high statistics are in progress at both Belle and BaBar and hopefully more definitive values for the angles will be available in a year or so.

## 5 Summary and concluding remarks

The ansatz $`V(\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta I+i\mathrm{sin}\theta U`$, considered here, was motivated by the question whether the CKM-matrix is a linear combination of a trivial part ($`I`$) and a non-trivial part ($`U`$). The matrix $`U`$ depends on 2 real parameters and so that the CKM-matrix $`V`$ depends on 3 real parameters including $`\theta `$ which plays a double role. It determines the relative importance of the generation mixing term ($`U`$) relative to the generation diagonal term ($`I`$). It also determines the magnitude of CP-violation. The fits to the presently available data  for the CKM-matrix require that $`\theta =\pi /4`$, that is $`V(\pi /4)=(I+iU)/\sqrt{2}`$, implying equal importance of the two parts. This fit predicts that the unitarity triangle is approximately a right-angled isosceles triangle (see section 4). These results are compatible with present data wthin allowed errors. Experiments, in the offing, will soon decide the validity of the approach used here for parametrizing the CKM-matrix.
The ansatz considered here has been proposed  recently for the
parametrization of the neutrino mixing matrix $`V_\nu `$, the subscript ‘$`\nu `$’ will denote the corresponding quantities for the neutrino sector. Remarkably, one finds that $`V_\nu =(I+iU_\nu )/\sqrt{2}`$ can explain the neutrino data with $`U_\nu `$ depending on only one small parameter. In this case, the atmospheric neutrino data , which requires maximal $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ mixing, forces the value of $`\theta _\nu `$ to be equal to $`\pi /4`$. It is extremely interesting that in both the lepton and quark sectors the relative weight of the diagonal part and the non-diagonal pieces in the mixing matrix are the same! Even though $`V`$ and $`V_\nu `$ are very different, one may speculate that an underlying quark-lepton symmetry seems to be suggested, in our approach, by the equality $`\theta =\theta _\nu =\pi /4`$ and furthermore, this equality may emerge naturally in a grand unification model.

Acknowledgements. Major part of the work in this paper was done while one of us (VG) was visiting Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California, USA and the Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, Taipei. He wishes to acknowledge with gratitude the hospitality of the latter institution and also the help he received there from Mr. Ching-Cheng Hsu in the preparation of this manuscript. The work was completed during his visit to the University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India, during August 2001.

| QUANTITY | EXPERIMENT | THEORY | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`|V_{12}|=|V_{21}|`$ | 0.22225 $`\pm 0.00325`$ | INPUT | INPUT |
| $`|V_{23}|=|V_{32}|`$ | 0.0395 $`\pm 0.0035`$ | INPUT | INPUT |
| $`|V_{13}|=|V_{31}|`$ | 0.00625$`\pm 0.00325`$ | 0.006374369 | INPUT |
| $`|V_{11}|`$ | 0.97495$`\pm 0.00075`$ | 0.97496887 | 0.97496968 |
| $`|V_{22}|`$ | 0.97415$`\pm 0.00075`$ | 0.97418925 | 0.97418925 |
| $`|V_{33}|`$ | 0.99915$`\pm 0.00015`$ | 0.99919924 | 0.99920002 |
| J$`\times 10^5`$ | 6.7 | 3.96 | 3.8 |

Table I Numerical values of the moduli of the matrix elements of the CKM-matrix $`V`$. Experimental quantities are average values obtained from $`V_{EX}`$ in Eq.(11). The errors reflect the range of the values of $`|V_{ij}|`$ as explained in the text. Column 3 gives the results for the 2 input fit with $`\theta =\pi /4.`$ Column 4 gives the results for the 3 input fit ( see section 3).

| $`\theta `$ | $`|V_{13}|`$ | $`\rho `$ | $`\eta `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\theta _{min}=13.046^{}`$ | 0.0388906 | 0.03062 | 4.31567 |
| $`30^{}`$ | 0.00927858 | 0.473282 | 0.915321 |
| $`40^{}`$ | 0.00705337 | 0.484561 | 0.615477 |
| $`45^{}`$ | 0.00637437 | 0.48739 | 0.513432 |
| $`50^{}`$ | 0.0058601 | 0.489343 | 0.429076 |
| $`60^{}`$ | 0.00515763 | 0.491745 | 0.293752 |
| $`90^{}`$ | 0.00444683 | 0.493863 | 0.0 |

Table II Numerical values of $`|V_{13}|,\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ as a function of $`\theta `$. While $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ are calculated using Eqs. $`(24),(25)`$, $`|V_{13}|`$ is calculated using $`|V_{13}|=(|V_{12}||V_{23}|/s)(\mathrm{sin}\theta \sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta s})`$.

| QUANTITY | EXPERIMENT | THEORY | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2-inputs | 3-inputs |
| $`\lambda `$ | 113.9017 | 113.8689 | 113.9012 |
| $`\alpha `$ | 89.317 | 88.46 | 89.29 |
| $`\beta `$ | 43.952 | 45.046 | 43.953 |
| $`\gamma `$ | 45.358 | 46.49 | 45.342 |

Table III Values of the angles obtained directly from the general relation between the sides and angles satisfied by any triangle given in Eq.$`(28)`$.


text:
# X-Ray Plasma Diagnostics of Stellar Winds in Very Young Massive Stars

## 1. Introduction

Detailed properties of hot winds in massive O- and very early B-type stars so far have been predominantly studied in spectra at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths, because here thousands of spectral lines provide a wealth of parameters, which are needed to test models describing the origin and propagation of the winds. High resolution UV spectra of massive O-stars show the presence of strong resonance lines that exibit P-Cygni profiles as well as an abundance of weaker absorption lines (see Kudritzki 1992). They are sensitive indicators of mass loss rates as small as $`10^7`$ to $`10^{10}M_{}`$ yr-1, where radio and infrared observations are insensitive. These developments now enable theorists to apply hydrodynamic stationary (Kudritzki 1984, Pauldrach 1987 and refs. therein) as well as non-stationary (NLTE) radiation driven wind models (Pauldrach et al. 1994, Lamers et al. 1999) to these UV spectra.

In contrast to the development in the UV domain, interpretations of X-ray spectra from stellar winds remained quite modest since their first observations with Einstein  (Seward et al. 1979). The main reason is that the theory of line radiation-driven stellar winds explains the mass loss from a hot luminous star in the UV (Pauldrach et al. 1994, Lamers et al. 1999), but doesn’t predict observed X-ray fluxes. To date no definitive model for the production of X-rays in stellar winds exists, although models involving shocks forming from instabilities within a radiatively driven wind (Lucy $`\&`$ White 1980, Owocki, Castor, $`\&`$ Rybicki 1988, MacFarlane $`\&`$ Cassinelli 1989, Feldmeier et al. 1995) seemed most successful so far reproducing the observed X-ray spectra of kT $``$ 0.5 keV temperature.

The biggest obstacle in analyzing X-ray spectra was the modest spectral resolution of detection devices used in previous X-ray missions, which did not to resolve emission and absorption lines. In that respect the main results from Einstein and ROSAT  were based on global properties from a large sample of O- and B-type stars (Chlebowsky et al. 1989, Berghöfer et al. 1996). Among these results were that the X-ray luminosity scales with the bolometric luminosity with a typical median ratio of log (Lx/Lbol) $``$ -6 to -7. ROSAT with its mediocre energy resolution but enhanced soft sensitivity was probably the first good instrument to investigate soft X-ray spectra in the 10 to 80 Å region close to the far UV domain. In a first major step forward, Hillier et al. (1993) fitted well exposed spectra of $`\zeta `$ Pup with detailed NLTE models under the assumption that the X-rays arise from shocks distributed throughout the wind and allowing for recombination in the outer regions of the stellar wind. The best fits predicted two temperatures of log T(K) of 6.2 to 6.7 with shock velocities around 500 km s-1. Based on this approach Feldmeier et al. (1997) assumed that the X-rays originate from adiabatively expanding cooling zones behind shock fronts, which are decribed by a post shock temperature and a volume filling factor. These results were also compared to results from Cohen et al. (1996), who used ROSAT and EUVE data to constrain high-temperature emission models in the analysis of the B-giant $`\eta `$CMa. Here it turned out that a continuous temperature distribution is needed rather than a single or even two temperature models. Clearly the result of that comparison remained inconclusive, since both views appear rather plausible but indistinguishable in the spectra.

Besides the need for more than one temperature models, ROSAT  spectra offered a limited bandpass only and most of the wind spectra were found to peak around 0.8 keV. Here CCD spectrometers, like the ones onboard ASCA  and Chandra, provide a medium energy resolution throughout a band pass of 0.1 to 10.0 keV. Several observations of massive early type stars, i.e. $`\tau `$ Sco (Cohen et al. 1997) or $`\eta `$ Car (Tsuboi et al. 1997), indicated that there is a hard component to some of these spectra of 2 keV and higher. Although these two examples may resemble quite extreme cases of massive stars, observations of the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi Cloud (Kamata et al. 1997), IC 348 (Nagase et al. 1999), and the Orion Trapezium (Yamauchi et al. 1996, Schulz et al. 2001) indicated the existence of a similar hard component in the spectra. The Orion Trapezium stars in this respect spark special interest, because here it was shown in an ensemble of massive early type stars, that some of their spectra indeed require a hard spectral component of up to kT = 6 keV, some do not (Schulz et al. 2001).

## 2. First Results from High Resolution Spectra

With the launches of Chandra (High Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer HETGS, Canizares et al., in preparation) and XMM (Reflection Grating Spectrometer RGS, den Herder et al. 2001) in 1999 we now have high resolution X-ray grating spectrometers at hand that allow us to finally resolve the line emission in X-ray spectra of early type stars. The two first spectra published already showed an obvious discrepancy in X-ray properties. While the HETGS spectrum of $`\theta ^1`$Ori C (O7 V pne) showed line emission up to 1.7 Å($``$ 7 keV) and relatively narrow, symmetric, and unshifted lines (Schulz et al. 2000), the RGS spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Pup (O 4 If) indicated relatively broad, asymmetric, and blue-shifted lines at moderate temperatures (Kahn et al. 2001). So far none of the spectra observed so far, with the exception of $`\zeta `$ Pup (Kahn et al. 2001, Cassinelli et al. 2001), exhibit dominating X-ray properties as expected from instability-driven shocks distributed throughout the wind (Waldron and Cassinelli 2001, Schulz et al. 2000, Gagne et al. 2001). In $`\zeta `$ Ori Waldron and Cassinelli (2001) interprete the lack of a substantial amount of flux in the forbidden lines of the He-like triplets as an indication that the X-ray emitting zones around $`\zeta `$ Ori may lie less than 1 R from the photosphere, since the large UV radiation field here would destroy the $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{S}_{1}^{}^3\mathrm{P}`$ transition (Kahn et al. 2001). In fact such an effect is seen in all spectra observed so far and reflects the need to account for UV photo-excitation in these sources. In this respect, the interpretation of the f/i ratio (f = forbidden line flux, i = intercombination line flux) in the He-like triplets in OB stars is much more complex and requires assumptions about other properties of the X-ray emission regions. Gagne et al. (2001) suggested that in less luminous OB stars the line profiles are symmetric and narrower and resemble emission from magnetically confined wind shocks.

Clearly, before can attempt to classify OB stars based on their X-ray line properties, we need more high resolution observations. The Orion Trapezium has an age of $``$ 0.3 Myr (Hillenbrandt 1997) and its early type members represent a canonical sample to study the X-ray properties of very young massive stars. In this article we compare the properties of Trapezium members $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and E with the ones from the brightest member $`\theta ^1`$Ori C.

## 3. $`\theta ^1`$Ori C

Schulz et al. (2000) already deduced some remarkable properties from the first X-ray spectrum. Depite the fact that the lines appear symmetric and show no significant blue-shift, line flux ratios from He-like and Li-like iron indicate temperatures of $``$ 60 Million K and a study of H- and He-like lines ratios from lower Z ions indicate that we see a whole range of temperatures down to 5 Million K. The line widths appear relatively narrow with Doppler velocities between 200 and 800 km s-1. In Figure 1 (top) we show an HETGS spectrum of $`\theta ^1`$Ori C, which was compiled from all the data presented in Schulz et al. (2000) plus all the data from an observation taken three weeks later. The total exposure time is 85 ks. The spectrum is corrected for interstellar absorption, where we assumed the column density derived by Schulz et al. (2001) for the Orion Trapezium stars. For the spectral modelling we apply a collisionally ionized plasma as calculated by the Astrophysical Plasma Emission Code (APEC, Smith et al. 2001), which is implemented in the Interactive Spectral Interpretation Software (ISIS, Houck & DeNicola 2000). To account for the wide temperature range we apply several temperature components, thermal line profiles, and Doppler broadenings between 200 and 800 km/s. A preliminary fit of such a model to the spectrum is shown in the bottom part of Figure 1. It includes five temperatures between 6$`\times 10^5`$ K and 6$`\times 10^7`$ K with dominating contributions from two temperature components above $`10^7`$ K. Although not all details are worked out yet, the model provides already a very good representation of the spectrum. The model also does not require significant deviations from a solar abundance distribution and we identify all major Fe lines expected for Fe XVII to Fe XXIV.

## 4. $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E

$`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E are the second and third brightest X-ray sources in the Orion Trapezium. Although assumed to be of very early type as well, the optical properties of $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E are not very well documented (see Schulz et al. 2001 and refs. therein). Although they appear only four ($`\theta ^1`$Ori E) and eight ($`\theta ^1`$Ori A) times less luminous in X-rays compared to $`\theta ^1`$Ori C, which is still in the range expected for late O- and early B-type stars (Berghöfer et al. 1996), their optical fluxes relative to $`\theta ^1`$Ori C are much smaller than these factors indicate (Petr et al. 1998). In the case of $`\theta ^1`$Ori E this is most extreme indicating that log (Lx/Lbol) is well above -6, which is untypical for O-type stars.

We applied the multi-temperature model as applied to $`\theta ^1`$Ori C to similar HETGS spectra $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E. In both cases the spectra appear quite similar and require only three temperature components between 5$`\times 10^6`$ K and 3$`\times 10^7`$ K, which may be a consequence of the much lower statistics in these spectra. Again, the dominating contributions to the spectrum are in the temperature components well above $`10^7`$ K. Such high temperatures are consistent with spectral fits obtained form the zeroth order CCD spectra (Schulz et al. 2001). $`\theta ^1`$Ori E shows Doppler velocities in the lines of $`500`$ km/s (Ne X) significantly higher line broading from the one observed in $`\theta ^1`$Ori C. The lines in $`\theta ^1`$Ori A however are clearly broader with velocities of 900 km/s at Ne X.

Most remarkable so far is the fact, that in both cases the models do not fit the spectra well unless significant departures from the solar abundance distribution are introduced. Figure 2 shows preliminary model fits for $`\theta ^1`$Ori A (top) and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E (bottom). For clarity we only show the model and some of the brighter lines. A full assessment of these spectra will be given in Schulz et al. 2002, in prep.). In both cases the spectra are dominated by strong Ne and and O lines, whereas ionization states of Mg, Si, S, and Fe appear relatively weak. The high temperatures of the dominating components are also determined by the underlying continuum, especially by the shape at short wavelengths. Given the similarity of the temperatures to $`\theta ^1`$Ori C we would not expect large deviations in the line emissivity from what is observed in Figure 1. For such high temperatures one would expect much higher emissivities at Fe XXIII and Fe XXIV (between 10 and 12 Å ) and Fe XXV (1.85 Å ). From the fit we determine an abundance for Fe relative to solar of 0.2. Although also slightly underabundant relative to solar, Ne appears overabundant relative to almost all the other elements, except Ni. The Ni XIX and Ni XXIV lines observed in $`\theta ^1`$Ori A required an overabundance by about a factor 3.

## 5. Discussion

Given the assumption that the OB stars in the Orion Trapezium form a canonical sample with respect to age, spectral type, and chemisty, we find remarkable differences in their X-ray spectra. In fact, the only similarities we find so far are multiple high temperature components and relatively narrow, symmetric, and unshifted lines. The temperatures in $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E are not quite as hot as in $`\theta ^1`$Ori C, but still high enough to question the validity of instability-driven wind shock models. The fits do include temperature components with temperatures low enough to be consistent with these models, however the contribution to the total spectrum is less than 20$`\%`$. Because of the high temperatures Schulz et al. (2001) suggested the inclusion of magnetic field effects as well as stellar rotation into the models for very young stars. Similarily, Gagne et al. (2001) recently compared X-ray lines $`\theta ^1`$Ori C with lines from another young massive star $`\tau `$ Sco (B0 V, Cohen, Cassinelli, $`\&`$ Waldron 1997) and also concluded that these properties may be the result interactions with magnetic fields.

Most striking are clearly the observed abundance variations in $`\theta ^1`$Ori A and $`\theta ^1`$Ori E. Given the fact that $`\theta ^1`$Ori C does not require any awkward abundances and that those stars evolved from a common progenitor cloud, such variations seem quite mysterious. However, one should be quite careful with the interpretation of these findings, because due to the complexity of the spectra, which are already reflected in the fact that we need multi-temperature components, many other issues can contribute. One issue is possible contributions from low-mass companions. We know from recent interferometric measurements that $`\theta ^1`$Ori C (Weigelt et al. 1999) and $`\theta ^1`$Ori A (Petr et al. 1998) have close low-mass companions. Kastner et al. (2001) very recently reported on an iron deficiency, but neon enhancement in the nearby classical T Tauri star TW Hya. With a luminosity of $`10^{30}`$ erg/s, however, a possible contribution of a T Tauri to these spectra cannot exceed 10$`\%`$. So far $`\theta ^1`$Ori E has not shown signatures of a companion. Other issues involve opacity effects - we did not yet introduce intrinsic absorption to each spectral component - and wind interactions. An effect from the latter may not be unlikely in a close system like the Trapezium, which also shows evidence for a variety of deeply embedded low-mass objects. (Bally et al. 1998, Schulz et al. 2001).

## References

Bally, J., Sutherland, R.S., Devine, D., and Johnstone, D., 1998, ApJ, 116, 293
Berghöfer, T.W., Schmitt, J.H.M.M., & Cassinelli, J.P., 1996, A&ASuppl., 118, 481
Chlebowski, T., Harnden, F.R. jr., and Sciortino, S., 1989, ApJ, 341, 427
Cohen, D.H., Cooper, R,G,m MacFarlane, J.J., Owocki, S.P., Cassinelli, J.P., & Wang, P., 1996, ApJ, 460, 506
Cohen, D.H., Cassinelli, J.P, and Waldron, W.L., 1997, ApJ, 488, 397
den Herder, J.W., Brinkman, A.C., Kahn, S.M., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L7
Feldmeier, A., Puls, J., Reile, C., Pauldrach, A., Kudritzki, R.P., & Owocki, S.P., 1995, Ap$`\&`$SS, 233, 293
Feldmeier, A., Kudritzki, R.P., Palsa, R., Pauldrach, A.W., & Puls, J., 1997, A&A, 320, 899
Gagne, M., Cohen, D., Owocki, S., and Ud-Doula, A., 2001, in X-ray at Sharp Focus, ASP Conference Series, eds. S. Vrtilek,
E.M.Schlegel, L. Kuhi
Hillenbrand, L.A., 1997, AJ, 113, 1733
Hillier, D.J., Kudritzki, R.P., Pauldrach, A.W., Baade, D., Casinelli, J.P., Puls, J., and Schmitt J.H.M.M.,1993, A&A, 276, 117
Houck, J.C., & DeNicola, L.A., 2000, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX, ASP Conf. Ser.., Vol. 216, p.591
Kahn, S.M., Leutenegger, M., Cottam, J., Rauw, G., Vreux, J.M., den Boggende, T., Mewe, R., & Guedel, M., 2001, A&A, 365, L312
Katama, Y., Koyama, K., Tsuboi, Y.,, and Yamauchi, S., 1997, PASJ, 69, 461
Kastner, J.H., Huenemoerder, D.P., Schulz, N.S., Canizares, C.R, & Weintraub, D.A., 2001, ApJ, in press
Kudritzki, R.P., 1984, in ESA Fourth European IUE Conf., p 33
Kudritzki, R.P., 1992, A&A, 266, 395
Lamers, H.J.G.L.M., Haser, S., De Koter, A, & Leitherer, C., 1999, ApJ, 516, 872
Lucy, L.B., & White, R.L., 1980, ApJ, 241, 300
McFarlane, J.J., & Cassinelli, J.P., 1989, ApJ, 347, 1090
Nagase, F., Ozawa, H., Ueda, Y., Ishida, M., and Dotani, T., 1999, in Star Formation 1999, Proceedings of Star Formation 1999,
ed. T. Nakamoto, 316
Owocki, S.P., Castor, J.I., & Rybicki, G.B., 1988, ApJ, 335, 914
Pauldrach, A.W., 1987, A&A, 183, 295
Pauldrach, A.W., Kudritzki, R.P., Puls, J., Butler, K., & Hunsinger, J., 1994. A&A, 283, 525
Petr, M.G., Coudé du Foresto, V., Beckwidth, S.V.W., Richichi, A., and McCaughrean, M.J., 1998, ApJ500, 825
Schulz, N.S., Canizares, C., Huenemoerder, D., Kastner, J.H., Taylor, S.C., & Bergstrom, E.J., 2001, ApJ, 549, 441
Schulz, N.S., Canizares, C., Huenemoerder, & Lee, J.C., 2000, ApJ, 545, L135
Seward, F.D, Froman, W.R., Giaconni, R., Griffith, R.E., Harnden, F.R. jr., Jones, C., Pye, J.P., 1979, ApJ 234, 55
Smith, R.K., Brickhouse, N.S., Liedahl, D.A., & Raymond, J.C., 2001, ApJ, 556, L91
Tsuboi, Y., Koyama, K., Sakano, M., and Petre, R., 1997, PASJ, 49, 85
Waldron, W.L., & Cassinelli, J.P., 2001, ApJ, 548, L45
Weigelt, G., Balega, Y., Preibisch, T., Schertl, D., Schöller, M., and Zinnecker, H., 1999, å347, L15
Yamauchi, S., Koyama, K., Sakano, M., and Okada, K., 1996, PASJ, 48, 719


text:
# Untitled Document

THE NONLINEAR-ELECTRODYNAMIC BENDING

OF THE X-RAY AND GAMMA-RAY

IN THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF PULSARS AND MAGNETARS  Published in Doklady Akademii Nauk, 2001, v. 380, p. 325, in Russian. English version see in Doklady Physics

Victor I. Denisov, Irene P. Denisova, Sergey I. Svertilov <sup>∗∗</sup> E - mail : Denisov@srd.sinp.msu.ru Sis@srdlan.npi.msu.su

M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Physics Department

119899, Moscow, Vorob’evy Gory, MSU, Physics Department.

ABSTRACT

It was shown that according to the non-linear electrodynamics of vacuum electromagnetic rays should bend in the field of magnetic dipole. The angles of ray bending in the gravitational and magnetic fields of pulsars and magnetars were obtained. In the case of pulsars with $`bR`$ 100 km, $`B_010^{13}G`$ the value of the angle of non-linear electrodynamic bending of a ray in the Heisenberg-Euler theory will reach the value of $`\delta \psi _{NED}30^{\prime \prime },`$ and in the case of a magnetar with $`B_010^{15}G`$ the angle $`\delta \psi _{NED}`$ will increase to $`\delta \psi _{NED}1rad60^{}.`$ The angle of gravitational bending of a ray at neutron star with $`r_g`$ = 3 km in the same conditions will be equal to $`\delta \psi _g0.06`$ rad $`4^{}.`$ Observations can only be made in X- rays and gamma-rays, for which the magnetosphere is quite opaque. Because the distance from the Earth to the well-known pulsars and magnetars is too large to observe the pure effect of a ray bending. The non-linear electrodynamic bending of a ray as well as the gravitational bending will be revealed in the effect of lensing.

As it is well-known, the Maxwellian electrodynamics in the absence of matter is a linear theory. Its predictions concerning a very wide field of problems (except the subatomic level) are constantly confirmed with better and better accuracy. Quantum electrodynamics, which is based on Maxwell’s electrodynamics complemented by the renormalization procedure, also describes with good accuracy the various subatomic processes, and, according to common opinion, is one of the best physical theories.

However, some fundamental physical reasons indicate that electrodynamics is nonlinear not only in continuous medium, but in vacuum also.

Several different models of non-linear electrodynamics of vacuum are discussed now in the field theory. In the case of a weak fields their Lagrangian can be written in the parameterized form :

$$L=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left\{[𝐄^2𝐁^2]+\xi [\eta _1(𝐄^2𝐁^2)^2+4\eta _2(𝐁𝐄)^2]\right\},$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\xi =1/B_q^2,`$ $`B_q=4.4110^{13}`$ $`G,`$ and the value of dimensionless post-Maxwellian parameters $`\eta _1`$ $`\eta _2`$ depends on the choice of the model of non- linear electrodynamics in vacuum.

In particular, the $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ parameters in the Heisenberg-Euler non-linear electrodynamics have quite concrete values $`\eta _1=\alpha /(45\pi )=5.110^5,\eta _2=7\alpha /(180\pi )=9.010^5,`$ while in the Born-Infeld theory they can be expressed through the unknown constant $`a^2:`$ $`\eta _1=\eta _2=a^2B_q^2/4.`$

The equations of electromagnetic field in the non-linear electrodynamics are analogous to the equations of electrodynamics of continuous medium:

$$curl𝐇=\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐃}{t},div𝐃=0,𝐃=4\pi \frac{L}{𝐄},$$

$$curl𝐄=\frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐁}{t},div𝐁=0,𝐇=4\pi \frac{L}{𝐁}.$$

Using expression (1), it is not difficult to obtain the expansion of vectors $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐇`$ in degrees $`B/B_q`$ and $`E/B_q`$ with the first order of post-Mawellian accuracy:

$$𝐃=𝐄+2\xi \{\eta _1(𝐄^2𝐁^2)𝐄+2\eta _2(𝐁𝐄)𝐁\},$$

$$𝐇=𝐁+2\xi \{\eta _1(𝐄^2𝐁^2)𝐁2\eta _2(𝐁𝐄)𝐄\}.$$

During a long time, the non-linear electrodynamics of vacuum had no experimental confirmation and, hence, it seems for many researchers as only abstract theoretical model. At present its status has changed drastically. The experiments on non-elastic scattering of laser photons on gamma- quanta  confirm the non-linear character of electrodynamics in vacuum. Thus, its different predictions \[4 -10\], which can be tested experimentally, are of great importance. However, non-linear corrections to the Maxwell equations for the magnetic fields $`B,E10^6`$ G, which can only be obtained in ground laboratories, are too small to observe effects caused by them. On the other hand, some objects are existing in nature, in which magnetic field induction is comparable with the typical value of magnetic field induction required for essential manifestation of electrodynamics non-linearity in vacuum $`B4.4110^{13}`$ G, which was predicted by quantum electrodynamics.

These objects are rotation-powered pulsars and magnetars. Rotation-powered pulsars are rapidly-rotating neutron stars with a strong dipole magnetic field

$$𝐁_0=\frac{3(𝐦𝐫)𝐫r^2𝐦}{r^5},$$

where $`𝐦`$ is the magnetic dipole momentum.

Most of them are the so-called ”radio” pulsars, i.e. isolated neutron stars, the emission of which is powered by the loss of rotational energy . The high sensitivity of modern X-ray observatories permits to detect X-rays from about several dozens of radio pulsars , but only ten (or possibly six) rotation-powered pulsars were observed at gamma-ray energies, i.e. so-called ”gamma”- pulsars . Most of them have a rather strong surface magnetic field ($`maxB_010^{12}`$ G), for at least five gamma-pulsars the magnitude of $`B_0`$ exceeds the characteristic value of $`4.4110^{13}`$ G . Although, it is not yet clear how and where in the pulsar magnetosphere the non-thermal high-energy emission originates, several advanced models assume that particles are accelerated above the neutron star surface and that gamma-rays result from curvature radiation or inverse Compton induced pair cascade in a strong magnetic field near the neutron star, i.e. the so-called ”polar cap” models \[14-18\]. These models give the opportunity to observe nonlinear electrodynamics effects in gamma-pulsar hard emission.

As for magnetars, or strongly magnetized neutron stars \[19-22\], they are the most appropriate sources for manifestation of nonlinear electrodynamics effects. It is supposed now that magnetars can be revealed as soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGR) mainly observed in hard X-rays and soft gamma rays  and as so-called anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXP), i.e. slow (6-12 s period) rotators mainly observed in the ”classical” X-ray range (2-20 keV) . SGRs are transient events characterized by brief ($`1`$ s) and relatively soft (peak photon energy $`1030`$ keV) bursts of super- Eddington luminosity. There are four (or five) SGRs known now. A possible connection between SGR and AXP was suggested after the discovery of periodicities as well as spin-down effect in some SGRs  with the values of period and period derivative very similar to those of AXP. Another similarity between SGR and AXP is based on the fact that all of them appear to be associated with supernova remnants (SNRs). The magnetic field $`B`$ magnitude in such objects can be estimated from the period and period derivative values, which lead to $`maxB_010^{14}10^{15}`$ G. In most of the magnetar models the magnetic field is the main energy source, powering both the persistent X-ray emission and the soft gamma-ray burst activity.

Thus, non-linear electrodynamic effects will be much more pronounced in the dipole magnetic fields of gamma-ray pulsars and magnetars than in any ground laboratory experiments.

The non-linear electrodynamic bending of electromagnetic wave rays in the magnetic fields of pulsars and magnetars is one of such effects. As it can be seen from simple calculations , the bending angle $`\delta \psi `$ of a ray in the gravitational and magnetic field of a neutron star depends on the mutual orientation of a ray and the star magnetic dipole momentum $`𝐦`$ as well as on the electromagnetic wave polarization.

In particular, for an electromagnetic wave, propagating in the neutron star magnetic equator plane and polarized in the same plane, the bending angle of a ray will be:

$$\delta \psi =\frac{2r_g}{b}+\frac{15\pi \eta _1\xi B_0^2R^6}{4b^6},$$

where $`r_g`$ is the Schwartzhield radii of a star, $`R`$ is the star geometrical radii, $`B_0`$ is the induction of the magnetic field on the star magnetic equator.

For an electromagnetic wave polarized normally to the magnetic equator, one can obtain:

$$\delta \psi =\frac{2r_g}{b}+\frac{15\pi \eta _2\xi B_0^2R^6}{4b^6}.$$

Thus, the angle of non-linear electromagnetic bending of a ray $`\delta \psi _{NED}=15\pi \eta _{1,2}\xi B_0^2R^6/(4b^6)`$ depends on the impact distance $`b`$ differently than the angle of gravitational bending of a ray $`\delta \psi _g=2r_g/b.`$ Besides, at $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ the angle $`\delta \psi _{NED}`$ depends on the electromagnetic wave polarization, and the angle $`\delta \psi _g`$ does not. Thus, these two parts of the total angle of ray bending can be revealed by the processing of sufficiently complete observational data, obtained for the different values of impact distance $`b`$ and different polarizations of the electromagnetic wave.

In the case of a pulsar with $`bR`$ 100 km, $`B_010^{13}G`$ value of the angle of non-linear electrodynamic bending of a ray in the Heisenberg-Euler theory will reach the value $`\delta \psi _{NED}30^{\prime \prime },`$ and in the case of a magnetar with $`B_010^{15}G`$ the angle $`\delta \psi _{NED}`$ increases to $`\delta \psi _{NED}1rad60^{}.`$

For comparison, we can indicate that the angle of gravitational bending of a ray a neutron star with $`r_g`$ = 3 km under the same conditions will be equal $`\delta \psi _g0.06`$ rad $`4^{}.`$

However, it is rather difficult to observe this effect. Firstly, both pulsars and magnetars have a sufficiently dense magnetosphere. Thus, observations can be made only in the X- rays and gamma-rays, for which the magnetosphere is quite opaque.

Secondly, the distance from the Earth to the well-known pulsars and magnetars is too large to observe the pure effect of a ray bending

As our analysis shows , the non-linear electrodynamic bending of a ray as well as the gravitational bending will be revealed in the effect of lensing. As a result, the external manifestations of effects of non-linear electrodynamic and gravitational bending of a ray will depend on the ratio of distances between the gamma-ray source, pulsar or magnetar and the Earth. If the gamma-ray source is extra-Galactic, then the scattering of emission flux by the pulsar or magnetar gravitational and magnetic fields will be large. Thus, the emission intensity, which underwent significant bending of a ray, will be very small in the vicinity of the Earth. In this case the effect of ray bending will be revealed only as the harsh falling of detected emission intensity even by the disappearingly small value of the ray bending angles.

If gamma-rays were emitted near a magnetic neutron star (for example, if it is part of a binary system, or the gamma-ray sources are the regions, jointed to its surface), then scattering of this emission flux by the gravitaional and magnetic fields will not be so pronounced. In this case, although the emission intensity detected near the Earth will decrease with growing of the bending angle, it will not be so harsh as in the case of the extra-Galactic source. Thus, for astrophysical objects containing a neutron star with magnetic field at the level of $`B10^{13}10^{15}`$ G, effects of non-linear and gravitational bending of a ray will be assessible by observation even at the modern accuracy level using the extra-Terrestrial astronomy technique.

References:

. Denisov V.I., $`\&`$ Denisova I. P., Optics and Spectroscopy, 2001, v. 90, p. 282.

. Denisov V.I. $`\&`$ Denisova I. P., Doklady Physics, 2001, v. 46, p. 377.

. Burke D.L., Field R.C., Horton-Smith G., Spencer J.E., Walz D., Berridge S.C., Bugg W.M., Shmakov K., Weidemann A.W., Bula C., McDolald K.T., Prebys E.J., Bamber C., Boege S.J., Koffas T., Kotseroglou T., Melissinos A.C., Meyerhofer D.D., Reis D.A., Ragg W. // Rhys. Rev. Lett. 1997. V. 79. P. 1626.

. Alexandrov E.B., Anselm A.A. $`\&`$ Moskalev A.N., JETP, 1985, v. 62, p. 680.

. Rosanov N.N., JETP, 1993, v. 76, p. 991.

. Bakalov D. et al Quantum Semiclass. Opt., 1998, V. 10, 1, p. 239-250.

. Denisov V.I. // Phys. Rev. 2000. V. D61 3. P. 036004.

. Denisov V.I., Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics, 2000, V. 2, N 5, p. 372.

. Rikken G.L.J.A. $`\&`$ Rizzo C., Phys. Rev. A, 2000, v. 63, p. 012107.

. Denisov V.I. $`\&`$ Denisova I. P., Optics and Spectroscopy, 2001, v. 90, p. 928.

. Becker, W. 2000, Adv. Space Res. 25, 647.

. Mereghetti, S. 2000, astro-ph$`/`$0102017.

. Thomson, D.J. 2000, Adv. Space Res. 25, 659.

. Sturrock, P.A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 529.

. Ruderman, M.A., $`\&`$ Sutherland, P.G. 1975, ApJ, 196, 51.

. Daugherty, J.K., $`\&`$ Harding, A.K. 1982, ApJ, 252, 337.

. Daugherty, J.K., $`\&`$ Harding, A.K. 1996, ApJ, 458, 278.

. Usov, V.V., $`\&`$ Melrose, D.B. 1995, Aust. J. Phys. 48, 571.

. Zhang, B., $`\&`$ Harding, A.K. 2000, ApJ, 535, L51.

. Duncan, R.C., $`\&`$ Thomson, C., 1992 ApJ 392, L9.

. Thomson, C, $`\&`$ Duncan, R.C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255.

. Thomson, C, $`\&`$ Duncan, R.C. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322.

. Hurley, K. 2000, in Proc. 5th Huntsville GRB Symposium 526 (New York: AIP), 763.

. Gotthelf, E.V., $`\&`$ Vasisht, G. 1997, ApJ, 486, L133.

. Hurley, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, L111.

. Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235.

. Denisov, V.I., Denisova, I. P. $`\&`$ Svertilov, S.I., Doklady Akademii Nauk, 2001, v. 380, p. 325.