text:
# A note on focus-focus singularities

## 1. Introduction

Many integrable Hamiltonian systems in classical mechanics - from as simple as the spherical pendulum - contain focus-focus singularities (see Section 5). Thus the study of these singularities is important in order to understand the topology of integrable systems. We address this problem in the present note. It turns out that the topological structure of focus-focus singularities is quite simple, though very different from elliptic and hyperbolic cases. The affine structure of the orbit space near focus-focus singularities is also very simple (cf. Proposition 3). As a corollary, we obtain that the monodromy around these singularities is non-trivial. The notion of monodromy was first given by Duistermaat , and its non-triviality was observed by Duistermaat, Cushman, Knörrer, Bates, etc., for various systems, all of which turn out to be connected with focus-focus singularities (see Sections 3,5).

For simplicity of the exposition we will consider only systems with two degrees of freedom. The results remain unchanged for focus-focus codimension 2 singularities of integrable Hamiltonian systems with more degrees of freedom.

## 2. Local structure

Throughout this work, by an integrable system we will mean a Poisson $`^2`$ action on a real smooth symplectic 4-manifold $`(M^4,\omega )`$, given by a moment map $`𝐅=(F_1,F_2):M^4^2`$. We will also assume that the level sets of $`𝐅`$ are compact, and hence they are disjoint unions of Liouville tori wherever non-singular.

Suppose that $`x_0M^4`$ is a fixed point of the above Poisson action: $`dF_1(x_0)=dF_2(x_0)=0`$. Let $`H_i`$ be the quadratic part of $`F_i`$ at $`x_0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. Since $`F_1,F_2`$ are Poisson commuting, so are $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$: $`\{H_1,H_2\}=0`$.

We will assume that $`x_0`$ is a non-degenerate singular point, i.e. $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ form a Cartan subalgebra of the algebra of quadratic forms under the natural Poisson bracket. Then by a classical theorem of Williamson (see e.g. ), after a linear change of basis of the Poisson action (i.e. a linear change of the moment map $`𝐅^{}=A𝐅`$, $`A`$ being a constant invertible matrix), one of the following four alternative cases happens:

$`H_1=x_1^2+y_1^2,H_2=x_2^2+y_2^2,`$ (elliptic case)

$`H_1=x_1^2+y_1^2,H_2=x_2y_2,`$ (elliptic-hyperbolic case)

$`H_1=x_1y_1,H_2=x_2y_2,`$ (hyperbolic case)

$`H_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2,H_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1.`$ (focus-focus case)

Here $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ is a system of symplectic coordinates in the tangent space at $`x_0`$: $`\omega _{x_0}=dx_1dy_1+dx_2dy_2`$.

In this paper we are interested in the fourth, focus-focus case. Notice that if one considers systems with complex coefficients, then the above four cases become the same. It is equivalent to say that the complex symplectic algebra $`sp(2n,)`$ has only one conjugacy class of Cartan subalgebras.

The local analysis of focus-focus singular points was done by Lerman and Umanskii  and Eliasson . It turns out that near a focus-focus singular point $`x_0`$, there are two local Lagrangian invariant submanifolds which intersect transversally at $`x_0`$ (cf. ), and the other nearby local invariant Lagrangian submanifolds are annuli. Moreover, the local singular Lagrangian foliation given by the moment map $`𝐅`$ near $`x_0`$ is symplectically equivalent to the one given by the linearized moment map $`𝐇=(H_1,H_2)`$ (cf. ). In other words, there is a local symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ around $`x_0`$, for which $`𝐅`$ can be expressed as a function of two variables $`f_1,f_2`$, where $`f_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2,f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$. Such a local system of symplectic coordinates will be called a canonical system of coordinates near a focus-focus point $`x_0`$.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`x_0`$ be a focus-focus singular point. Then there is a natural (local) circle Hamiltonian action near $`x_0`$, which preserves the moment map.

Proof. Let $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ be a canonical system of coordinates. Then the function $`f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ will be the required Hamiltonian. Remark that this Hamiltonian $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟏}`$ action has exactly one fixed point, namely $`x_0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In fact, one can give a different proof of the above proposition, which relies only on the existence of two transversal invariant Lagrangian submanifolds indicated above, as follows: by perturbation theory, one sees that there is a linear combination of the Hamiltonian vector fields $`X_{F_1},X_{F_2}`$, which gives rise to a periodic flow on one of these Lagrangian submanifolds. Then one can extend this flow in the most natural way to obtain the required Hamiltonian action in a neighborhood of $`x_0`$. Notice also the uniqueness of this Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action, up to the direction.

The following proposition is not needed for the rest of this note but will be used to obtain some geometric invariants of torus singular Lagrangian foliations with focus-focus singularities.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`(X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2)`$ and $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ be two different canonical systems of coordinates at $`x_0`$. Then we have $`X_1Y_2X_2Y_1=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ or $`X_1Y_2X_2Y_1=(x_1y_2x_2y_1)`$, and the difference between $`X_1Y_1+X_2Y_2`$ and $`\pm (x_1y_1+x_2y_2)`$ is a flat function.

Proof. The proof follows directly from the results of Vey  (who, however, seems to omit the focus-focus case). In the analytic case, one can complexify the system so that to return the problem to the case of elliptic singularity. Then one sees that $`f_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2`$ and $`f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ are some linear combinations (namely, the sum and the difference, up to some scalars) of two action functions (i.e. action components of a local system of action-angle coordinates near an elliptic singularity). Hence $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ do not depend on a particular choice of canonical coordinates, up to a sign (cf. ). In the smooth case, Taylor expansions will give the same result, up to flat functions. Note that even in the smooth case we have $`X_1Y_2X_2Y_1=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ or $`X_1Y_2X_2Y_1=(x_1y_2x_2y_1)`$ since they are the Hamiltonian of a unique natural $`𝐒^1`$ action discussed in the previous proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Stable case: topology and monodromy

Denote by $`N(x_0)`$ the connected component of the preimage of the moment map $`𝐅`$ which contains $`x_0`$. We will always assume that all singular points in $`N(x_0)`$ of the Poisson action are non-degenerate. (See e.g.  for the definition of nondegeneracy). Then $`N(x_0)`$ is a non-degenerate singular leaf in the singular Lagrangian foliation by Liouville tori in a most natural sense (see  for more details). From the results of Lerman and Umanskii  it follows that singular points in $`N(x_0)`$ either lie in one-dimensional closed singular hyperbolic orbits or are focus-focus fixed points.

By convention, we will say that a focus-focus singular leaf $`N(x_0)`$ is topologically stable if it does not contain singular hyperbolic orbits, i.e. if all singular points in it are focus-focus fixed points.

Suppose now that $`N(x_0)`$ is topologically stable and contains exactly $`n`$ focus-focus fixed points $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$. Then because of the Poisson $`^2`$ action, $`N(x_0)\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}`$ must be a non-empty disjoint union of annuli. It follows that $`N(x_0)`$ consists of a chain of $`n`$ Lagrangian spheres, each of which intersects transversally with two other. (This simple but important fact was observed by Bolsinov, and also by Lerman and Umanskii themselves). In particular, the fundamental group of a tubular neighborhood of it is $``$. When $`n=1`$, $`N(x_0)`$ is just a sphere with one point of self-intersection. It is well-known that the orbit space of the singular Lagrangian foliation (by Liouville tori) has a unique natural integral affine structure outside the singularities (see e.g. ). We have the following:

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`N(x_0)`$ be a topologically stable non-degenerate focus-focus leaf with $`n`$ fixed points as above. Then in a neighborhood of the image of this leaf in the orbit space of the singular Lagrangian foliation, the affine structure can be obtained from the standard flat structure in $`^2=\{(x,y)\}`$ near the origin $`O`$ by cutting out the angle $`\mathrm{}\{(0,1),(n,1)\}`$ and gluing the edges of the rest together by the integral linear transformation $`(x,y)(x+ny,y)`$.

Before proving the above proposition let us now construct an algebraic model for this singularity.

Near the origin $`O`$ in the local standard symplectic space $`^4,\omega =dp_1dq_1+dp_2dq_2`$ we have two generating functions for a Poisson $`^2`$-action with the singularity of the type focus-focus:

$$f_1=p_1q_1+p_2q_2,f_2=p_1q_2p_2q_1$$

Set $`z_1=p_1ip_2,z_2=q_1+iq_2`$ . Here we define a complex structure:

$$J:(p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2)(p_2,p_1,q_2,q_1)$$

Then $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are the real and imaginary part of function $`z_1z_2`$. In particular, the level sets of $`(f_1,f_2)`$ are the level sets of $`z_1z_2`$ in $`^2`$.

Consider first the simplest case, when $`n=1`$. We can construct the model as follows: Take the conformal map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(z_1,z_2)(z_2^1,z_1z_2^2)`$. Note that $`\omega =Redz_1dz_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a complexification of a real area-preserving map. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where it is well-defined, is a symplectic mapping. Consider a small neighborhood $`D\times P^1`$ of the sphere $`0\times P^1`$ ($`z_2`$ lies in $`P^1`$). Gluing the points near (0,0) to the points near $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ by the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we obtain a complex space $`𝒰`$ which has a natural symplectic form $`\omega `$ (because $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves the symplectic form). Furthermore, it is clear that the analytic map $`z_1z_2:𝒰`$ is well-defined on M and is the moment map for a desired $`^2`$ Poisson action.

The case $`n>1`$ is similar. Take $`n`$ samples $`U_i(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ of $`D\times P^1`$ and define $`n`$ local maps $`\varphi _i:U_iU_{i+1}(U_{n+1}=U_1)`$, which in local coordinates have the same form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as above. Glue $`U_i`$ together by these maps. Again we obtain a symplectic manifold, and the function $`z_1z_2`$ provides us a moment map for a Poisson $`^2`$ action on that manifold, now with $`n`$ focus-focus points over a singular point of the local bifurcation diagram. More geometrically, what we do is just take an $`n`$-covering of the one-point case. Under this covering every Lagrangian torus also pulls back to an $`n`$-covering of itself.

Topologically, this construction is unique, i.e. it can be easily shown that any two topologically stable focus-focus singularities $`N_1(x_0)`$ and $`N_2(y_0)`$ with the same number of singular points will have diffeomorphic111erratum: homeomorphic, not necessarily diffeomorphic singular Lagrangian foliations (though in general we don’t have a foliation-preserving symplectomorphism between them, cf. ). If we forget about the foliation, then by Moser’s path method, one can show that there is a symplectomorphism between some tubular neighborhoods $`𝒰_1(N_1)`$ and $`𝒰_2(N_2)`$ of $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$, which sends $`N_1`$ to $`N_2`$ (cf. ).

From the construction it is easy to see the topological type of an “isoenergy” 3-manifold around the singularity (more precisely, the manifold $`\{|z_1z_2|=ϵ>0\}`$). It is a locally flat fibration with torus fiber over a circle. We will compute the holonomy mapping of this fiber bundle. Our computations in fact do not depend on the above specific model, but only on topological properties of all topologically stable focus-focus singularities.

Recall from the previous section that locally near $`x_0`$ there is a natural Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action. This action can be extended to be a Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action in a tubular neighborhood $`𝒰(N)`$ of $`N(x_0)`$. Denote by $`g`$ the corresponding Hamiltonian function, $`g(x_0)=0`$. Because of the invariance, $`g`$ can also be considered as a function on the orbit space. In our model $`g=f_2`$. Fix a small circle $`\{|z_1z_2|=ϵ\}=\{f_1^2+f_2^2=ϵ^2\}`$ in the orbit space. Every point in this circle corresponds to one Liouville torus. Fix one point $`\{f_1=ϵ,f_2=0\}`$. On the torus corresponding to this point fix a basis of generators of the fundamental group, so that the second generator is induced from the symplectic vector field $`X_{f_2}`$, and the orientation on $`𝐓^2`$ given by these two generators coincides with that one given by $`X_{f_1},X_{f_2}`$. Denote these generators by $`\gamma ,\delta `$ respectively. When the point $`\{f_1=ϵ,f_2=0\}`$ moves along the circle in the positive direction (anti-clockwise), $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ also move homotopically, and in the end come back to some new cycles $`\gamma _{new},\delta _{new}`$ on the old torus.

###### Lemma 1.

With the above notations we have:
1) The curves $`\{g=\mathrm{const}\}`$ are straight lines in the affine structured orbit space.
2) $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma _{new}\\ \delta _{new}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& n\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma \\ \delta \end{array}\right)`$

Proof. 1) follows from the fact that the flow of $`X_g`$ is periodic with constant period. We prove 2) for $`n=1`$. After that one can use the n-covering argument to see it for any n. Since the assertion is topological, then it is enough to prove it in our model. On the submanifold $`\{|z_1z_2|=ϵ\}`$ in $`𝒰`$ denote by $`\theta `$ the cycle where $`z_1=\mathrm{const}`$ and arg $`z_2`$ decreases, $`\lambda `$ the circle where $`z_2=\mathrm{const}`$ and arg $`z_1`$ increases. Then $`\delta =\theta +\lambda `$. Recall that when we go around by $`\gamma `$, the coordinate system changes by the rule: $`(z_1^{new},z_2^{new})=(z_2^1,z_1z_2^2)`$. Fix a point $`𝒜`$ in one representative of $`\gamma `$. Moving $`𝒜`$ along $`\lambda `$ by some angle $`e`$ means increasing arg $`z_1`$ by this angle. Making things go homotopically around $`\gamma `$, what we get is that arg$`z_1^{new}`$ increases by $`e`$, $`z_2^{new}`$ remains constant. By the above rule, in the old coordinates arg $`z_1`$ increases by 2$`e`$, and arg $`z_2`$ decreases by $`e`$. That yields that after going around $`\gamma `$, $`𝒜`$ becomes to move on $`\lambda +\delta `$ with the same angle. It follows that $`\gamma _{new}=\gamma +\delta `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 3. It follows directly from Lemma 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`V^m`$ be an affine structured manifold. Then in the tangent bundle of $`V`$ there is a unique natural flat connection, and fixing a point $`xV`$ there is a monodromy linear representation of $`\pi _1(V)`$ in $`T_xV`$, defined as usual (cf. ). From Proposition 3 we immediately get:

###### Corollary 1.

The local monodromy near every topologically stable focus-focus point in the orbit space is nontrivial (and is generated by $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& n\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$).

## 4. $`𝐒^1`$ action and reduction

Consider now the non-stable case as well, i.e. allow $`N(x_0)`$ to contain hyperbolic singular orbits. As before, 2-dimensional orbits in $`N(x_0)`$ are annuli. It follows that $`N(x_0)`$ is a union of immersed closed Lagrangian surfaces which intersect transversally at hyperbolic orbits and focus-focus points. Again, it can be easily seen that the local $`𝐒^1`$ action discussed before can be extended naturally to a Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action in a saturated neighborhood $`𝒰(N(x_0))`$ of $`N(x_0)`$, which preserves the moment map. Near (possible) hyperbolic orbits in $`N(x_0)`$, this $`𝐒^1`$ action coincides with another Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action, which is defined in a natural way in a tubular neighborhood of each closed hyperbolic orbit of the Poisson action. Notice that the natural $`𝐒^1`$ action defined near a hyperbolic closed orbit has isotropy group at most $`_2`$ (the cyclic group of two elements) at this and some nearby hyperbolic orbits and is free outside them (cf. ). In other words, we have:

###### Proposition 4.

i) In a saturated neighborhood $`𝒰(N(x_0))`$ there is a unique Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action, generated by a function $`g`$, $`g(x_0)=0`$, which preserves the moment map. In particular, it leaves $`N(x_0)`$ and hyperbolic singular orbits invariant.
ii) This action is trivial at focus-focus points, may have isotropy group $`_2`$ at hyperbolic orbits, and is free elsewhere. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider the moment map $`g:𝒰(N)`$ of the above $`𝐒^1`$ action. At each small value $`s`$ denote by $`P_s`$ the symplectic 2-dimensional space obtained by the Marsden-Weinstein reduction at $`g=s`$.

Consider $`P_0`$. It contains the image of $`x_i`$, denoted by $`p_i`$ (i = 0,…,n-1). Let $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ be a canonical system of coordinates at $`x_0`$. Then each orbit of the $`𝐒^1`$ action, which lies in $`\{g=0\}`$, intersects the symplectic plane $`x_1=y_1=0`$, and the intersection is a pair of points of the type $`\{(x_2,y_2),(x_2,y_2)\}`$. It follows that $`P_0`$ is an orbifold of order 2 at $`p_i`$. (Homeomorphically we can ‘desingularize’ the points $`p_i`$, but not symplectically). Let $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k,k0`$ denote the image of normally-nonorientable hyperbolic orbits (i.e. orbits on which the $`𝐒^1`$ action is not free) of $`N(x_0)`$ in $`P_0`$. Then $`P_0`$ is also an orbifold of order 2 at these points. Thus, $`P_0`$ is a topological surface, but symplectically it is a quotient of a symplectic surface by a $`_2`$ action.

Notice that, since $`g`$ can be viewed as a function on the orbit space of the original $`^2`$ action, the restriction of the moment map on $`\{g=s\}`$ will give rise to a circle foliation on $`P_s`$. On $`P_0`$ this foliation is singular, with the singular leaf being the image of $`N(x_0)`$. In the topologically stable case this singular leaf is just a circle which contains all of the points $`p_i`$. In the non-stable case, $`P_0`$ with the singular foliation looks like a hyperbolic codimension 1 singularity (cf. ), only it contains some special (focus-focus) points in the singular leaf. In the topologically stable case, $`P_s`$ ($`s0`$) with the circle foliation on it is regular. In the non-stable case it can be obtained from $`P_0`$ by smoothening the points $`p_i`$ and perturbing the foliation a little bit. In particular, each $`P_s,s0`$ now represents a codimension 1 singularity.

The above description of the Marsden-Weinstein reduction for the distinguished $`𝐒^1`$ action gives a better understanding of the topology of topologically stable and non-stable focus-focus points. On the other hand, by a small perturbation of the Poisson action we can always split out focus-focus singularities from hyperbolic codimension 1 singularities. In other words, we have:

###### Proposition 5.

If $`N(x_0)`$ contains hyperbolic orbits, then there is an arbitrarily $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ small perturbation $`𝐅^{}`$ of $`𝐅`$, such that $`𝐅^{}`$ is again the moment map of some Poisson $`^2`$ action, which has $`x_0`$ as a focus-focus point, and the singular leaf $`N^{}(x_0)`$ with respect to $`𝐅^{}`$ contains the same number of focus-focus points as $`N(x_0)`$ but does not contain any hyperbolic orbit.

Proof. By a local diffeomorphism of $`^2`$, we can assume that $`𝐅(x_0)=0`$ and $`F_2=g`$, i.e. it generates the distinguished Hamiltonian $`𝐒^1`$ action.

If $`\gamma `$ is a closed 1-dimensional hyperbolic orbit in $`N(x_0)`$, and the $`𝐒^1`$ action on $`\gamma `$ is free, then it is easy to construct a system of symplectic coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$, $`y_2`$ \- mod $`1`$, near $`\gamma `$, such that $`\gamma =\{x_1=x_2=y_2=0\}`$, and $`x_2=g`$. In this canonical system of coordinates, $`F_1`$ is a function depending only on 3 variables $`x_1,x_2,y_2`$. Moreover, we can make so that in a small tubular neighborhood of $`\gamma `$, $`N(x_0)`$ is given by $`N(x_0)𝒰(\gamma )=\{F_1=F_2=0\}𝒰(\gamma )=\{x_1=0,x_2y_2=0\}`$. Then we can slightly perturb $`F_1`$, as a function of three variables $`(x_1,x_2,y_2)`$, so that it remains unchanged outside $`𝒰(\gamma )`$, and $`\{F_1=F_2=0\}𝒰(\gamma )`$ becomes smooth.

In case the $`𝐒^1`$ action is free on all hyperbolic orbits of $`N(x_0)`$, we can apply the above procedure to all these hyperbolic orbits to obtain the required result. In case there are some orbits with isotropy group $`_2`$, we can use a double covering and make everything $`_2`$ invariant to obtain the same result. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above proposition gives a justification for the word stable. Unlike the case of complicated hyperbolic (codimension 1) singularities, we don’t fear that when we perturb the things using the above proposition some finite symmetry breaks up, since focus-focus points and hyperbolic orbits are clearly of different natures and have different codimensions. One can also ‘split’ focus-focus points, i.e. make them lie on different levels of the moment map, by a similar $`𝐒^1`$-invariant perturbation. But then some good finite symmetry may break up.

## 5. Examples and remarks

We have given the topological classification, and the affine structure of the orbit space, for focus-focus singularities. The geometrical classification (i.e. up to foliation-preserving symplectomorphisms) is discussed in work , where it is shown that there arises some formal Taylor series in the set of invariants, like in .

In  we have shown that (topological) 2-domains of orbit spaces of integrable Hamiltonian systems222erratum: the system must not contain some types of degenerate singularities with two degrees of freedom can have fundamental group at most $`^2`$, and 2-domains with non-trivial fundamental group can appear only in very special systems. Thus in general, at least for systems with two degrees of freedom, non-trivial monodromy is most probably connected with focus-focus singularities. (Recall that topological 2-domains of orbit spaces can contain focus-focus points).

It seems that the study of action-angle variables plays an important role in classical mechanics (see e.g. a survey by Marle ). A particular attention is given to the ‘phenomenon’ of nontriviality of the monodromy. As we speculated above, this phenomenon is almost for sure connected to the existence of topologically stable focus-focus singularities (but see ). We list here some known examples:

1. Spherical pendulum (cf. ). The spherical pendulum has a $`𝐒^1`$ group of symmetries (rotations), hence it is an integrable system with two degrees of freedom. It has 2 stationary points: the lowest and highest positions with zero velocity. The lowest position is stable, and indeed it is an elliptic singular point. The highest position is unstable dynamically, and one can see that it is a focus-focus singular point, by just looking at the trajectories having this position as the limit. It follows that we have a stable (in our topological sense) focus-focus singularity with one fixed point.

2. Lagrange top. A detailed analysis of this classical spinning top is given in , together with the nontrivial monodromy. The existence of a focus-focus singularity was also observed by many people (see e.g. ).

3. Champagne bottle (cf. ). The Hamiltonian is $`\frac{1}{2}(p_x^2+p_y^2)(x^2+y^2)+(x^2+y^2)^2`$, i.e. a special case of Garnier systems. Bates showed that there is a focus-focus singularity, and the monodromy is generated by the same matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ as in the previous examples (or $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ if one permutes the basis).

4. Clebsch’s equation (motion of a rigid body in a fluid). The bifurcation diagram of this system was constructed by Pogosyan , from where the existence of a focus-focus singularity is clear.

5. Euler’s equation on $`so(4)`$. The bifurcation diagram of some integrable Euler’s equations in $`so(4)`$ was constructed by Oshemkov (see, e.g., ). These bifurcation diagrams also contain some isolated singular points, i.e. focus-focus points! One can suspect that Euler’s equations in many other Lie (co)algebras will also possess focus-focus singularities.

After this note was written, I found two relevant papers  and . Lerman and Umanskii  also studied the topology of extended neighborhoods of focus-focus singularities, but their description is rather complicated. Zou  already proved Corollary 1, but only for the case $`n=1`$. His proof is based on an interesting observation that in case $`n=1`$, the situation resembles the simplest case of Picard-Lefschetz theory. (In fact, our model in Section 3 is holomorphic so one can apply Picard-Lefschetz theory). In  Zou also mentioned a focus-focus singularity with $`n=2`$ (in a system studied by him and Larry Bates), where his theorem does not apply.

Acknowledgements. This paper is based on a part of my thesis . I would like to thank my supervisor Michèle Audin for her enormous help, and Pierre Molino for pointing out to me the importance of Duistermaat’s work , and the reference . I would like also to thank the referee for his critical remarks.


format: text

text:
# Discovering internal symmetry in cosmology

## 1 Introduction

The mystery of the cosmological constant, or cosmic vacuum, is probably the most pressing obstacle to significant improving both fundamental cosmological theories and the models of elementary particle physics. The problem arises because in the standard framework of low energy physics, there appears to be no natural explanation for vanishing or extreme smallness of the vacuum density. Why is it $`10^{123}M_{Pl}^4`$? There is another aspects of the problem: why is the vacuum density comparable to the present matter density in the universe? In seeking to resolve this problem, one naturally wonders if the real world may somehow be interpreted in terms of symmetry that can relate vacuum to matter.

This must obviously be symmetry of non-geometric nature, like internal symmetry which is widely used in particle physics. Such a symmetry is not related to space-time and refer to a correspondence in the properties of elementary particles and their families. For instance, there is internal symmetry between neutron and proton, which reveals in the fact they behave similarly in strong interactions. These two particles constitute together a family (doublet) of particles, and the family is characterized by a quantum number called isospin, or isotopic spin, which is equal to 1/2, in this case. Isospin is also attributed to other hadrons, and total isospin is conserved when particles undergo strong interaction. Internal symmetries are obviously useful in classifying particles and in leading to some selection rules in particle transformations.

In cosmology, a special correspondence can be recognized, as I will show below, in genuine physical properties of the components of cosmic medium. These components, which are often called now the forms of cosmic energy, are vacuum (V), cold dark (D) matter, baryons (B) and radiation (R), or ultra-relativistic energy, which includes the cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons and other possible light or massless particles (neutrinos, gravitons, etc.) of cosmological origin. This ‘cosmic family’ of energy forms can be characterized by a time-independent number, called the Friedmann number hereafter, which is the same, numerically, for each of the energy forms.

This new phenomenon may indeed be identified as a kind of symmetry, if one uses a universal operational definition of symmetry by Weyl (1951). According to Weyl (1951), symmetry exists, if there is an object which remains unchanged after being affected by different operations. The numerical value of the Friedmann number may be considered as an object of this kind, since it remains unchanged being calculated for each of the energy forms in a unified manner. The evaluations of the characteristic number for different energy forms (at any moment of time) constitute a set of operations that can be performed without changing the object.

This cosmic internal symmetry is associated with a conservation of the Friedmann number, which remains constant during all the time when the cosmic energy forms exist in nature.

Cosmic internal symmetry is not perfect; the Friedmann number is not exactly, but only approximately, on the order of magnitude, the same, for the four energy forms. As Okun (1988) mentions, the concept of symmetry is closely related to the idea of beauty, and the true supreme beauty needs some slight symmetry breaking to acquire a mysterious and attractive quality of non-finito…

The origin and physical nature of cosmic internal symmetry are argued to be due to the interplay between electroweak-scale physics and gravity in the early universe. This enables to found the characteristic number in terms of the Planck energy scale and the electroweak energy scale.

Since cosmic internal symmetry relates vacuum to non-vacuum forms of cosmic energy, it can really provide a framework which suggests a consistent solution to both aspects of cosmic vacuum problen mentioned above.

Historically, internal symmetry between baryons and radiation was first recognized soon after the discovery of the CMB (Chernin 1968).

## 2 Friedmann integrals

There are four major energy forms in modern cosmological models, and cosmic vacuum is one of them. As is well-known, the initial idea of cosmic vacuum – in the form of cosmological constant – was suggested by Einstein in 1917, and after the discovery of the cosmological expansion, he discarded this idea. But actually Einstein believed that the ultimate fate of the cosmological constant could have to be determined by physical experiments and astronomical observations which would directly examine the effects of cosmic vacuum in the real universe. We know now that observational data have recently provided strong evidence in favor of cosmological constant. The crucial argument has come from the observations of high-redshift supernovae (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999), and this has been also supported by considerations concerning the cosmic age, the large-scale structure, the CMB anisotropy in combination with cluster dynamics, the dynamics of the Hubble local flow, etc. (see Cohn 1998, Carol 2000, Bahcall et al. 2000, Sahni & Starobinsky 2000, Chernin 2001 and references therein).

The density of cosmic vacuum has proven to be larger than the total density of all non-vacuum forms of cosmic energy, which are dark matter, baryons, and radiation. The best fit concordant with the bulk of all observational evidence today (see the references above) is provided by the following figures for the densities of the forms of energy measured in the units of the critical density:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0.7\pm 0.1,\mathrm{\Omega }_D=0.3\pm 0.1,\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.02\pm 0.01,\mathrm{\Omega }_R=0.6\alpha \times 10^4,$$
(1)
where $`1<\alpha <1030`$ is a dimensionless constant factor that accounts for non-CMB contributions to the relativistic energy. With the Hubble constant $`h_{100}=0.65\pm 0.10`$, the figures lead to either an open cosmological model or a spatially flat model.

Note that the accuracy in these figures seems to be somewhat overestimated here; perhaps a more reasonable estimate for the observation error may be $`\pm 0.2`$ (if not $`\pm 0.3`$), rather than the formal figure $`\pm 0.1`$. Anyway this is not essential for my discussion now: the cosmic phenomenon I study is measured at the level of orders of magnitude, not tens percent, so my considerations are not affected by these details.

Let us turn now to the Friedmann general solution written for the four cosmic energies of Eq.1:

$$𝑑a(A_V^2a^2+2A_Da^1+2A_Ba^1+A_R^2a^2K)^{1/2}=t,$$
(2)
were $`a(t)`$ is the curvature radius and/or a scale factor of the model, $`K=1,0,1`$, accordingly to the sign of the spatial curvature.

Quantities $`A_D,A_B,A_R`$ are constants that come as integrals from the Friedmann ‘thermodynamic’ equation which is equivalent to energy and entropy conservation relation of dark matter, baryons, and radiation, respectively, in a co-moving volume:

$$A=[(\frac{1+3w}{2})^2\kappa \rho a^{3(1+w)}]^{\frac{1}{1+3w}}.$$
(3)
Here $`w=p/\rho `$ is the constant pressure-to-density ratio for a given energy form; $`w=0,0,1/3`$ for dark matter, baryons and radiation, respectively; $`\kappa =8\pi G/3=(8\pi /3)M_{Pl}^2`$; the Planck energy $`M_{Pl}=1,2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV.

It is interesting that the integral for vacuum, $`A_V`$ in Eq.(1), is also given by the same general relation of Eq.(3), if one puts there $`w=1`$, though the interpretation in terms of particles does not obviously work for vacuum. It indicates that the physical sense of all the four constants cannot be simply reduced to the energy and entropy conservation or number-of-particle conservation, generally. In any case, the existence of the integrals means that there is no energy exchange among all the four forms of cosmic energy.

The integral for pressure-free matter appeared in the Friedmann cosmology papers and was denoted as $`A`$ (see Eq.(8) of his 1922 paper). The integrals of Eq.(3) will be below referred to as the Friedmann integrals.

The Friedmann integrals $`A_V,A_D,A_B,A_R`$ given by Eq.(3) are genuine constant characteristics for the respective forms of energy during all the time when each of the energies exists. Each of the energies is represented in Eq.(2) by its corresponding integral independently from other components. Being constants of integration, the integrals are completely arbitrary, in the sense that the Friedmann equations provide no limitations on them, except for trivial ones. From the view point of physics, the integrals are determined by ‘initial conditions’ at the epoch of the origin of the forms of energy in the early Universe; at that time, each of the energies acquires its own integral as a natural quantitative characteristic, which is then kept constant in time. At each moment of time, the Friedmann integrals can be estimated numerically for the corresponding values of the energy densities and the function $`a(t)`$. Empirically, the integrals are evaluated for the present-day figures of these values.

## 3 Symmetry

For the present vacuum domination epoch, one has from Eq.2 a well-known particular solution that describes the expansion controlled by vacuum only:

$$a(t)=A_Vf(t),f(t)=\mathrm{sinh}(t/A_V),\mathrm{exp}(t/A_V),\mathrm{cosh}(t/A_V),$$
(4)
for open, spatially flat and close models, respectively. The present-day ($`t=t_015\pm 2`$ Gyr) value of $`a(t)`$ estimated with the use of this solution and the observed Hubble constant is approximately $`a(t_0)A_V`$, for all the three models.

Now the numerical evaluation of the four Friedmann integrals can easily be made with the figures of Eq.(1) and with $`aA_V`$:

$$A_V=(\kappa \rho _A)^{1/2}10^{42}GeV^110^{61}M_{Pl}^1,$$
(5)
$$A_D=\frac{1}{4}\kappa \rho _Da^310^{41}GeV^110^{60}M_{Pl}^1,$$
(6)
$$A_B=\frac{1}{4}\kappa \rho _Ba^310^{40}GeV^110^{59}M_{Pl}^1,$$
(7)
$$A_R=(\kappa \rho _R)^{1/2}a^210^{40}GeV^110^{59}M_{Pl}^1.$$
(8)
The integrals (that have the dimension of the length) are evaluated for the open model with $`a(t_0)A_V`$. It is easy to see that the evaluation for the flat (with the scale factor normalized as in Eq.(4)) and close models gives rise to similar results, on the order of magnitude. In the estimation of $`A_R`$, a conservative value $`\alpha =10`$ is adopted.

As one sees from the set of the relations above, the numerical values of the four integrals have proven to be close to each other within two orders of magnitude, and this result may be summarized in a compact formula (Chernin 2001b):

$$A_VA_DA_BA_R10^{60\pm 1}M_{Pl}^1.$$
(9)
If this is not a numerical accident, the coincidence of the four Friedmann integrals presents a new epoch-independent phenomenon in cosmology.

The four Friedmann integrals exist in the Universe since the epoch at which the four major forms of energy came to existence themselves, e.g. at least after $`t1`$ sec, and will exist until the decay of the protons at $`t10^{3132}`$ yrs or/and the decay of the particles of dark matter. In the beginning of this time interval, the vacuum density is about forty orders of magnitude less than the density of R-energy that dominates at that epoch; but the constants $`A_A`$ and $`A_R`$ are as close at $`t1`$ sec as they are in Eq.(9). In future, the scale factor will change in orders of orders (!) of magnitude during the life-time of the proton, and so the densities of D-, B-, and R-energies, as well as the ratios of these densities to the vacuum density, will change enormously. But the four constant numbers of Eq.(9) will remain the same keeping their near-coincidence for all this future time.

In terms of the Friedmann integrals, none of the energy forms, vacuum including, looks preferable. While they are very different in their observational appearance and time behaviour, all of them are characterized by the same (approximately) genuine constant quantity $`AA_VA_DA_BA_R`$, which will be called the Friedmann number. The equality of the energy forms, in terms of the Friedmann integrals, indicates the existence of a special kind symmetry that relates vacuum to non-vacuum forms of cosmic energy.

It is clear that such a symmetry does not concern space-time, in contrast to, say, isotropy of the 3D space of the Friedmann model or 4D space-time of the de Sitter model. In this sense, this non-geometric symmetry is similar to internal symmetries in particle physics, for instance to symmetry between neutron and proton (mentioned in Sec.1).

This cosmic internal symmetry can also be described in a more formal way. Indeed, the Friedmann number is a mathematical object that appears the same (approximately) being evaluated for each of the four energies. In this formulation, new symmetry satisfies the general operational definition of symmetry by Weyl (1951); the evaluations of the number for each of the energy forms constitute a set of operations that can be performed without changing the object.

This symmetry is not perfect, and its accuracy is within a few percent, on logarithmic scale, according to Eqs.(5-9).

Cosmic internal symmetry is associated with a conservation law, since the Friedmann number is an epoch-independent constant.

To conclude this empirical part of my discussion, let me note that, historically, internal symmetry between two forms of cosmic energy, namely baryons and radiation, was first recognized (Chernin 1968) soon after the discovery of the CMB. The significance of this (even partial) symmetry is obvious from the fact that the relation $`A_BA_R10^{59}M_{Pl}^1`$ enables alone to quantify such things as the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry of the Universe, the entropy per baryon, the light-element production in the nucleosynthesis, the epoch of hydrogen recombination, the present-day temperature of CMB, etc.

## 4 Vacuum energy scale

In any fundamental unified theory, the physical nature of cosmic internal symmetry would have to be explained, and the value of the Friedmann number would have to be calculable. This seems to be a rather remote goal. Nevertheless, one may try to identify a clue physical factor that might determine both symmetry and numerical value of the number.

Let me start this theory part of the discussion with some remarks on the physical nature of cosmic vacuum. If one assume that the vacuum energy is completely due to zero oscillations of quantum fields (as it was suggested not once since the 1930-s – see, for instance, a review in Dolgov et al. 1988), the vacuum density is given by an integral over all frequencies of the zero oscillations. As is clear, this would give infinite value for the density. One may cut off the range of the frequencies, introducing a maximal frequency $`\omega _V`$; then the integral takes a form: $`\rho _V\omega _V^4`$ (as it can be seen, for instance, from dimension considerations). With the observed vacuum density, one finds that the cut-off frequency $`\omega _V10^{31}M_{Pl}`$.

Then one may try to put this maximal frequency into the cosmological context and compare it with the rate of cosmological expansion in the early Universe $`1/t(G\rho )^{1/2}`$; here $`\rho \rho _RT^4`$, and $`T`$ is the temperature of radiation which dominates at that times. From this, one finds that $`\omega _V1/t`$ at the epoch, when $`T10^{16}M_{Pl}1`$ TeV. The latter value is close to the electroweak energy scale $`M_{EW}`$, and therefore $`\omega _VM_{EW}^2/M_{Pl}`$.

Accordingly, the vacuum energy scale $`M_V`$ may be introduced:

$$M_V\omega _VGM_{EW}^2/l_{Pl}(M_{EW}/M_{Pl})^2M_{Pl}10^{31}M_{Pl}.$$
(10)
The vacuum energy scale $`M_V`$ is much less than the characteristic energy scales in particle physics; it means that very-low-energy physics is responsible for the nature and structure of cosmic vacuum. According to Eq.(10), this very-low-energy physics is associated with electroweak scale physics and gravity. As is seen from Eq.(10), the energy scale $`M_V`$ is the gravitational potential energy (in absolute value) of two masses $`M_{EW}`$ each separated by the distance of the Planck length: $`M_VGM_{EW}^2/l_{Pl}`$.

With the vacuum energy scale, the vacuum density is

$$\rho _VM_V^4(M_{EW}/M_{Pl})^8M_{Pl}^4.$$
(11)
Note that the energy scale of Eq.(10) was mentioned by Antoniadis et al. (1998); the relation of Eq.(11) was found also in a field-theoretic model (Arkani-Hamed et al. 2000) – unfortunately, under some arbitrary and rather strong additional assumptions.

## 5 Interplay between gravity and electroweak scale physics

The considerations above suggest that the electroweak scale physics and also gravity might determined observed density of cosmic vacuum. This ‘electoweak-gravity’ physics may also be the major mediator between vacuum and non-vacuum forms of cosmic energies in the processes that might develop in the early Universe at the epoch of TeV temperatures. If so, the same processes might be behind cosmic internal symmetry.

In a search for theory equations that could connect the Friedmann integrals with each other, let me use a standard freeze-out model to show how – in principle – the interplay between gravity and electroweak scale physics might develop in early universe. In the model, non-relativistic dark matter is considered as thermal relic of early cosmic evolution (see, for instance, the books by Zeldovich and Novikov 1983, Dolgov et al. 1988, Kolb and Turner 1990, and especially a recent work by Arkani-Hamed et al. 2000). In the version discussed below, the model is incomplete: baryonic energy is not included in it, and so baryogenesis at TeV temperatures has to be studied separately (but, perhaps, not independently) of the model. As for vacuum, dark matter and radiation, they will be represented in the model by the corresponding Friedmann integrals $`A_V,A_D,A_R`$.

According to the model, for stable (or long-living) particles of the mass $`m`$, the abundance freezes out when the temperature falls to the mass $`m`$ and the expansion rate $`1/t`$ starts to win over the annihilation rate, $`\sigma n`$, where the annihilation cross-section $`\sigma m^2`$. So that at that moment the particle density is

$$n1/(\sigma t)m^2(G\rho _R).$$
(12)
Using Eq.(3) for $`A_D`$ and $`A_R`$ and putting $`\rho _Dmn`$, one finds:

$$A_Da(t)m^3M_{Pl}^2A_R.$$
(13)
One also has at that moment $`\rho _Rm^4`$, and because of this

$$A_Ra(t)^2m^2M_{Pl}^1,$$
(14)
where $`a(t)A_V(1+z)^1`$, and $`z`$ is the redshift at the freeze-out epoch; in this way, the vacuum integral comes to the model.

One may specify the underlying fundamental physics, referring to a special significance of the electroweak scale physics, as it was mentioned above, and assume that only two fundamental energy scales are involved in the process, namely $`M_{EW}`$ and $`M_{Pl}`$. If so, it is natural to identify the mass $`m`$ with the electroweak energy scale $`M_{EW}`$.

The further treatment of the model can be carried out in two different ways.

1. One may use the relation for the vacuum density in terms of the two fundamental energy scales, $`M_{EW}`$ and $`M_{Pl}`$, as given by Eq.(11). With this density, the vacuum integral is

$$A_V(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^4M_{Pl}^1.$$
(15)
Arguing along this line, one may expect that the redshift $`z`$ at the freeze-out epoch may be given by a simple combination of the same two mass scales:

$$zM_{Pl}/M_{EW}.$$
(16)
Now the model is described by a system of four algebraic Eqs.(13-16) (with $`m=M_{EW}`$) for the four numbers $`A_D,A_R,A_V,z`$. The solution of the system is:

$$A_MA_RA_V(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^4M_{Pl}^1.$$
(17)
Thus, in this treatment of the model (Chernin 2001a,c), the coincidence of the three Friedmann integrals appears as a direct result of the freeze-out process mediated by the electroweak scale physics. This physics determines also the numerical value of the integrals.

2. Treating the same model in another way, one may not use the relation for vacuum density given by Eq.(11), but instead take into account the empirical equality of Eq.(9). Then, turning to Eqs.(13,14), one can put there $`A_VA_DA_RA`$, where, as above, $`m`$ is identified with $`M_{EW}`$. Now one has the following solution to the equations of the model:

$$zM_{Pl}/M_{EW},$$
(18)
$$A(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^4M_{Pl}^1,$$
(19)
Thus, the model in its second version gives the value of the Friedmann integral $`A`$ and the corresponding redshift in terms of two fundamental energy scales. In this case, the expression of Eq.(11) for the vacuum density follows directly as a result of the model.

Following Arkani-Hamed et al. (2000) and another recent work by Kawasaki et al. (2000), one may introduce the ‘gravitational scale’ $`M_G`$, or the ‘reduced’ Planck scale $`m_{Pl}`$, instead of the standard Planck scale: $`M_Gm_{Pl}gM_{Pl}`$, where $`g0.10.3`$. The dimensionless factor $`g`$ accounts for the fact that the gravity constant $`G`$ enters the exact relations in combinations like $`8\pi G,6\pi G`$, or $`32\pi G/3`$. Similarly, a few dimensionless factors, like the effective number of degrees of freedom, etc., may also be included in the model – see again the books mentioned above. With this minor modification, one gets finally:

$$Ag^4(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^4M_{Pl}^110^{61\pm 1}M_{Pl}^1,w=[1,0,1/3].$$
(20)
A quantitative agreement with the empirical result of Eq.(9) looks satisfactory here.

Similarly, the vacuum density is $`\rho _Ag^8(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^8M_{Pl}^410^{122\pm 2}M_{Pl}^4`$.

The numerical value of the redshift $`zgM_{Pl}/M_{EW}10^{15}`$, and so the temperature at the freeze-out is $`T1`$ TeV $`M_{EW}`$, which reflects once again the central role of the electroweak energy scale in the physical processes involved in the interplay between vacuum and the non-vacuum forms of cosmic energy.

To summarize the results of the model in its both versions, the freeze out shows how – at least, in principle – the nature of the symmetry of cosmic energy forms can be treated in terms of fundamental physics. It demonstrate also that the Friedmann number (and therefore the vacuum density) might indeed be calculable in electroweak-gravity physics.

## 6 Cosmic coincidence problem

There are two problems that have been reasonably recognized as the most severe challenge to the current concepts in cosmology and theoretical physics. These are the cosmic coincidence problem and the naturalness problem. Let me show that cosmic internal symmetry provides a framework, within which a consistent solution to both problems can be suggested. The two problems can be treated as two inter-related ‘secondary’ aspects of a more fundamental phenomenon of symmetry.

The cosmic coincidence problem is seen from Eq.(1): the density of cosmic vacuum is near-coincident with the density of dark matter and also with the densities of the two other forms of non-vacuum energy. Why this is so?

Indeed, the four energy forms are very different in their physical structure, appearance and time behaviour; vacuum produces acceleration of the cosmic expansion, while the three other forms produce deceleration; dark matter is non-luminous, while baryons are visible; dark matter and baryons are non-relativistic, while radiation is ultra-relativistic, etc.

One possible approach to the problem would be to assume that the acceleration of the expansion is produced by non-vacuum energy which has negative pressure and negative effective gravitating density (Peebles and Ratra 1988, Frieman and Waga 1998, Caldwwell and Steinhardt 1998, Caldwell et al. 1998, Zlatev et al. 1999, Wang et al. 2000). This energy form, called quintessence, can naturally be realized in some scalar field models in which the field depends on time, and so the density of quintessence is diluted with the expansion. If so, the densities involved in the observed cosmic coincidence are all diluted, which makes them seemingly more similar to each other. Quintessence density might temporarily or even always be comparable to the density of dark matter. Although such an idea may make the closeness of all cosmic densities natural, it does not explain the coincidence that the quintessence field becomes settled with a finite energy density comparable to the matter energy density just now (see, for instance, Arkani-Hamed et al. 2000, Weinberg 2000).

The analysis of Secs. 2,3 has led to the recognition of the tetramerous coincidence of time-independent constant numbers – in contrast to the epoch-dependent (and therefore accidental, in this sense) coincidence of the densities. It is clear from the analysis that the cosmic densities are coincident at the present epoch simply because this is the epoch of the transition from the decelerated matter dominated expansion to the accelerated vacuum domination expansion. Because of cosmic internal (and ‘eternal’) symmetry, the densities must be coincident just now, because $`a(t)A_V`$ at present:

$$\rho _V\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{A_V^2},\rho _D\frac{A_V^3}{a^3}\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{A_V^2},\rho _B\frac{A_V^3}{a^3}\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{A_V^2},\rho _R\frac{A_V^4}{a^4}\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{A_V^2}.$$
(21)
Another question is why do we happen to live at a transition epoch? This is among the matters that may be discussed with antropic principle (see, for instance, Weinberg 1987, 2000).

Are there any other forms of cosmic energy with the equation of state $`p=w\rho `$ in the same family of energies characterized by the known A-number?

If yes, their current densities must be

$$\rho (1+3w)^2(M_{Pl}/A)^2(1+3w)^2\rho _V.$$
(22)
These densities may be both comparable to or very different from the four observed densities. For instance, quintessence, a completely hypothetical form of energy with equation of state $`p=w\rho `$, where $`1<w<1/3`$, would be described by the fifth(!) energy term in the Friedmann formula of Eq.(2) and have a density of the order of the observed vacuum density, if $`w`$ is not too close to -1/3. If $`w`$ is very close to -1/3, the corresponding density will be much larger, on the order of magnitude, than the observed densities.

Another extreme case is $`w\pm \mathrm{}`$. In this case, the corresponding density would be very low. As it was demonstrated (Chernin et al. 2001), General Relativity allows, in principle, ‘density-free’ energy forms with $`w=\pm \mathrm{}`$. These extreme energy forms do not play in cosmology because of the high space-time symmetry of the models, but they can produce a rather ‘ordinary’ non-uniform space-time with spherical symmetry.

Finally, are any other energy families with different Friedmann numbers possible in cosmology? No way to approach this question is yet seen…

## 7 Naturalness problem

The observed density of vacuum conflicts drastically with simple field theoretic expectations. Field theoretic arguments may explain why the vacuum density should be either zero or Planckian, but there is no explanation for a non-zero, tiny and positive vacuum density. This is the well-known ‘naturalness problem in theoretical physics’ (Weinberg 1989, Okun 1988).

In the framework of cosmic internal symmetry, the constant characteristic of physical vacuum $`A_V`$ finds its symmetrical non-vacuum counterparts in the integrals $`A_D,A_B,A_R`$ which are also constants. In this framework, cosmic vacuum looses its uniqueness and appears among other cosmic energy forms as an ordinary, ‘regular’ member of the family of cosmic energies. Therefore the observed value of the vacuum density is seen quite ‘natural’, because it is this value that yields to cosmic internal symmetry.

On the contrary, the Plank density would look quite ‘unnatural’ in this context, since the corresponding integral would be much smaller (in 60 orders of magnitude) than the three other integrals. Similarly, zero density for vacuum would give infinite integral…

If cosmic internal symmetry is really a phenomenon of fundamental level, one may say that the symmetry implies that the observed density of vacuum $`\rho _V\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{A^2}`$.

¿From the theory point of view, the key point is that the characteristic Friedmann number $`A`$ is calculable within a simple model (Sec.5) in terms of the Planck energy and the electroweak energy scale. As it was demonstrated above: $`A(M_{Pl}/M_{EW})^4M_{Pl}^1`$. With this Friedmann number, cosmic internal symmetry sets the vacuum density to its observed value: $`\rho _V10^{120}M_{Pl}^4`$.

Other attempts to solve the naturalness problems are critically reviewed by Sahni & Starobinsky (2000); see also recent works by Weinberg (2000), Guendelmann (1999), Mongan (2001), Kaganovich (2001), Tye et al.(2001).

## 8 Summary

¿From the earliest days of natural philosophy, symmetry has furnished insight into the laws of physics and the nature of the universe. Modern cosmology involves notion of symmetry in a fundamental way. Geometric symmetries of cosmological models is the basic element of current knowledge, and the most important recent discovery in cosmology is related to the symmetry of the 4D space-time of the observed universe: if cosmic vacuum dominates in the dynamics of the cosmological expansion, the 4D geometry is described (approximately) by de Sitter model with its perfect 4D isotropy.

The same observational evidence that has led to the conclusion about geometric symmetry suggests also the existence of non-geometric symmetry in the universe. New symmetry is related to not space-time, but to its energy content. This cosmic internal symmetry reveals a special correspondence in the genuine physical properties of physical vacuum and non-vacuum forms of cosmic energies, which are dark matter, baryons and radiation. The four energies look very different from each other and behave differently in space and time, but all of them are characterized by a common genuine physical quantity, called the Friedmann number. The characteristic Friedmann number is eternal, practically. It conserved in time during all the epoch, in which vacuum, dark matter, baryons and radiation are present in nature.

Examining the physical nature of cosmic internal symmetry leads to the conclusion that symmetry might be due to the interplay between gravity and electoweak scale processes developed in the early universe at TeV temperatures. This way the numerical value of the Friedmann number proves to be calculated in terms of the elecroweak energy scale and the Planck energy.

The concept of cosmic internal symmetry demonstrates its productivity in application to the most challenging problems of cosmology and fundamental theory. The cosmic coincidence problem and the naturalness problem are both understood now in the framework of symmetry which is the more fundamental physical phenomenon. Cosmic internal symmetry implies that the observed densities of cosmic energy forms must be nearly coincident at the present epoch, and the vacuum density must be at its observed level since the early stages of the cosmological expansion and practically forever.

Interesting new grounds for further discussion of cosmic internal symmetry can be provided by recent ideas (see, for instance, Maartens 2000) of brane-world scenaria; this issue will be discussed in a separate paper.

The work was partly supported by the grant of the Academy of Finland ‘Galaxy streams and dark matter structures’.

## References

Antoniadis, I., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G., 1998, Nucl. Phys. B516, 70.

Arkani-Hamed, N., Hall, L.J., Kolda, Ch., H. Murayama, H., 2000. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4434.

Bahcall, N., Ostriker, J., Perlmutter, S., and Steinhard, P., 1999. Science 284, 1481.

Caldwell, R.R., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1998. Phys.Rev. D 57, 6057.

Caldwell, R.R., Davé, R., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1998. Phys.Rev. Lett. 80, 1582.

Carol, S., 2000, astro-ph/0004075.

Chernin, A.D., 1968. Nature (London) 220, 250.

Chernin, A.D., 2001a, Physics-Uspekhi, 71, No.11.

Chernin, A.D., 2001b, astro-ph/0101532.

Chernin, A.D., 2001c, astro-ph/0107071.

Chernin, A.D., Santjago D., Silbergleit A.S., 2001, astro-ph/0106144.

Cohn, J., 1998, astro-ph/9807128.

Dolgov, A.D., Zeldovich, Ya.B., Sazhin, M.V., 1988. Cosmology of the Early Universe. (In Russian; Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow (English Ed. Basics of Modern Cosmology, Editions Frontiers, 1990.

Frieman, J.A., Waga, I., 1998. Phys. Rev. D 57, 4642.

Guendelman, E.I., 1999, IJMP 14, 3497.

Kaganovich, A.B., 2001, Phys.Rev. D63, 025022.

Kawasaki, M., Yamaguchi, M., Yanagida, T., 2000. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3572.

Kolb, E.W., Turner, M.S., 1990. The Early Universe. (Addison-Wesley, Reading).

Maartens, R., 2000, Phys. Rev. D62, 084023.

Mongan, T., 2001, gr-qc/0103012.

Okun L.B., 1988, Physics of Elementary particles, Nauka, Moscow

Peebles, P.J.E., Ratra, B., 1988. Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17.

Perlmutter, S. et al., 1999. Astrophys. J. 517, 565.

Riess, A.G. et al., 1998. Astron. J. 116, 1009.

Sahni, V., Starobinsky, A., 2000, IJMP 9, 373.

Tye, S.-H.H., Wasserman, I., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1682.

Wang, L., Caldwell, R.R., Ostriker, J.P., and Steinhardt, P.J., 2000. Astrophis. J. 530, 17.

Weinberg, S., 1987. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1.

Weinberg, S., 1989. Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1.

Weinberg, S., 2000, astro-ph/0005265.

Weyl, H., 1951, Symmetry, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.

Zeldovich, Ya.B., Novikov, I.D., 1983. The Structure and Evolution of the Universe. (The Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago and London).

Zlatev, I., Wang, L., Steinhard, P.J., 1999. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896.


text:
# XMM-Newton Observation of a Distant X-ray Selected Cluster of Galaxies at z=1.26 with Possible Cluster Interaction

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies can be identified to high redshift and can be used as tracers of the evolution of structure. Since the evolution of structure depends on parameters such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, & $`P(k)`$ in hierarchical cosmologies, the study of the evolution of galaxy clustering provides us with an important constraint on the cosmology (e.g. Press & Schechter 1974; Peebles et al. 1989; Eke et al. 1996). X-ray observations provide a powerful and unique means of selecting the clusters and characterizing their properties, as X-ray flux is proportional to the square of the electron density, and therefore less affected than optical data by the superposed structures. Measurements of the gas temperatures in high redshift clusters of galaxies strongly constrain cosmological models because cluster temperatures are closely related to cluster masses, and the evolution of the cluster mass function with redshift is quite sensitive to cosmological parameters.

X-ray cluster surveys based on ROSAT-PSPC data (e.g. Rosati et al. 1995, 98; Scharf et al. 1997; Burke et al 1997; Vikhlinin et al. 1998) detect sizable samples of distant clusters (z $`>`$ 0.5). Although the number of high-z clusters has significantly increased, intracluster medium (ICM) properties (such as X-ray temperature: Tx) at high redshift are still largely unexplored. This is due to the limited effective area and spatial resolution of the past X-ray missions; only long ASCA/Beppo-SAX observations, with a broad energy response, have allowed studies of the high-z cluster ICM properties. Only a few high-z (z $`>`$ 0.6) clusters have directly measured X-ray temperatures (e.g. Donahue et al. 1999; Della Ceca et al. 2000). Moreover, these high-z samples are inevitably biased toward intrinsically X-ray bright, and thus high temperature clusters, which complicates the investigation of ICM evolution.

Advent of Chandra, with its bigger effective area and higher angular resolution than the past satellites, made us possible to effectively study the ICM properties of high-z clusters. Chandra’s high angular resolution, in particular, greatly helps us to avoid confusion with point sources (e.g. Stanford et al. 2001; Borgani et al. 2001; Jeltema et al. 2001; Cagnoni et al. 2001). Unfortunately, for those with directly measured Tx, the errors on Tx are still relatively large. Moreover, Chandra is not particularly sensitive to low surface brightness emission, which is sometimes unfavorable for the analysis of faint X-ray features often present in high-z clusters.

The XMM-Newton (XMM) pn and MOS CCD cameras have $``$ 10 times larger effective area than ASCA GIS/SIS & Beppo-SAX MECS (in addition to the fact that it has significantly sharper PSF than ASCA & Beppo-Sax). Even compared with Chandra ACIS, the effective area is more than 5 times larger which helps to increase the accuracy of the Tx determination per given exposure time. With its high throughput and moderate (compared with Chandra) angular resolution, XMM is extremely sensitive to low surface brightness X-ray emission. These properties make XMM pn/MOS very suitable instruments to investigate the ICM properties of distant clusters.

In this paper, we report on the XMM observation of one of the most distant X-ray selected clusters (z = 1.26) of galaxies, which also shows an unusual double-lobed X-ray morphology. This cluster, RXJ1053.7+5735, was discovered during our deep ROSAT HRI pointings in the direction of the “Lockman Hole”, a line of sight with exceptionally low HI column density (Hasinger et al. 1998a ). RXJ1053.7+5735 is one of the most distant clusters ever selected by diffuse X-ray emission (for another most distant X-ray selected cluster at z=1.26, RXJ0848.9+4452, see Rosati et al. 1999; Stanford et al. 2001). Together with the fact that its X-ray morphology is clearly double-lobed and highly anisotropic, which may well be a sign of a cluster in the making, the RXJ1053.7+5735 may provide us with unique information to better understand the evolution of clusters and galaxies in the early universe. Throughout the paper, we use $`H_o`$ = 100 $`h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_o`$ = 0.5.

## 2 RXJ1053.7+5735

The X-ray source RXJ1053.7+5735 was discovered during our deep pointings of 1.31 Msec with ROSAT HRI in the direction of the Lockman Hole. Figure 1 shows the HRI contours superposed on the image composed of V, R, & I band exposures, where North is up and East is left. The HRI image revealed a clearly extended X-ray emission with unusual double-lobed X-ray morphology. The angular size of the source is 1.7 $`\times `$ 0.7 arcmin2 and its X-ray flux is 2 $`\times `$ 10-14 erg cm-2 s-1 (Hasinger et al. 1998b ). Our subsequent deep optical/NIR imaging follow-ups (V $`<`$ 26.5, R $`<`$ 25, I $`<`$ 25, K $`<`$ 20.5) with LRIS and NIRC on Keck, and the Calar Alto Omega Prime camera revealed a bright 7 arcsecond-long arc with an integrated magnitude of R=21.4, and an overdensity of galaxies in both X-ray lobes (e.g. Thompson et al. (2001)). Further Keck LRIS/NIRSPEC spectroscopic observations on the bright arc and one of the brightest possible member galaxies confirmed that the bright arc is a lensed galaxy at a redshift z = 2.57 and the galaxy is at a redshift of z = 1.263 (Thompson et al. (2001)). Deep VRIzJHK photometry data also produced concordant photometric redshifts for more than 10 objects at redshift of z $``$ 1.3, confirming that at least the eastern lobe is a massive cluster at high redshift. The improbability of chance alignment and similarity of colors for the galaxies in the two X-ray lobes are consistent with the western lobe also being at z $``$ 1.3 (see Thompson et al. (2001) for further details). The present data are all consistent with the identification of the X-ray source with one or two high redshift cluster(s) of galaxies. The spatial distribution of the X-ray gas and cluster galaxies in this system suggest that it could be a valuable example of a dynamically unsettled high redshift cluster, however, further optical, NIR, & X-ray investigations are planned for a more definitive statement about the dynamical state of this interesting cluster.

## 3 XMM Observations and Data Reduction

The XMM observations of the cluster RXJ1053.7+5735 were performed with the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) during the period April 27- May 19, 2000 as a part of the performance verification (PV) phase Lockman Hole observation centered on the sky position RA 10:52:43, DEC +57:28:48 (J2000), for a total exposure time of $``$ 190 ksec. The cluster center is at an off-axis angle of $``$ 10′ from the pointing center, and this causes a vignetting effect, on the average, of a factor of about two with respect to the pointing center. The EPIC cameras were operated in the standard full-frame mode. The thin filter was used for the pn camera, while the thin and thick filters were used for the two MOS cameras. The pn detector consists of 12 CCDs each 13.6 $`\times `$ 4.4 arcmin, with energy resolutions of 6.7% at 1 keV, while MOS detectors consist of 7 CCDs each 10.9 $`\times `$ 10.9 arcmin with energy resolutions of 5.7% at 1 keV. The sensitive FOV of both detector is about 30′diameter and the energy range is both 0.1 to 15 keV. (For further details of the PV Lockman Hole observation, see Hasinger et al. (2001))

Light curves were visually inspected, and time intervals with high background (0.5-10 keV count rate higher than 8 cts/s for the pn and 3 cts/s for MOS) were excluded. We used both single and double events. The remaining effective exposure times for each of three detectors were approximately 100 ksec. The astrometries calculated from the WCS keywords were offset by 5″-25″ from the known optical counterparts. Thus, a transversal shift and a rotation angle were fit for each dataset, leading to residual systematic position errors of 1″-2″.

Fig. 2 shows the exposure corrected XMM image of RXJ1053.7+5735 in the 0.5-2 keV band, an energy range where the bulk of the redshifted cluster emission falls upon and therefore the contrast against the background is the strongest. The image was created by combining all events from three (pn, MOS1, & MOS2) cameras. The raw data were smoothed with a Gaussian with $`\sigma `$ = 7″. The lowest contour is 2$`\sigma `$ above the background, and the contour interval is 0.5$`\sigma `$. A combined exposure map was calculated for the pn plus MOS cameras.

Fig. 2 clearly shows that the cluster emission is extended and double-lobed, consistent with the ROSAT HRI image, and its shape is indicative of non-regularity of this cluster. Unfortunately, the pointing variation between the different revolutions was not large enough to clearly remove the effect of inter-CCD gaps, which happen to run through the cluster, particularly around the eastern lobe, and this somewhat distorted the level and shape of the eastern-lobe contours.

## 4 Spectral Analysis

The spectra were extracted from an elliptical region centered at the cluster image with a semi-major/minor axis 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$9 & 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$6, respectively (corresponding to 0.23 & 0.16 Mpc/h at z= 1.263). The backgrounds were estimated from a region of the detector at the same off-axis angle surrounding the cluster, after removing point sources. We obtain 791$`\pm `$37 and 519$`\pm `$30 net counts (in the 0.2-10.0 keV band) for pn and MOS(1+2), respectively. We regrouped the counts in order to have a S/N $``$ 3 in each bin after the background subtraction. We fitted the spectra with a thermal plasma emission model from Raymond & Smith(1977) using the XSPEC 11.0 with respective response matrices (Haberl 2001). For the MOS cameras, two filters were used alternately, thus we summed all the MOS spectra according to the used filter and fit two sets of spectra jointly. We fixed a characteristic column density of neutral hydrogen $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ at a value of 5.6 $`\times `$ 1019 cm-2 and redshift at z = 1.263. For the case of a joint fit, each spectrum was fitted with its own normalization, but with common temperature (and metallicity, if applicable).

In Fig 3, and Table 1, the results of the best-fits are shown. Fig. 4 shows the two-parameter $`\chi ^2`$ contours for the cluster metallicity and Tx. The best fit temperature based on a simultaneous fit of all (pn+MOS) spectra is 4.9 $`{}_{0.9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.5}`$ keV. All temperature uncertainties quoted are at the 90% confidence levels for a one-dimensional fit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$=2.71). No prominent iron K$`\alpha `$ complex is visible at $``$ 3 keV (redshifted 6.7 keV). At kT$``$ 5 keV, and the cluster redshift, only the K$`\alpha `$ is strong enough to constrain the abundance with our spectrum. As a result, metallicity is poorly constrained even using the joint fit of all spectra, with an upper limit on the single iron abundance of 0.62 solar (with 68% confidence). Despite the fact that the cluster was observed at fairly large off-axis angle, the temperature errors are much smaller compared with those of typical measurements based on ASCA or Beppo-Sax observations of high-z (z $`>`$ 0.6) clusters (Fig. 5a), and the errors are comparable with typically “on-axis” Chandra observations of z $``$ 0.8 clusters (Fig. 5b), demonstrating the power of XMM for determining the X-ray temperature for high-z clusters. Moreover, the measured temperature and luminosity show that one can easily reach the intrinsically X-ray faint and cool cluster regime comparable with those of z $``$ 0.4 clusters observed by past satellites, which enables the investigation of the evolution of various cluster X-ray properties without additional evolutionary assumptions. Vignetting correction is estimated by using the average vignetting model between 0.5-7 keV, also averaged over the spectral extraction region. Using the best fit model parameters, we derived an unabsorbed (0.2-10) keV flux of $`f_{0.210}`$ = 3.0 $`\times `$ 10-14 erg cm -2 s-1, corresponding to a luminosity in the cluster rest frame of $`L_{0.210}`$ = 3.1$`\times `$ 1044 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$erg s-1 and a bolometric luminosity of $`L_{bol}`$ = 3.4 $`\times `$ 1044 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$erg s-1. Due to the still preliminary status of the current EPIC calibration, and some simplification about the vignetting correction, we estimate systematic flux errors on the order of 10%.

Temperature and luminosity are also estimated for each (eastern and western) lobe of RXJ1053.7+5735, using a circular (radius = 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$47) extracting region centered at each lobe. Our fitting for each lobe using all data (pn+MOS) shows that Tx is 3.7 $`{}_{1.0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.2}`$ keV and 6.2 $`{}_{1.8}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+4.2}`$ keV, while Lbol is 1.5 $`\times `$ 1044 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$erg s-1 and 1.9 $`\times `$ 1044 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$erg s-1, for eastern and western lobes, respectively (Table 2). For any other regions, such as the bridge between the two lobes, the counts are less than 10% of total cluster counts and not sufficient for any reasonable Tx investigations.

## 5 Lx-Tx relation

Clusters exhibit a correlation between their X-ray luminosity (Lx) and temperature (Tx). This correlation is often used to compare gas and dark matter contents in clusters, as Lx is connected with the gas while Tx is related to the total gravitating mass of the cluster. The cluster Lx-Tx relationship therefore, can be used to examine the evolution of clusters and should be able to tell the range of redshifts where the cluster formation has taken place (e.g. Scharf & Mushotzky 1997).

At low redshift (z $`<`$ 0.1), the Lx-Tx relation is well measured (e.g. Mushotzky 1984; Edge & Stewart 1991; David et al. 1993) and expressed via power law: Lx $``$ Txα, with $`\alpha `$ 2.6-2.9 (Markevitch (1998); Allen & Fabian 1998; Jones & Forman 1999; Arnaud & Evrard 1999).

At higher redshifts, however, no significant difference from the low redshift relations are reported, despite the fact that a relatively large evolution of the Lx-Tx relation is required in order to account, within the frame work of the critical universe, for the weak evolution observed in the cluster X-ray luminosity function (XLF) out to z $``$ 0.8 (Rosati et al. 1998). Mushotzky & Scharf (1997) (see also Henry 2000), by comparing the clusters at z $`<`$ 0.1 with those at z $`>`$ 0.1, found no convincing evidence for a significant evolution of Lx-Tx relationship out to z $``$0.4-0.5, which is consistent with recent result of Wu et al. (1999) where they used the largest sample of clusters to date from the literature, and estimated $`\alpha `$ 2.7. For even higher redshifts, Donahue et al. (1999), using a complete sample of (five) high redshift (z $`>`$ 0.5) EMSS clusters, have detected no significant evolution up to z $``$ 0.8 (see also Della Ceca et al. 2000; Borgani et al. 2001).

In Fig. 6, we compare our newly measured X-ray properties for RXJ1053.7+5735 with other clusters at various redshifts from the literature (Markevitch (1998); Mushotzky & Scharf 1997; Donahue et al. 1999; Della Ceca et al. 2000; Borgani et al. 2001). The square denotes the new Lbol and Tx for RXJ1053.7+5735. The error on the temperature represents the one dimensional 90% confidence range. The error bar on the RXJ1053.7+5735 luminosity is 10%. The eastern and western lobes of RXJ1053.7+5735 (denoted as “East” and “West”) are also separately shown. The solid line is the Lbol-Tx relation of Lbol = 10$`{}_{}{}^{0.92}T_{}^{2.72}`$ from Wu et al. (1999) together with $`\pm `$ 2$`\sigma `$ lines (dotted lines). The dashed line represents the evolving Lbol-Tx relation in the form of Lbol $``$ (1+z)2 at z = 1.263, which would be required to make the observed weak-evolving XLF to be consistent with a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 1 universe (Borgani et al. (1999)). The circles, triangle, & stars denote low redshift (z $``$ 0.1), intermediate redshift (0.3 $`<`$ z $``$ 0.5), and high redshift (z $`>`$ 0.5) clusters, respectively. Total cluster luminosity may be somewhat underestimated because of the fundamental difficulty in measuring the luminosity of an extended source using a finite-sized extraction region. However, the treatments (if any) against the missing flux outside the extraction region often require difficult extrapolation and are not uniform for the low-z cluster samples, or other high-z samples in the literature. We therefore chose not to include the correction associated with the missing flux. Nevertheless, we crudely estimate the effect in our cluster using a profile from Neumann & Arnaud (1999). We find that the uncertainty in Lx is on the order of 10%, which is similar with the size of error bar shown in Fig. 6. The new cluster temperature and Lbol we have measured for RXJ1053.7+5735 is in agreement with other high-z Lx-Tx analyses (e.g. Donahue et al 1999; Della Ceca et al. 2000; Borgani et al. 2001).

## 6 Discussion

The dynamical state of high-z clusters provides us with valuable and direct information on the formation and evolution of clusters. In hierarchical models, structures form from the bottom-up and thus, for many clusters, “formation” means an ongoing sequence of mergers and interactions with other clusters and groups. X-ray signatures of cluster interaction include surface brightness anomalies (e.g. non-symmetric, non-isotropic X-ray isophotes; substructures; elongate X-ray core; an X-ray peak offset from the peak of the galaxy distribution), and non-isothermal & asymmetric temperature distributions. Evidence for such cluster substructures and merger events in the local universe have been obtained with ROSAT and ASCA satellite (see Buote 2001 for a review). For higher redshifts (z $`>`$ 0.5), the majority of clusters show clearly distorted X-ray morphology (e.g. Neumann & Böhringer 1997; Gioia et al. 1999; Della Ceca et al. 2000; Neumann & Arnaud 2000; Stanford et al. 2001; Jeltema et al. 2001), suggesting that they are in an unrelaxed state.

The fact that the X-ray morphology of RXJ1053.7+5735 is double-lobed suggests that we may be seeing a merger event at z $``$ 1.3, although our optical/NIR data are currently insufficient for a definitive statement about the dynamical state of this cluster. As for the Tx distribution, Fig.7 shows the contour plot of an image in the 1-2 keV band overlaid on the gray-scale image in the 0.5-1 keV band. The figure shows some hint of a difference in the spatial distribution of the 1-2 keV image contour with respect to the 0.5-1 keV map, which may be interpreted as a Tx variation. The western lobe also shows a hint of higher Tx, however, it is statistically inconclusive (Table 2). Future XMM (or Chandra) data of this cluster are needed, as well as more optical/NIR data, to improve our knowledge of the dynamical state of this cluster.

The new cluster temperature and Lx we have measured for RXJ1053.7+5735 is consistent with a weak/no evolution of the Lx-Tx relation out to z $``$ 1.3, whereas a strong evolution of the Lx-Tx relation is required to make the observed weak-evolving XLF to be consistent with a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 1 universe. Thus, our results could be interpreted as a support for a low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ universe, although more data-points of z $`>`$ 1 clusters are needed for a more definitive statement. The caution has to be also exercised in interpreting the result, because of the uncertainty associated with the dynamical state of the cluster. In fact, our results may emphasize the fundamental difficulty in constraining the cosmology from the evolution of the XLF and the Lx-Tx relation, since the baseline of the comparison, the local Lx-Tx relation and the theoretical M-T relationships, are essentially valid for dynamically relaxed clusters (see also Ricker & Sarazin 2001). If the majority of high-z clusters are in the unrelaxed state, the impact of dynamically unrelaxed cluster states has to be carefully assessed. In particular, during mergers, clusters are expected to follow a complex track in the Lx-Tx plane as shown in the numerical simulations (Ricker & Sarazin 2001), and therefore, the relatively low luminosity of RXJ1053.7+5735 in view of its temperature may be interpreted as further evidence for the unrelaxed state of the cluster.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Pat Henry for a careful reading of the paper and useful comments. We also thank S. Majerowicz for his help in analyzing the MOS spectra. We acknowledge referee’s comments which improved the manuscript. Part of the work was supported by the German Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt DLR project numbers 50 OX 9801 and 50 OR 9908.