text:
# What we can learn on inflation from recent CMBR data

## 1 Introduction

Inflation is a period of exponential expansion of the scale factor of our universe, supposed to have taken place before the standard hot Big Bang cosmology. It is necessary to explain the homogeneity, isotropy and flatness of the present universe and also the absence of unwanted relics, some of the questions not solved by the standard picture .

### 1.1 Generic predictions

The inflationary paradigm, independently of the specific model, makes very powerful predictions :

* the universe is flat with very high precision, i.e. the total energy density is equal to the critical one, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$; in fact during slow roll inflation, when the scale factor $`a(t)e^{Ht}`$, with practically constant Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{a}/a`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}(t_{end})}=1\left(1\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}(t_{in})}\right)e^{2N},$$
(1)
so that the total energy density tends exponentially towards the critical density for large e-folding number

$$N=_{t_{in}}^{t_{end}}H𝑑t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60};$$
(2)
* in the simple single field case, the primordial perturbations are gaussian and adiabatic; the gaussianity is related to the fact that the perturbations are originated by the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton, and it is the reason why all the information on the perturbations is encoded in their power spectrum;
* the spectrum of the perturbations is nearly scale invariant due to the slow rolling of the inflaton field, and the deviation from scale invariance are a characteristic of the model, as we will see.

### 1.2 Model–dependent predictions

In the simplest implementation, a model of inflation consists in a scalar potential $`V(\varphi )`$ for the inflaton field $`\varphi `$ satisfying slow roll conditions :

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_P^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^21`$ (3)
$`|\eta |`$ $`=`$ $`M_P^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right|1`$ (4)
where $`M_P=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck mass and the prime denotes derivative with respect to the field $`\varphi `$.

The quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field on the classical background generate a primordial gaussian perturbation of the curvature tensor, which can be the origin of the large scale structure in the Universe. The point of contact between observation and models of inflation is the Fourier transform of the perturbation in comoving momentum space, or more precisely its power spectrum $`𝒫_{}(k)`$, which, in the slow roll approximation $`3H\dot{\varphi }V^{}`$, is given in terms of the inflaton potential $`V(\varphi )`$ by

$$𝒫_{}(k)=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2M_P^6}\frac{V^3}{V^2}|_{k=aH},$$
(5)
where the potential and its derivatives are evaluated at the epoch of horizon exit $`k=aH`$. To work out the value of $`\varphi `$ at this epoch one uses the relation

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{e}nd}}{k}\right)N(k)=M_P^2_{\varphi _{\mathrm{e}nd}}^\varphi \frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\varphi ,$$
(6)
where $`N(k)`$ is the actual number of $`e`$-folds from horizon exit of the scale $`k`$ to the end of slow-roll inflation. The e-folding number at the scale explored by the COBE DMR experiment  measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) anisotropy, $`N(k_{cobe})`$, depends on the expansion of the Universe after inflation in the manner specified by:

$$N(k_{cobe})60\mathrm{ln}(10^{16}\text{GeV}/V^{1/4})\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}(V^{1/4}/T_{reh}).$$
(7)
In this expression, $`T_{reh}`$ is the reheat temperature, and instant reheating is assumed.

Given the above relations, the observed large-scale normalization measured by COBE DMR

$$\frac{2}{5}𝒫_{}^{1/2}=\delta _H(k_{cobe})=2.1\times 10^5$$
(8)
provides a strong constraint on models of inflation.

Another important information is contained in the scale-dependence of the spectrum, defined by the, in general, scale-dependent spectral index $`n`$;

$$n(k)1\frac{d\mathrm{ln}𝒫_{}(k)}{d\mathrm{ln}k}.$$
(9)
From observations, we know that $`n`$ is very near to one. According to most inflationary models, $`n`$ has very small variation on cosmological scales, since

$$\frac{dn(k)}{d\mathrm{ln}k}(n(k)1)^21;$$
(10)
then we can write the power-law formula $`𝒫_{}(k)k^{n1}`$, which reduces to the scale-invariant Harrison-Zeldovich form for $`n=1`$. But in general the dependence on the scale can be much stronger.

From (5) and (6),

$`n1`$ $`=`$ $`2M_P^2(V^{\prime \prime }/V)3M_P^2(V^{}/V)^2,`$ (11)
and in all models where inflation takes place near a (local) maximum or minimum of the potential, (11) is well approximated by

$$n1=2M_P^2(V^{\prime \prime }/V).$$
(12)
We see that the spectral index measures the shape of the inflaton potential $`V(\varphi )`$, being independent of its overall normalization. For this reason, it is a powerful discriminator between models of inflation.

Analogously to the scalar perturbations, also tensor perturbations are generated by the quantum oscillations of the inflaton field. For those, the power spectrum is given by

$$𝒫_{grav}(k)=\frac{V}{6\pi ^2M_P^4}|_{k=aH}$$
(13)
and the spectral index is

$$n_{grav}(k)=\frac{d\mathrm{log}(𝒫_{grav})}{d\mathrm{log}(k)}|_{k=aH}=2ϵ.$$
(14)
Note that the power spectrum of tensor perturbations is much smaller than the scalar one, since we have

$$\frac{𝒫_{grav}(k)}{𝒫_{}(k)}=ϵ1;$$
(15)
this gives for the CMBR anisotropy the tensor to scalar ratio at low $`\mathrm{}`$

$$r\frac{C_{\mathrm{}}^{grav}}{C_{\mathrm{}}^{}}12.4ϵ.$$
(16)
The tensorial contribution to the CMBR anisotropy, present at large scales, is for this reason subdominant or even completely negligible for models with very small $`ϵ`$, as those we will consider.

Tensor perturbations can be detected independently from the scalar one through the polarization of the CMBR  or through gravitational waves (but their level are unfortunately well below the present and future experimental sensitivities of gravitational waves detectors ).

We will describe in the next section as examples a couple of models of inflation and then review the present constraints.

## 2 Models of inflation, some examples

Let us now describe in particular hybrid inflation . It is a two-field model, where one of the fields is the inflaton and the second, the hybrid field, is responsible of a phase transition at the end of inflation, but is static during inflation.

The scalar potential for this kind of model looks like

$$V(\varphi ,\sigma )=\kappa (\sigma ^2v^2)^2+\kappa ^{}\varphi ^2\sigma ^2+V_\varphi (\varphi );$$
(17)
during inflation $`\varphi ^2\frac{2\kappa }{\kappa ^{}}v^2`$ and the hybrid field is stabilized at the origin, so that the potential driving inflation, is

$$V(\varphi ,0)=V_0+V_\varphi (\varphi ),$$
(18)
with $`V_0=\kappa v^4`$; this expression has to be considered to compute the power spectrum and spectral index, as described in the previous section. Different hybrid inflationary models arise depending on the choice of $`V_\varphi (\varphi )`$. The typical shape of the hybrid inflationary potential is shown in Fig. 1, while some prediction for the spectral index on different models are shown in Table 1.

We will describe in the following a couple of examples of hybrid inflation constructed within local supersymmetric theories. While supersymmetry is a vital ingredient at low energy for solving the hierarchy problem and stabilizing scalar masses, it could seem unnecessary to invoke it during inflation, especially since such symmetry is explicitely broken by the large effective cosmological constant responsible of the inflationary phase. It turns out anyway that supersymmetry brings many advantages also to inflationary model building, not only stabilizing the inflaton potential and its small parameters, but also providing many scalars as inflaton candidates, in particular the flat directions of the scalar potential. Moreover, if we assume low energy supersymmetry, as required by the hierarchy problem, it should certainly not be neglected at the large scale when inflation takes place.

However, we must not forget the fact that the inflationary vacuum energy breaks strongly supersymmetry and that supergravity corrections can play an important role .

### 2.1 Linear term hybrid inflation in supergravity

We will consider a model of inflation with superpotential

$$W=\lambda T\left(M_G^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+M_S^2(\beta +S),$$
(19)
where $`T,S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are chiral superfields. The second part of the superpotential is the Polonyi potential  and allows for supersymmetry breaking in the true vacuum with vanishing cosmological constant for $`\beta (2\sqrt{3})M_P`$. $`M_S`$ is then the supersymmetry breaking scale, yielding the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}M_S^2/M_P`$.

For global supersymmetry the scalar potential reads

$$V=\lambda ^2|M_G^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2|^2+4\lambda ^2|T|^2|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2+M_S^4,$$
(20)
and it is of the hybrid inflationary type, even if perfectly flat along the $`T`$ and $`S`$ directions. A small curvature needed for the ‘slow roll’ along the $`T`$ direction is generated by many contributions, e.g. quantum corrections due to the loops of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ particles , and also supergravity corrections.

For large $`T`$ and zero $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the dominant corrections to the potential give

$$V(\varphi )=\lambda ^2M_G^4\left[12\sqrt{2}\xi \frac{\beta \varphi }{M_P^2}+\frac{\varphi ^4}{4M_P^4}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{2\lambda ^2\varphi ^2}{\mu ^2}\right)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(21)
where $`\xi =M_S^2/(\lambda M_G^2)1`$, the first two terms come from supergravity corrections, and the last from one loop radiative corrections. The three terms in the potential compete and depending on the parameters $`\lambda `$, $`\xi `$ and $`M_G`$, different regimes can be realized. In all cases we have a viable model of hybrid inflation and we can fix one of the three parameters using the COBE normalization (8). Taking the supersymmetric scale $`M_S`$ to be in a phenomenologically acceptable range for low energy supersymmetry, $`M_S=1.4\times 10^{10}\text{GeV}`$ the parameter space is shown in Fig. 2.

We see that the linear term dominates for small couplings and small $`M_G`$, and in that regime, from the COBE normalization (8), one obtains,

$$\frac{1}{2\sqrt{150}\pi }\frac{M_S^2}{\xi ^2\beta M_P}=2.110^5.$$
(22)
For $`M_S10^{10}\text{GeV}`$, this gives $`\xi M_S^2/(\lambda M_G^2)10^6`$. Note, that $`\xi `$ is the ratio of the gravitino masses in the true vacuum and in the inflationary phase. Since $`\xi 1`$, slow-roll conditions are well satisfied for $`\varphi \varphi _c`$, and the spectral index is

$$n13\frac{\varphi _{}^2}{M_P^2}2.410^4.$$
(23)
An inflationary phase dominated by a linear term is very interesting, since it gives a scale invariant spectrum to high accuracy. For standard hybrid inflation, on the contrary, one has $`n0.98`$ . Future satellite experiments may eventually be able to distinguish between these two regimes of hybrid inflation.

### 2.2 Mass term hybrid inflation

In case the inflaton transforms under a discrete or continuous symmetry, the linear term in the potential vanishes due to the symmetry and the lowest order term in the scalar potential lifting a flat direction is a mass term. We have in that case

$$V_\varphi (\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{};$$
(24)
the dots are higher order terms who can become important at large field values.

Many models of this type, based on supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model have been considered, starting with . These models can have many different feature, depending on the particular implementation, see  for a review. For example, it has been recently realized, that in this class of models inflation can take place even at very low scales , softening the problem of realizing an inflationary epoch in the case of large extra-dimensions when the Planck mass is of order of the TeV scale.

Another interesting signature is the peculiar strong scale dependence of the spectral index, that appears in the case of large one loop quantum corrections to the inflaton potential . Resumming those terms into the inflaton mass, we have in the potential the running mass $`m(\varphi )`$:

$$V_\varphi (\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2(\varphi )\varphi ^2+\mathrm{};$$
(25)
so that, assuming the end of inflation is set by the beginning of fast roll, the spectral index is given by

$$\frac{n(k)1}{2}m^2(\varphi )|_{k=aH}=s\left(\frac{k}{k_{cobe}}\right)^cc;$$
(26)
where $`s`$ is an integration constant related to $`\varphi _{end}`$, $`c\frac{dm^2}{d\mathrm{log}(Q)}`$ is proportional to the beta-function of the inflaton mass. We see that the scale dependence of the spectral index is in this case pretty strong (a power-law, but for the spectral index itself not the power spectrum !).

## 3 Comparison to observations

To obtain information about the primordial power spectrum and so on inflation, it is necessary to follow the perturbations from the inflationary to the present epoch and compare the processed spectrum to the observed one. Unfortunately, the evolution of the perturbations depends on the background cosmology and therefore on the cosmological parameters, i.e. the present Hubble parameter in units of $`100\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc},h`$, the total energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$, the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and the nature and composition of Dark Matter, the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. It is for this reason not so straightforward to gain information on the primordial spectrum, without any assumption on the cosmology, or as it is usual said, without biases.

On large scales, below the size of the present horizon $`3000\mathrm{Mpc}`$ down to around $`10\mathrm{Mpc}`$, information on the power spectrum is provided by the CMBR anisotropies, on smaller scales, about $`100`$$`1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ information comes instead from the visible matter power spectrum. During radiation dominance, due to the presence of pressure, the perturbations could not grow nor reach the instability regime and the dynamics was just an oscillation in the radiation plasma; the CMBR anisotropies are a snapshot of this period and they provide us with the cleanest signal. In fact, the dynamics of the plasma at that epoch is well understood and nowadays powerful computer codes like CMBFAST  are available to the scientific community to compute the CMBR anisotropies specifying the initial conditions and compare them to observations. On the other hand extracting the primordial power spectrum from the present matter power spectrum is more complicated since such perturbation reached the non-linear regime and underwent gravitational collapse.

### 3.1 CMBR observations

This year three new experimental measurements of the CMBR anisotropy were completed, providing the first view of three acoustic peaks in the CMBR spectrum .

The analysis of these data in order to extract the cosmological parameters have been performed, both for the single data sets, , and for the combined data , including also Maxima, Boomerang, Dasi and CBI . All the analysis give results that are in good agreement with the general prediction of inflation:

* the position of the first peak of the CMBR is a direct measurement of the geometry of our universe and give a very clear indication that the spatial curvature is vanishing in accordance with the inflationary prediction; the total energy density as inferred from the CMBR only  is:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1.06_{0.59}^{+0.13}.$$
(27)
As we can see, the precision of the measurement is not very high, due to degeneracies between the cosmological parameters, but imposing even weak biases on the values of some parameters or considering also large scale structure data, reduces strongly the uncertainties:
* it seems also that the curvature perturbations are compatible with a primordial spectrum gaussian  and adiabatic , so that we can conclude that the single field slow roll inflation does give a good fit to the present observations;
* a nearly scale invariant primordial spectrum $`𝒫_{}(k)k^{n1}`$ with $`n1`$ is a good fit of the data, as we will see below in more detail;
* note also that the new CMBR observations are in very good agreement with other independent measurements, e.g. with the value of the baryon density obtained from Nucleosynthesis, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ , and the determinations of the matter density from astrophysical observations . The data seem also to prefer very low values for the hot dark matter density .

On the other hand, present data are much less powerful in discriminating between different models. For the spectral index we have in fact still a pretty wide allowed interval, containing most slow-rolling models, even after imposing constraints on the cosmological parameters:

One of the problems of extracting $`n`$ is due to the degeneracy with the optical depth to the surface of last scattering $`\tau _c`$; such degeneracy can be reduced modeling reionization and estimating $`\tau _c`$ from the power spectrum itself .

In all these analysis, the primordial power spectrum is assumed to be a power-law with a constant spectral index. This is a reasonable assumption for many inflationary models, but it leaves unanswered an important question, i.e. how large is the scale dependence in $`n`$ allowed by the data. Two groups have studied this kind of constraints, but unfortunately have not yet up-dated their analysis to consider the latest data. In  the specific scale dependence of running mass models given by eq. (26) has been compared to observations and constraints on the values of the $`s`$ and $`c`$ parameters have been obtained, e.g. $`0.31s0.21`$ and $`0.21c0.15`$ at 95% CL. The analysis in  relies instead in a Taylor expansion of the power spectrum as a function of $`\mathrm{log}(k)`$, truncated after the first derivative of the spectral index. Using not only CMBR and LSS data, but also linear matter power spectrum from Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest spectra,  obtained the strong constraint $`0.05\frac{dn}{d\mathrm{log}(k)}0.02`$ at the 2$`\sigma `$ level.

## 4 Conclusions

We have seen that the single field inflationary paradigm is very successful in describing present observations, but unfortunately the precision of the present data is not yet sufficient to discriminate between the explicit models. To extract information on the primordial power spectrum from the CMBR is necessary to exploit all our knowledge of the cosmological parameters in order to reduce the degeneracies.

It is foreseeable that in the future a much better determination of the spectral index $`n`$ will be achieved, thanks both to more precise satellite experiments like MAP  and to the improvement of the measurements of the cosmological parameters by other astrophysical methods.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful and indebted to her collaborators, W. Buchmüller, D. Delépine and D. H. Lyth. She would like to thank the Conference organizers for local financial support and the parallel session conveners for the opportunity to speak.


format: text

text:
# Giant vortices in small mesoscopic disks: an approximate description

## I Introduction

Progress in microfabrication technology has made mesoscopic superconductors (mesoscopic disks, in particular) a very popular subject of study (see, for example, Refs. ). Mesoscopic samples have sizes comparable to the coherence length $`\xi `$ and the magnetic field penetration length $`\lambda `$. The behaviour of such structures in an external magnetic field $`H`$ is strongly influenced by the sample shape  and may lead to various superconducting states .

The vortex structure in mesoscopic disks with finite thickness was studied early using a numerical solution of the system of two coupled non-linear Ginzburg-Landau (GL) equations . For thin disks it is possible to simplify the solution of the problem by averaging the order parameter over the disk thickness  and by representing the superconducting order parameter as a superposition of eigenfunctions of the linearized GL equation . But, even then the problem has still to be solved numerically because of the presence of confluent hypergeometric functions.

It was shown previously that in some limiting cases the description of the vortex structure can be simplified. Buzdin and Brisson  described certain vortex configurations in a small superconducting disk within the London approximation. Akkermans et al. calculated the vortex structure of mesoscopic disks at the vicinity of the dual point $`\kappa ^2=1/2`$  and in the London limit . Recently, the structure of a giant vortex in an infinite plane was analyzed analytically within the GL theory for arbitrary values of $`\kappa `$ in the limits of small and large values of the vorticity .

In the present paper we obtain analytical results for the free energy of small disks within the approach of Refs. , using the magnetic flux trapped by the disk as an expansion parameter.

## II General theoretical formalism

We consider a mesoscopic superconducting disk with radius $`R`$ and thickness $`d<<\lambda ,\xi `$ magnetized by the external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}=(0,0,H)`$ which is uniform and directed normal to the disk plane. The theoretical model was already described in detail in Refs.  and therefore we scetch only those steps which are necessary for our analytical approach. For a thin disk, to a first approximation, the magnetic field is uniform inside the disk and equal to the external one. As a result of this approximation, the distribution of the superconducting order parameter in the disk plane $`\psi (\stackrel{}{\rho })`$ is described by the first GL equation

$$\left(i\stackrel{}{}_{2D}\stackrel{}{A}\right)^2\psi =\psi \left(1\left|\psi \right|^2\right),$$
(1)
with $`\stackrel{}{A}(\rho )=(0,H\rho /2,0)`$ and with the boundary condition at the sample surface

$$\left(i\stackrel{}{}_{2D}\stackrel{}{A}\right)\psi |_{\rho =R}=0.$$
(2)
The index $`2D`$ refers to the two-dimensional operator. Due to the circular symmetry of the sample we use cylindrical coordinates: $`\stackrel{}{\rho }=(\rho ,\theta )`$ ($`\rho `$ is the radial distance from the disk center, $`\theta `$ is the azimuthal angle). All distances are measured in units of the coherence length $`\xi `$, the magnetic field in $`H_{c2}=2^{1/2}\kappa H_c`$, where $`H_c`$ is the thermodynamical critical field.

In the giant vortex state  the order parameter can be expressed as

$$\psi (\rho ,\theta )=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{I_1}{I_2}\right)^{1/2}f_L\left(\rho \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(iL\theta \right),$$
(3)
where

$$f_L\left(\rho \right)=\left(\frac{H\rho ^2}{2}\right)^{L/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{H\rho ^2}{4}\right)M(\nu ,L+1,\frac{H\rho ^2}{2}),$$
(4)
$$I_m(L,\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}}t^{mL}\mathrm{exp}\left(mt\right)\left[M(\nu ,L+1,t)\right]^{2m}𝑑t,$$
(5)
are the eigenfunctions of the linearized Eq. (1) and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{R^2}\left(1+2\nu \right)$$
(6)
determines the spectrum of the lowest Landau levels,

$$M(a,c,z)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a+k\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(c\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(c+k\right)}\frac{z^k}{k!}$$
(7)
is the Kummer function . The value of $`\nu `$ is determined by a non-linear equation, which results from the boundary condition (2)

$$\left(L\mathrm{\Phi }\right)M(\nu ,L+1,\mathrm{\Phi })\frac{2\nu \mathrm{\Phi }}{L+1}M(\nu +1,L+2,\mathrm{\Phi })=0,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=HR^2/2`$ (measured in units of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\pi \mathrm{}c/e`$) is the magnetic flux through the disk in the absence of any flux expulsion. The free energy, measured in $`F_0=H_c^2V/8\pi `$ units, is

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{I_1^2\left(L\right)}{I_2\left(L\right)}.$$
(9)
## III Approximate results

First, we have to solve the non-linear Eq. 8. In the case of small $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we can restrict the series (7) for the Kummer function by the first four terms. The solution of Eq. 8 can be written as an infinite series of which the first four terms are

$$\nu =\frac{\left(L+1\right)\left(L\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left[1\frac{L+\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\left(L+2\right)}+\frac{L\left(L+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}{2\left(L+2\right)^2\left(L+3\right)}+\frac{\left(L+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^2L^2+2L^3\right)}{4\left(L+2\right)^3\left(L+3\right)\left(L+4\right)}\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
In the limit of large $`\mathrm{\Phi }>>1`$ we use the asymptotic expression for the Kummer function

$$M(a,c,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}z^{ac}\mathrm{exp}(z)\left[1+O\left(\left|z\right|^1\right)\right].$$
(11)
Substituting it in Eq. 8 we obtain the equation $`(L+\mathrm{\Phi })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )=0`$, which leads to the solution

$$\nu _{inf}=0.$$
(12)
### A Lowest Landau levels

Substituting $`\nu `$ from Eq. (10) into Eq. (6) we obtain the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }<<1`$ limit:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2L\left(L+1\right)}{R^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\left(L+2\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2\left(L+2\right)^2\left(L+3\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^3\left(2L1\right)}{4\left(L+2\right)^3\left(L+3\right)\left(L+4\right)}}\right]`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2L}{R^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(L+1\right)}{\left(L+2\right)R^2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\left(L+2\right)\left(L+3\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2\left(L1\right)}{\left(L+2\right)^2\left(L+3\right)\left(L+4\right)}}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L+1}{2\left(L+2\right)^3\left(L+3\right)\left(L+4\right)R^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^4.`$
Because series (10) is asymptotic, each new term gives a contribution to all the coefficients of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-series.

In the $`\mathrm{\Phi }>>1`$ limit we obtain for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the asymptotic expression

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{inf}=1+\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{R^2},$$
(16)
which does not depend on the vorticity $`L`$. In Fig. 1 the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ dependences are shown for a disk with radius $`R=3\xi `$. Only the curves with $`L<6`$ are shown. The solid curves represent the dependences calculated from the numerical solution of expressions (6) and (8) and the dashed curves are our new approximate results as given by Eq. (15). Notice that for small values of the magnetic flux the approximate expression (15) describes quite well the lowest Landau level spectrum.

### B Free energy of giant vortices in the small $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ limit

The eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, Eq. (6), determine the minimal free energy $`F`$, Eq. (9), of the giant vortices. We expand Eq. (9) in a series with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We found that for small disks with radius $`R=(2÷3)\xi `$ it is sufficient to keep in the series (7) only the first four terms. Expanding the free energy up to order $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ we obtain the approximate expressions:

$$F_{L=0}=1+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{R^2}\left(\frac{557}{2880}+\frac{1}{96R^2}+\frac{1}{4R^4}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^4,$$
(17)
$`F_{L=1}`$ $`=`$ $`1.16+{\displaystyle \frac{7.87}{R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{13.34}{R^4}}+\left(3.10{\displaystyle \frac{25.66}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{51.38}{R^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(18.47{\displaystyle \frac{139.08}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{263.87}{R^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ (19)
$`+\left(96.56{\displaystyle \frac{732.51}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1388.80}{R^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^3\left(501.67{\displaystyle \frac{3810.91}{R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7235.91}{R^4}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^4.`$
The free energy for the next $`L`$ states has the same form as $`F_{L=1}`$ but with different numeric coefficients and, therefore, will not be give here.

In Fig. 2 the free energy of the disk with $`R=2\xi `$ is shown. Notice that limiting oneselves to terms in $`F`$ up to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ leads to a poor approximation, while including terms up to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ results in an excellent agreement with the numerical results. The dotted curves in Fig. 2 present the free energy calculated with the expression

$$F(L,\mathrm{\Phi })=1+L\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{R^2}+\frac{\left(L\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2}{R}\frac{\left(L\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^4}{2R^3},$$
(20)
proposed in Ref.  (and rewritten in the notation of the present paper). Notice that expression (20) describes less accurately our numerical result (solid curves). It agrees for $`L=0`$ with our $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ approximation, but for $`L=1`$ there is a substantial deviation with our approximate result. This disagreement is even larger for $`L=2`$ and is therefore not given.

## IV Conclusion

We calculated approximate expressions for the lowest Landau levels and the free energy of the giant vortex states in thin mesoscopic disk with small radius. We found that these approximate analytical expressions agree very well with the more involved numerical calculation  and are a substantial improvement to those found in Ref. .

Acknowledgement. This work was supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-Vl), the “Onderzoeksraad van de Universiteit Antwerpen” (GOA), the “Inter-University Poles of Attraction Program - Belgian State, Prime Minister’s Office - Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs”, and the ESF “VORTEX” Programme.


text:
# Globular Clusters and the Mira Period-Luminosity Relation

## 1 Introduction

That Mira variables show a good infrared period-luminosity relation was established from LMC observations (Glass & Lloyd Evans 1981, Glass & Feast 1982, Feast 1984, Feast et al. 1989). In particular Feast et al. (1989) showed from multi-epoch photometry that the average absolute magnitude at $`K`$ (2.2 $`\mu `$m) had a rather small scatter (0.13 mag) for oxygen-rich Miras from the relation,

$$M_K=3.47\mathrm{log}P+\gamma .$$
(1)
More recent work (Whitelock & Feast 2000a and to be published) shows that in the LMC the bolometric PL relation extends up to at least $``$ 1500 days. Menzies & Whitelock (1985) obtained multi-epoch $`JHK`$ photometry of a number of Miras in galactic globular clusters and showed that they could be fitted to a PL relation, though offset from that of the LMC, on the basis of the then current distance scale of the clusters and of the LMC. Whitelock et al. (1994) showed that the LMC Miras and those in galactic globular clusters fitted the same PL relations if the cluster distance scale were fixed by LMC globular clusters and an assumed LMC distance. These workers also included Miras with distances known in other ways (i.e. Miras with companions of known luminosity). Recently a Mira PL zero-point was obtained from local Miras with Hipparcos parallaxes (Whitelock & Feast 2000b). In the present paper we derive and discuss an independent Mira PL zero-point based on Miras in globular clusters. This is now possible using a cluster distance scale set via the Hipparcos parallaxes of subdwarfs (Carretta et al. 2000 and references there). We also give infrared photometry for the Mira V1 in the SMC globular cluster NGC 121 and include it in the analysis. This is the only Mira with a known period in a globular cluster (and hence with an estimated metallicity) outside our Galaxy, although long-period carbon Miras are known in intermediate age Magellanic Cloud clusters (Nishida et al. 2000).

## 2 Data

The basic data used in this paper are listed in Table 1. The $`K`$ magnitudes listed are (except in the case of one star, see section 2.7) the means of maximum and minimum of Fourier fits to the available data sets. The latter are mainly from Menzies & Whitelock (1985) but referred to Carter (1990) standards (see Appendix). In the case of the three variables in 47 Tuc the multi-epoch photometry of Frogel et al. (1981) was included.

The $`JHK`$ observations of NGC 121 V1 are given in Table 2. These were obtained with the MkIII infrared photometer on the 1.9m reflector at SAAO, Sutherland. The uncertainties in these measures are $`0.05`$ mag except for those on JD 2445949 when they are $``$0.08 mag.

Carretta et al. (2000) have rediscussed the distances of globular clusters based on subdwarf parallaxes from Hipparcos. On the basis of this they then derive (their equation 3) a relation between the Zero-Age-Horizontal-Branch (ZAHB) absolute magnitude and the cluster metallicity, viz:

$$M_V(\mathrm{ZAHB})=0.18([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+1.5)+0.53.$$
(2)
They also derive (their equation 2),

$$M_V(\mathrm{HB})=0.13([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+1.5)+0.44$$
(3)
for the mean level of the horizontal branch (HB). Unless otherwise stated we have used equation 2 above to derive the distance moduli of the clusters. The values of $`E_{(BV)}`$, \[Fe/H\] and $`V_{\mathrm{ZAHB}}`$ used are given in the table. They were taken from Ferraro et al. (1999). The values of \[Fe/H\] are on the scale of Carretta & Gratton (1997). We have adopted a value of $`R=A_V/E_{(BV)}=3.1`$, (see below). The periods are generally those quoted by Menzies & Whitelock (1985) from the literature. That for L36 in NGC 6352 is from Whitelock (1986). The following comments are on specific clusters.

### 2.1 NGC 104 (47 Tuc)

The adopted distance modulus is that derived directly from subdwarf fitting by Carretta et al. (2000). The reddening and metallicity are also from that paper. Zoccali et al. (2001a) derive a distance modulus for 47 Tuc from a white dwarf cooling sequence which is 0.28 mag nearer than the one used here. However, they indicate that there are a number of problems to be solved before such a distance is fully reliable.

### 2.2 NGC 121

The distance was derived from the data of Dolphin et al. (2001). Their adopted metallicity and visual absorption were used together with their value of $`V`$(HB) and equation 3, above. This would appear to be the correct procedure rather than using the ZAHB relation as Dolphin et al. did (A. Walker private communication). The distance modulus finally adopted by Dolphin et al. is 0.13 mag less than our value. This depends on comparing the colour-magnitude diagram with a theoretical model. In the present paper it seemed best to use the HB result to be consistent with the other clusters and to avoid using theoretical models.

### 2.3 NGC 5927

The cluster membership of the Mira V3 in this cluster has not been firmly established from radial velocities, although it is near the centre of the cluster. The period (the longest of any Mira in a globular cluster) seems well determined (Andrews et al. 1974). The distance modulus must be considered uncertain since the metallicity of the cluster is greater than that of any of the clusters used to establish equation 2, the most metal-rich of which is 47 Tuc. It should be noted, in particular, that there is some evidence from RR Lyrae variables that the $`M_V(\mathrm{HB})`$ and $`M_V(\mathrm{ZAHB})`$ relations (equations 2 and 3) may steepen at high metallicities (see e.g. Caputo et al. 2000, and references there).

### 2.4 NGC 6356

The basic data for this cluster are taken from Bica et al. (1994) with the cluster metallicity converted to the Carretta-Gratton scale using equation 7 of Carretta & Gratton (1997). As in the case of NGC 121, equation 3 above has been used together with $`V`$(HB) to determine the distance modulus.

### 2.5 NGC 6553

As in the case of NGC 5927 (above) the metallicity of this cluster is greater than that of any cluster used to derive equation 2. Two distance moduli are given. One uses the data on the cluster from Ferraro et al. (1999) and equation 2 as described above. In the other case the data are taken from Zoccali et al. (2001b) and equation 3 is used. Note the considerable difference in the reddening adopted in the two cases. The referee (Dr R. Gratton) has pointed out that a very recent paper (Carretta et al. 2001) gives $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.06\pm 0.15`$ for this cluster and that Cohen et al. (1999) preferred $`E_{(BV)}=0.78`$. With these values and $`V(\mathrm{HB})`$ from Zoccali et al. (2001b) or $`V(\mathrm{ZAHB})`$ from Ferraro et al. (1999), one obtains $`M_K=7.4`$ or $`7.6`$ for NGC 6553 V4. These figures become $`7.2`$ or $`7.4`$ if the lower luminosities for high metallicity RR Lyraes suggested by Caputo et al. (see section 2.3) are used as a guide. These various values scatter round the value predicted by our final Mira PL($`K`$) relation ($`7.5`$).

### 2.6 NGC 5139 ($`\omega `$ Cen)

The distance modulus of this unusual cluster is quite uncertain at the present time. We adopt the value used by Hughes & Wallerstein (2000). These authors say that this distance (and reddening) are near the mean of several estimates and also give the best fit to isochrones. Since this distance is not derived in the same way as for the other clusters we do not use $`\omega `$ Cen in our estimate of the Mira PL($`K`$) zero-point. A distance modulus of 13.27 has recently been derived by van Leeuwen et al. (2000) from a comparison of radial velocities and proper motions in the cluster. However, the authors indicate that this distance should be regarded with considerable caution at the present time.

### 2.7 Terzan 5

The metallicity of this cluster is high, though rather uncertain. As in the case of the other very metal-rich clusters (NGC 5927 and NGC 6553) the distance determination rests on an extrapolation of the Carretta et al. relations. In the case of $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{S}`$ there are only observations at two well separated epochs. However, these differ in phase by about half a period so the mean of the two (which is given in Table 1) should be a fair approximation to the mean magnitude. The reddening is very high and varies across the cluster (Ortolani et al. 1996). The $`(JK)`$ colours of the two Miras in, or in the direction of, the cluster, together with the period-colour relation from Feast et al. (1989) show that their reddenings are similar ($`E_{(JK)}=1.10`$ for variable $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{S}`$ and 1.22 for variable V). With a normal reddening law, these values lead to a mean $`E_{(BV)}`$ of 2.37, close to the value adopted by Ortolani et al. for the cluster. It is not known whether the Miras are radial velocity members of the cluster. Since the cluster is projected on the galactic bulge, it is quite possible that at least one of them is a field star. The relative magnitude of the two stars (compare their positions in Fig. 1) shows that if they both lie on the PL($`K`$) relation, they do not have the same distance and therefore cannot both be cluster members.

## 3 discussion

Values of $`M_K`$ are listed in Table 1 as derived from the data in that table and assuming $`A_K=0.273E_{(BV)}`$. Figure 1 shows the $`M_K`$ \- $`\mathrm{log}P`$ plot for these Miras. The line is the LMC Mira PL relation (equation 1) with $`\gamma =0.89`$, where we have adopted a Cepheid distance modulus for the LMC of 18.59. This Cepheid modulus depends on LMC $`V,I`$ photometry, a galactic zero-point calibration using parallaxes, proper motions and radial velocities, pulsation parallaxes and Cepheids in galactic clusters, together with a metallicity correction (Feast 2001a) 111The Cepheid metallicity correction for $`V,I`$ photometry remains somewhat uncertain, though it seems unlikely to be significantly larger for the LMC than that used by Feast (2001a). It is of interest to note that the “Cepheid galaxies” used by the HST Key project (Freedman et al. 2001) to calibrate their value of $`\mathrm{H}_0`$ have a mean metallicity (weighted according to their contribution to $`\mathrm{H}_0`$) very close to solar. Thus, using a galactic calibration, rather than a calibration based on an assumed LMC distance, would avoid the need to apply any significant metallicity correction (Feast 2001b)..

It is evident in Fig. 1 that the agreement in the PL diagram of LMC field Miras with those in Galactic Globular Clusters and also the Mira in NGC 121 (SMC) is good. The most discrepant points are for the longer period Miras (V3 in NGC 5927, V4 in NGC 6553 and, V and $`\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{S}`$ in Terzan 5). In all these cases, as already noted, the estimate of the cluster distance involves an extrapolation and there are membership, reddening and other uncertainties in some of these cases. Thus the results for these clusters cannot be given any significant weight in the present discussion. As already indicated the distance of $`\omega `$ Cen is also still quite uncertain and determined in a different way to that of the other clusters. The adopted distance gives a reasonable fit to the LMC Miras. If the shorter distance of van Leeuwen et al. (2001) were adopted the Mira in the cluster would lie 0.7 mag below the LMC line. Thus if the variable is a normal Mira it provides some evidence against such a low distance.

Omitting the Miras from NGC 6553, NGC 5927 and Terzan 5 and also the Mira in $`\omega `$ Cen, for the reasons just given, we are left with 11 Miras in seven clusters. Giving double weight to 47 Tuc and NGC 6356 which each have three Miras and single weight to each of the other clusters one finds a zero point for equation 1 of $`\gamma =0.93\pm 0.14`$. The estimated uncertainty comes from the uncertainties given by Carretta et al. (2000) for the coefficients of equations 2 and 3. The weighting adopted makes little difference to the final result. If unit weight is given to each cluster, the value of $`\gamma `$ only changes from 0.93 to 0.95.

The best value to adopt for the ratio, R, of total to selective absorption is somewhat uncertain. As already noted we adopt 3.1. Some authors (e.g. Ortolani et al. 2000) prefer to use a larger value (3.3). Using this larger value would have a significant effect on the results from clusters with high reddenings. In the case of the very heavily reddened cluster Terzan 5 the use of $`\mathrm{R}=3.3`$, would lead to values of $`M_K`$ which are 0.5 mag fainter than the values given in Table 1 and plotted in Fig. 1. Fortunately the effect is small for the mean of the clusters used in determining $`\gamma `$. Adopting $`\mathrm{R}=3.3`$ would lead to $`\gamma =0.97`$.

The result for V1 in the SMC globular cluster NGC 121 is particularly interesting. The star appears to be a normal Mira. Figure 2 shows the $`K`$ light curve of this star together with a Fourier fit. This gives a period of $`139\pm 3`$ days in good agreement with Thackeray’s (1958) determination of 140.2 days. The peak-to-peak pulsation amplitudes derived from Fourier fits ($`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0.69`$ mag; $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0.87`$ mag; $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=0.69`$ mag) are within the range shown by globular cluster and solar neighbourhood Miras of similar period. The mean colours are $`(JH)=0.72`$ mag and $`(HK)=0.20`$ mag. These are bluer than predicted by the LMC period-colour relations (Glass et al. 1995) which give 0.83 and 0.25. However, this difference may not be significant. The variable has an M-type spectrum with Balmer line emission (Lloyd Evans 1983) as expected for an oxygen-rich Mira.

In a discussion of the Mira period-metallicity relation, Feast & Whitelock (2000) found that NGC 121 V1 fitted the relation well. In that discussion the globular cluster abundances used were primarily on the Zinn-West (1984) scale, with \[Fe/H\] = –1.4 for NGC 121 being taken from Stryker et al. (1985). Equation 7 of Carretta & Gratton (1997) shows that the abundance (–1.03) adopted above for NGC 121 from Dolphin et al. (2001), which is on the Carretta/Gratton scale, corresponds to –1.23 on the Zinn-West scale. Changing the metallicity of NGC 121 from –1.4 to –1.23 moves the point for V1 in the period-metallicity plot of Feast & Whitelock (2000) from just above to just below the mean line and does not affect the conclusion that this SMC cluster fits the mean relation well.

In the present paper we have preferred to use a globular cluster scale based on Hipparcos parallaxes of subdwarfs rather than rely on theoretical models. However, it is of interest to compare this scale with that derived by VandenBerg (2000) from theoretical ZAHB models. For the nine clusters used by Carretta et al. (2000, table 3) to calibrate equations 2 and 3 (above), the mean difference between the true moduli derived from their work and those found from VandenBerg’s models is only $`0.06\pm 0.02`$, the VandenBerg scale being shorter. This is despite the fact that VandenBerg’s ($`\alpha `$-enhanced) model comparisons depend on a systematically different metallicity scale from that adopted by Carretta et al. This suggests that if the VandenBerg results were used for the clusters containing Miras (with metallicities placed on his adopted scale), our adopted zero-point which uses a mean of the cluster result with that obtained from Hipparcos parallaxes of field Miras (see section 5) would only be made marginally larger.

## 4 AGB Stars as Extragalactic Population Indicators

In an old or intermediate age population the brightest individual stars will be on the thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (AGB) and the very brightest of these will be the Mira variables (Feast & Whitelock 1987; Whitelock & Feast 2000a). Because we lack any clear theoretical picture of evolution at the top of the AGB it has become common practice to compare extragalactic AGB stars with those in relatively well understood Galactic environments, e.g. globular clusters or the galactic bulge. Galactic Miras from specific environments have therefore become calibrators for whole populations in nearby galaxies wherever individual stars can be isolated and studied.

Figure 3 shows the position of the globular cluster Miras from Table 1, i.e. of the tips of the cluster AGBs, in a colour-magnitude diagram which can be compared with extragalactic systems (after making any appropriate transformations to the colours). The Miras from Terzan 5 are omitted from this plot because their membership is far from certain (see section 2.7). Note that the spread in mean colour is small $`\mathrm{\Delta }(JK)0.4`$ for a range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }[Fe/H]>0.5`$. A comparison with Davidge’s (2000) results suggests that the spread of age and metallicity in M32 may not be as small as he suggests.

It is sometimes considered instructive to compare extragalactic populations with the Galactic bulge and particularly with the M giants (mostly giant branch rather than AGB stars) in the NGC 6522 Baade Window (Frogel & Whitford 1987). This can be useful, but it is misleading to compare with the brightest stars in the Baade Window, because the line-of-site depth and large number of foreground stars in this Bulge field (Feast & Whitelock 1987; Tiede & Terndrup 1997) result in some spuriously luminous stars.

Guarnieri et al. (1997a,b) compare the variable stars in NGC 6553, (see section 2.5) of which the Mira V4 is the brightest, with AGB stars in M32. Using a distance modulus of $`13.6\pm 0.25`$ they deduce that $`M_K8.1`$ for V4, which makes it almost as bright as the brightest AGB stars in M32 (note that all of the data they used, for NGC 6553 V4 and for M32 are from single epoch observations). The conclusion drawn is that the brightest stars in M32 need not be appreciably younger than those in the globular cluster. Davidge (2001) quotes Guarnieri et al. (1997a) as showing that V4 has $`M_K=8.5`$. In fact V4 has an amplitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }K0.5`$ mag and even at maximum light at the larger distance quoted in Table 1 it will be no brighter than $`M_K=8.2`$, if it is at the smaller distance it will be no brighter than $`M_K=7.8`$. Furthermore the discussion of section 2.5 suggests that the lower of these two luminosities is more likely.

Thus whilst the luminosity of the AGB tip as defined by Mira variables may be a useful population indicator for old systems of known distance, it must be remembered that these stars are large amplitude variables. They are unlikely, therefore, to provide very specific calibrations from single epoch observations.

## 5 Conclusions

The zero-point of the Mira PL($`K`$) relation (equation 1) as derived above from globular clusters ($`0.93\pm 0.14`$) agrees satisfactorily with that obtained from the Hipparcos parallaxes of local (field) Miras ($`0.84\pm 0.14`$)(Whitelock & Feast 2000b). A straight mean of these two independent estimates is $`0.88\pm 0.10`$. This zero-point together with the data on LMC field Miras (Feast et al. 1989) then yields an LMC true modulus of 18.60, essentially the same as that derived from a metallicity corrected Cepheid $`V,I`$ modulus ($`18.59\pm 0.10`$, Feast 2001a).

That the Mira in the SMC globular cluster NGC 121 fits well both the Mira PL($`K`$) and $`P`$-\[Fe/H\] relations confirms the potential usefulness of these variables in deriving both distances and metallicities in old systems including those beyond our own Galaxy. Even if periods are not known, Miras, as the brightest AGB stars, can be used to place some limits on stellar populations in old extragalactic systems provided mean infrared magnitudes and the distances of the systems are known.

### Acknowledgements

Dave Laney kindly made a number of the $`JHK`$ measurements of NGC 121 V1. We are grateful to the referee (Raffaele Gratton) for helpful comments.

## Appendix: Note on Photometric Systems

All the observations used in this paper are on, or have been converted to, the natural system of the SAAO 1.9m telescope, using the standard magnitudes from Carter (1990). This is the system adopted by Feast et al. (1989) for the data on the LMC Miras. Thus the data of Menzies & Whitelock (1985) has been adjusted by the zero-point corrections specified by Feast et al. (1989, appendix A). The data from Frogel et al. (1981) have been converted to the 1.9m system using the tranformations given by Carter (1990) and noting that $`K_{1.9}=K_c`$ and, for Miras, $`(JK)_{1.9}=0.955(JK)_c`$ (Catchpole, Whitelock, Glass & Feast, unpublished, see Feast 1996). Here the subscript “1.9” refers to the 1.9m natural system and the subscript “c” to the “standard” SAAO system, as defined by Carter (1990).

These conversions have no significant effect on the PL($`K`$) results of this paper.