format: text

text:
# Supernova neutrino oscillations: A simple analytical approach

## I Introduction

Observable effects of supernova neutrinos in underground detectors represent a subject of intense investigation in astroparticle physics, both on general grounds (see the reviews in ) and in relation to the SN1987A event (see  for an updated analysis and bibliography). In particular, flavor oscillations in supernovae may shed light on the problem of neutrino masses and mixing, by means of the (potentially strong) associated matter effects (see, e.g.,  for reviews of early works, and  for an incomplete list of recent studies). In particular, dramatic effects on oscillations have been predicted, related to the type of neutrino mass spectrum hierarchy and to Earth matter crossing.

Given the importance of supernova neutrino oscillations for both particle physics and astrophysics, it would be desirable to have a simple and complete description of the most important quantity involved in the calculations, namely, of the electron (anti)neutrino survival probability $`P_{ee}`$.***The key role of $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ and $`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$, related to the practical undistinguishability of supernova muon and tau (anti)neutrinos, is neatly discussed in .  Approximate treatments of $`P_{ee}`$ have been proposed in the literature to cover parts the parameter space in a piecewise fashion, e.g., by using either the adiabatic approximation or the so-called resonance condition (see  for recent examples), with inherent limitations in the range of applicability. In particular, it has been recently realized, first in the context of solar  and then of supernova  neutrinos, that the time-honored resonance condition cannot be meaningfully extended at large neutrino mixing. Thus, apart from brute-force numerical calculations of $`P_{ee}`$ (see, e.g., ), a truly unified approach, valid in the whole three-flavor oscillation parameter space and applicable to generic supernova density profiles, seems still lacking in the literature, as far as we know.

In this work, we propose a simple, unified analytical approach to the calculation of $`P_{ee}`$, based on a double-exponential form for the crossing probability  and on the condition of maximum violation of adiabaticity  (replacing the popular resonance condition). In the case of two-flavor transitions (Sec. II), our prescription is shown to reproduce accurately the results of exact numerical calculations for generic (realistic or power-law) profiles, in the whole neutrino oscillation parameter space. The analytical approach is then generalized to cover three-flavor transitions with (direct or inverse) mass spectrum hierarchy (Sec. III), and to incorporate Earth matter effects (Sec. IV). Compact analytical expressions, explicitly showing the symmetry properties of $`P_{ee}`$ and useful for practical calculations, are summarized in the final section (Sec. V), to which we refer the impatient reader.

## II Two-flavor transitions

In this section we discuss numerical and analytical calculations of the survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ for neutrinos and antineutrinos, assuming two-family mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and another active neutrino ($`\nu _a=\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$). A simple analytical prescription will be shown to reproduce very accurately the exact numerical results for $`P_{ee}`$.

### A $`2\nu `$ transitions: Notation

In the case of two-family $`\nu _e\nu _a`$ oscillations ($`a=\mu `$ or $`\tau `$), we label the mass $`(m)`$ eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ so that $`\nu _1`$ is the lightest,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2>0,$$
(1)
and parametrize the mixing matrix $`U`$ as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}\\ U_{a1}& U_{a2}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\theta [0,\pi /2]`$. In vacuum, $`\nu _e\nu _a`$ oscillations can be described in terms of the pathlength ($`x`$) and of the oscillation wavenumber

$$k=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2E,$$
(3)
$`E`$ being the neutrino energy. In matter, the $`\nu _e\nu _a`$ dynamics also depends on the $`\nu _e\nu _a`$ interaction potential difference

$$V(x)=\sqrt{2}G_FN_e(x),$$
(4)
where $`N_e(x)`$ is the electron density profile. In appropriate units,

$$\frac{V(x)}{\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{MeV}}=7.57\times 10^8Y_e(x)\frac{\rho (x)}{\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3},$$
(5)
where $`\rho (x)`$ is the matter density and $`Y_e(x)`$ is the electron/nucleon number fraction.

In supernovae, $`\rho (x)`$ \[and thus $`V(x)`$\] can be approximately described by a power law, $`\rho (x)x^3`$ . In the present work, power-law potentials are parametrized as

$$V(x)=V_0\left(\frac{x}{R_{}}\right)^n,$$
(6)
where $`n=3`$ (unless otherwise stated), and distances are conventionally reported in units of the solar radius, $`R_{}=6.96\times 10^8`$ m.

Figure 1 shows an example of “realistic” neutrino potential profile $`V(x)`$ (dashed curve), as graphically reduced from the supernova simulation published in  for the case of $`M=14.6M_{}`$, $`M`$ being the mass of the ejecta. In the same figure, the solid line represents the best-fit power-law potential $`(n=3)`$, corresponding to take $`V_0=1.5\times 10^8`$ eV2/MeV in Eq. (6). For definiteness, we will use the realistic or the power-law curves in Fig. 1 as representative $`V(x)`$ profiles for our calculations. However, our main results are applicable to generic supernova density profiles.

### B $`2\nu `$ transitions: Neutrinos

Following , the calculation of $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ from the initial $`\nu `$ state in matter to the final $`\nu `$ detection in vacuumThe discussion of possible Earth matter effects is postponed to Sec. IV. can be factorized as

$$P_{ee}(\nu )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1,& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}^2\theta & \mathrm{cos}^2\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1P_c(\nu )& P_c(\nu )\\ P_c(\nu )& 1P_c(\nu )\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _m& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _m\\ \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _m& \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`P_c(\nu )`$ is the so-called crossing probability for neutrinosThe cases $`P_c0`$ and $`P_c0`$ discriminate adiabatic and nonadiabatic transitions in matter. $`[P_c(\nu )=P(\nu _{2m}\nu _1)]`$, and $`\theta _m`$ is the effective mixing angle in matter at the origin, defined by

$`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta }{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\theta V/k)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }}},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta V/k}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\theta V/k)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta }}}.`$ (9)
Note that in Eq. (7) it is understood that oscillating terms are averaged out, thus providing an incoherent $`\nu `$ state at detection.

The high supernova core density (at the start of neutrino free streaming) implies $`V/k1`$ in Eqs. (8) and (9), so that $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta _m0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m1`$. From Eq. (7), one can then reduce the calculation of $`P_{ee}`$ to that of $`P_c`$,

$`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta P_c(\nu )+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [1P_c(\nu )]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`U_{e1}^2P_c(\nu )+U_{e2}^2[1P_c(\nu )].`$ (11)
#### 1 Numerical approach

One possible approach to the calculation of $`P_c`$ (and $`P_{ee}`$) is the numerical integration of the neutrino evolution equations along the supernova potential profile, as advocated in some recent works , as well as in a few earlier ones (see, e.g., ). For the purposes of our work, we have performed a numerical (Runge-Kutta) calculation for $`P_c`$, assuming the two potential profiles in Fig. 1.

Figures 2 and 3 show our numerical results as dotted isolines for $`P_c(\nu )`$ in the mass-mixing plane $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/E,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$, for the case of power-law and realistic potential, respectively.§§§The solid curves in Figs. 2 and 3 correspond to our analytical approximation for $`P_c`$, as discussed later. The “bumpy” structure of the realistic $`V(x)`$ profile is reflected by the “wiggling” behavior of $`P_c`$ in Fig. 3, leading to significant differences with the $`P_c`$ isolines of Fig. 2 in part of the parameter space. However, one can note that, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/E0`$, the detailed structure of $`V(x)`$ is irrelevant, and $`P_c(\nu )\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ in both Figs. 2 and 3 (extremely nonadiabatic limit).

Although brute-force numerical calculations of $`P_c`$ can provide, in principle, “exact” results, it should be stressed that they do not represent an optimal and efficient approach in the case of supernovae. Computer routines for integration are tipically time-consuming, being required to track a large number of oscillation cycles along a potential profile spanning many orders of magnitude. Instabilities and inaccuracies in the numerical results can easily emerge for realistic potentials (as experienced by ourselves), as a consequence of sudden variations in the lowest order $`V(x)`$ derivatives.Indeed, we think that some numerical artifacts (fake wiggles) might be present in the numerical calculations of $`P_{ee}`$ as graphically reported in . Moreover, numerical integration produces additional but useless (unobservable) information on oscillating factors and phases, and is thus inefficient for practical purposes.For instance, the authors of  need to time-average their numerical probabilities, in order to force an incoherent initial state for the implementation of Earth matter effects. Last, but not least, the uncertainties affecting simulated supernova density profiles make it preferable to perform several approximated (but quick) calculations of $`P_c`$ for different trial functions $`V(x)`$, rather than a single (but time-consuming) exact numerical calculation for a fixed $`V(x)`$.

#### 2 Analytical approach

The previous discussion indicates that a handy analytical approximation to the numerical results for $`P_c`$, applicable in the whole parameter space, is highly desirable. We propose (and motivate below) the following analytical recipe in three steps:
$`(i)`$ Identify the point $`x_p`$ where the potential equals the wavenumber,

$$V(x_p)=k;$$
(12)
$`(ii)`$ calculate the so-called density scale factor $`r`$ at that point,

$$r=\left[\frac{1}{V(x)}\frac{dV(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=x_p}^1;$$
(13)
$`(iii)`$ Insert the above $`r`$ in the double-exponential parametrization for $`P_c(\nu )`$ (originally derived in the context of solar neutrinos ),

$$P_c(\nu )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi rk\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi rk)1}.$$
(14)
The results of such an exceedingly simple analytical recipe are shown as solid isolines for $`P_c`$ in Fig. 2 (power-law case) and Fig. 3 (realistic case), to be compared with the corresponding dashed isolines (exact numerical results). The agreement between numerical and analytical estimates of $`P_c`$ is extremely good in the whole parameter space, the difference being $`\delta P_c=2\times 10^2`$ in the worst cases.\**\**\**We have investigated a variety of supernova density profiles available in the published or unpublished literature, and obtained similarly good results (not shown). The final accuracy for $`P_{ee}`$ is even better, since Eq. (10) implies $`\delta P_{ee}=|\mathrm{cos}2\theta |\delta P_c<\delta P_c`$.

Notice that, in the exact power-law case \[Eq. (6)\], the calculation of $`r`$ through Eqs. (12) and (13) is trivial,

$$\frac{r}{R_{}}=\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{V_0}{k}\right)^{1/n}.$$
(15)
In the case of realistic potential profile, the only modest complication is the numerical solution of Eq. (12) and the evaluation of the derivative in Eq. (13) for the given (tabulated or parametrized) function $`V(x)`$.

Our effective analytical prescription for $`P_c(\nu )`$ in supernovae \[Eqs. (12)–(14)\] stems from several recent improvements in the understanding of nonadiabatic transitions, as discussed below. Although such improvements have been mainly tested in solar neutrino oscillations, they are often applicable also to supernova $`\nu `$ oscillations.

#### 3 Discussion of the analytical prescription

Equation (14), originally derived for the solar neutrino (exponential) density profile  within the unnecessary restriction $`\theta <\pi /4`$, was explicitly shown in  to hold for $`\theta \pi /4`$ as well, especially for appropriately chosen density scale factors $`r`$ . The double-exponential form of $`P_c`$ for $`\theta \pi /4`$ has also been recently applied to the transitions of high-energy neutrinos from the decay of hypothetical massive particles trapped in the Sun , and to the transitions of supernova neutrinos . Such parametrization for $`P_c`$ has thus several desirable properties: $`(i)`$ It is a good ansatz (as originally advocated in ) for generic density profiles; $`(ii)`$ It holds in both octants of $`\theta `$; $`(iii)`$ It reproduces the extremely nonadiabatic limit at small $`k`$; and $`(iv)`$ It reproduces the single-exponential, Landau-Zener (LZ) limit at small $`\theta `$ (see, e.g., ). As a final remark on Eq. (14), it should be noted that the single- and double-exponential forms for $`P_c`$ involve, in general, a function $`F(\theta )`$ depending on the potential profile (see Table I in ). Our choice in Eq. (14) corresponds to take $`F(\theta )=1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, which is the exact result for a solar-like (exponential) profile, and represents the leading prefactor of $`F`$ in a $`1/n`$ expansion††††††The exponential profile case can be seen as the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit of the power-law profile case . for a supernova-like (power-law) profile . We have checked that the inclusion of the full (more complicated) expression for $`F(\theta )`$ in the power-law case  does not lead to a significant improvement in the (already high) accuracy of $`P_c`$ of our analytical prescription, and thus we advocate the simpler form for $`P_c`$ given in Eq. (14) also for supernovae.

The concept of a “running” density scale factor $`r=r(x_p)`$ \[as in Eq. (13)\] was also originally introduced in the context of solar neutrinos , typically by calculating $`r`$ at the point $`x_p=x_{\mathrm{res}}`$ defined by the so-called “resonance” condition $`V(x_{\mathrm{res}})=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ (see, e.g., ). Such a choice for $`x_p`$, although successful at relatively small $`\theta `$, is clearly not applicable for $`\theta \pi /4`$ , and fails to describe correctly nonadiabatic transitions at small $`k`$, where $`P_c0`$ at $`\theta \pi /4`$ . For large $`\theta `$, the resonance condition can be misleading, if not meaningless, and it is more appropriate to characterize $`P_c`$ through the point $`x_{\mathrm{MVA}}`$ where maximum violation of adiabaticity (MVA) is attained . Indeed, in the context of solar neutrinos, the prescription $`x_p=x_{\mathrm{MVA}}`$ for $`r(x_p)`$ is more accurate and physically more consistent than $`x_p=x_{\mathrm{res}}`$ . In the context of supernova neutrino oscillations, it has also been recently suggested that $`x_{\mathrm{MVA}}`$ might play an important role as well , although the authors of  do not use the prescription $`r=r(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})`$, but make an improved WKB calculation of the LZ exponent for $`P_c`$ (involving a numerical integration in the complex plane). However, we have verified that the prescription $`r=r(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})`$ gives very accurate results for $`P_c`$ in the whole mass-mixing plane for supernovae (very close to the solid isolines in Figs. 2 and 3), making it unnecessary, in practice, to resort to WKB-inspired or other relatively complicated approaches. In fact, our Eq. (12) is just a suitable approximation of the MVA condition, as we now discuss.

For a monotonic $`V(x)`$ profile, the MVA point is uniquely defined in terms of the flex point of $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m(x)`$ ,

$$\left(\frac{d^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m(x)}{dx^2}\right)_{x=x_{\mathrm{MVA}}}=0.$$
(16)
For a power-law profile as in Eq. (6), the above equation implies that

$$V(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})=kg(n,\theta ),$$
(17)
where

$$g(n,\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}\frac{2n}{12n}\pm \sqrt{1\frac{2n}{12n}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{2}\frac{2n}{12n}\right)^2},$$
(18)
and the $`\pm `$ sign must be chosen so that $`g>0`$. For $`n`$ close to $`3`$ (supernova case), by keeping only the leading term in the expansion of the square root in $`g(n,\theta )`$, one obtains:

$`n=2`$ $``$ $`g=1,`$ (19)
$`n=3`$ $``$ $`g1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta 1}{10}},`$ (20)
$`n=4`$ $``$ $`g1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta 1}{7}},`$ (21)
namely, $`g1`$ for $`n3\pm 1`$, up to $`10\%`$ errors.

A fractional error $`\delta `$ in the evaluation of $`V(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})`$ leads, for power-law potentials, to a fractional error $`\delta /n`$ in the evaluation of $`r(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})`$. Therefore, by setting in any case $`g=1`$ \[and thus $`V=k`$, as in Eq. (12), rather than $`V=kg`$, as in Eq. (17)\] we expect a mere few % variation in the running value of $`r`$, which is of little relevance when $`r`$ is inserted in $`P_c`$ through Eq. (14), as we have numerically checked.

In conclusion, the condition $`V(x_p)=k`$ in Eq. (12) represents a good approximation to the MVA condition for supernova neutrino oscillations, and can be used to replace the time-honored (but inapplicable at large $`\theta `$) resonance prescription.‡‡‡‡‡‡It is curious to note that, in the context of solar neutrinos, the relevance of the point where $`V=k`$ (as opposed to the resonance point) was suggested in  and then abandoned in the literature. See also  for an updated discussion. One has then to calculate \[through Eq. (13)\] the corresponding (running) value of the density scale factor $`r=r(x_p)`$ \[provided by Eq. (15) for an exact power-law profile\], insert $`r`$ in the double-exponential form for $`P_c`$ \[Eq. (14)\], and finally get $`P_{ee}`$ through Eq. (10). Our analytical prescription is applicable to generic (power-law or realistic) $`V(x)`$ profiles in the whole $`2\nu `$ parameter space, with a typical percent accuracy in $`P_{ee}`$.

Figure 4 explicitly reports the results of such a prescription for $`P_{ee}`$ for the two profiles in Fig. 1, and for a representative supernova $`\nu `$ energy ($`E=15`$ MeV). Notice that the $`P_{ee}`$ isolines for the power-law profile (dotted curves) are simply calculated through elementary functions \[Eqs. (12)–(15)\]. Notice also that the $`P_{ee}`$ isolines for the realistic and power-law cases in Fig. 4 appear to differ significantly in two regions: $`(i)`$ at relatively small mixing $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.1)`$; and $`(ii)`$ at nearly maximal mixing $`(\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 1)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{8\pm 1}`$ eV2. In connection with solar neutrinos, this fact implies that the detailed supernova density profile can be relevant for the oscillation parameters corresponding to the so-called small mixing angle (SMA), low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (LOW), and quasivacuum oscillation (QVO) solutions to the solar neutrino problem . Conversely, for oscillation parameters within the so-called large mixing angle (LMA) solution at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^5`$ eV2, or within the multiple vacuum oscillation (VO) solutions at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^9`$ eV2 , transitions in supernova matter become, respectively, purely adiabatic or extremely nonadiabatic, with no significant dependence on the details of the $`V(x)`$ profile.

A final technical remark is in order. For solar neutrinos, it was shown in  that the MVA-inspired recipe for $`P_c`$ \[$`r=r(x_{\mathrm{MVA}})`$\] has to be matched and replaced, at small $`k`$, with $`r=\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}`$ . The constant (limiting) value for $`r`$ can be elegantly derived, through a perturbative approach , in terms of an integral involving $`V(x)`$ in the convective zone of the Sun, where $`V(x)`$ experiences a sudden drop. Conversely, in supernovae, $`V(x)`$ vanishes in a smoother way at large $`x`$, and the small-$`k`$ correction ($`r=\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}`$) becomes unnecessary in practice. We have numerically checked that such correction does not appreciably improve the accuracy of the simple MVA-inspired recipe in Eqs. (12)–(14). Therefore, concerning the calculation of $`P_c`$ in supernova neutrino transitions, we advocate the use of Eqs. (12)–(14) in the whole $`2\nu `$ parameter space.

### C $`2\nu `$ transitions: Antineutrinos

The extension of our analytical prescription from the neutrino case to the antineutrino case can be obtained through the replacement $`V/kV/k`$ in $`P_{ee}`$. By conventionally keeping $`V>0`$ (and $`\theta `$ unaltered), this implies

$$P_{ee}(\overline{\nu }|+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)P_{ee}(\nu |\mathrm{\Delta }m^2).$$
(22)
The change of sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ for neutrinos is equivalent to a swap of the mass labels $`12`$,

$$P_{ee}(\nu |\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)P_{ee}(\nu |+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)_{12},$$
(23)
corresponding to $`U_{e1}^2U_{e2}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$.\**\**\**Such well-known $`2\nu `$ symmetry properties are repeated here, in preparation of the more complicated $`3\nu `$ case.

The above two equations imply that, for fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>0`$ \[Eq. (1)\], $`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$ can be obtained from Eqs. (10) and (14) through a $`12`$ swap, namely,

$`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$ $``$ $`P_{ee}(\nu )_{12}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta P_c(\overline{\nu })+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta [1P_c(\overline{\nu })],`$ (25)
where

$`P_c(\overline{\nu })`$ $``$ $`P_c(\nu )_{12}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi rk\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi rk)1}},`$ (27)
with $`r`$ \[Eq. (13)\] to be evaluated at the same ($`\theta `$-independent) point $`x_p`$ defined for the neutrino case in Eq. (12). Isolines of $`P_c(\overline{\nu })`$ from Eq. (27) are just the mirror images (around the axis $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1`$) of those obtained for $`P_c(\nu )`$ in Figs. 2 and 3.

### D $`2\nu `$ transitions: Summary

A neat summary of the previous analytical results for $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ can be obtained by introducing a new notation,

$`P_c^\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi rk\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )1}{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi rk)1}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}P_c(\nu )& (+),\\ 1P_c(\overline{\nu })& ().\end{array}`$ (31)
In terms of $`P_c^\pm `$, the expressions of $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ and $`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$ for $`2\nu `$ transitions are unified as

$$P_{ee}^{2\nu }=U_{e1}^2P_c^\pm +U_{e2}^2(1P_c^\pm ),$$
(32)
where the $`+`$ sign applies to neutrinos, while the $``$ sign to antineutrinos.

In the above equation, for any sign $`(\pm )`$, both $`V`$ and $`k`$ are kept $`>0`$. All physical cases are covered by letting $`\theta `$ span its whole range $`[0,\pi /2]`$. The density scale factor $`r`$ \[Eq. (13)\] is calculated at the point $`x_p`$ where $`V(x_p)=k`$ \[Eq. (12)\]. The accuracy of such analytical prescription, as compared with exact numerical results, is at the percent level for both realistic and power-law density profiles, as demonstrated in Figs. 2 and 3 for the representative cases shown in Fig. 1. In the power-law case \[Eq. (6)\], the calculation of $`r`$ is further simplified \[Eq. (15)\].

## III Three-flavor transitions with hierarchical mass spectra

Supernova neutrinos can provide peculiar tests of three-flavor oscillations in matter, owing to the wide dynamical range of $`V(x)`$ in collapsing stars (see  and references therein for recent $`3\nu `$ studies). It is thus important to generalize the previous $`2\nu `$ results to the case of $`3\nu `$ transitions, as we do in this section for the phenomenologically interesting cases with hierarchical mass spectra. We think it useful to review the derivation of $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ (recovering some known results) with no reference to the often (mis)used concept of “resonant transition.”

### A $`3\nu `$ transitions: Notation and phenomenological input

We assume mixing among three active neutrinos $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ and three mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ through a unitary matrix\*†\*†\*†In the context of supernova neutrinos, $`U`$ can be taken real without loss of generality. $`U`$. The matrix elements $`U_{ei}`$ relevant for $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ are parametrized in terms of two mixing angles $`(\varphi ,\omega )=(\theta _{13},\theta _{12})`$ ,

$`U_{e1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\omega ,`$ (33)
$`U_{e2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\omega ,`$ (34)
$`U_{e3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi .`$ (35)
The kinematical parameters are completed by two independent squared mass differences $`(\delta m^2,m^2)`$. The dynamics is fixed by $`V(x)`$, and the full supernova $`3\nu `$ parameter space $`S_{3\nu }`$ is

$$S_{3\nu }=(\delta m^2,m^2,\omega ,\varphi ,V).$$
(36)
Solar and reactor neutrino oscillation analyses suggest

$$\delta m^2=|m_2^2m_1^2|7\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(37)
while atmospheric neutrino analyses indicate

$$m^2|m_3^2m_{1,2}^2|3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(38)
thus favoring the so-called hierarchical hypothesis

$$\delta m^2m^2,$$
(39)
very often used in the literature.

Under the assumption of Eq. (39), we parametrize the mass spectra (up to an overall mass scale) as

$$(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(\frac{\delta m^2}{2},+\frac{\delta m^2}{2},+m^2)& ,& \mathrm{direct}\mathrm{hierarchy},\\ (\frac{\delta m^2}{2},+\frac{\delta m^2}{2},m^2)& ,& \mathrm{inverse}\mathrm{hierarchy},\end{array}$$
(40)
where, conventionally, $`m_3^2m_{1,2}^2>0`$ ($`<0`$) identifies the so-called case of direct (inverse) hierarchy, while $`m_2^2m_1^2>0`$ for both hierarchies. As far as $`\varphi ,\omega [0,\pi /2]`$, such a convention can be shown to cover all physical cases, both in vacuum and in matter .

Besides Eqs. (37)–(39), a further phenomenological input comes from the combination of reactor and atmospheric neutrino data, providing

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi =U_{e3}^2\mathrm{few}\%.$$
(41)
As a consequence of the hierarchical assumption of Eq. (39) \[and, to some extent, also of Eq. (41)\], the $`3\nu `$ dynamics approximately reduces to the dynamics in two $`2\nu `$ subsystems, dominated by relatively low $`(L)`$ and high $`(H)`$ values of the matter density, according to parameter space factorization

$$S_{3\nu }L_{2\nu }H_{2\nu }=(\delta m^2,\omega ,V\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )(m^2,\varphi ,V)$$
(42)
(see  and references therein). The corresponding “low” and “high” neutrino oscillation wavenumbers are defined by

$$k_L=\delta m^2/2E$$
(43)
and

$$k_H=m^2/2E,$$
(44)
respectively.

### B $`3\nu `$ transitions: Neutrinos with direct hierarchy

For neutrinos with direct mass hierarchy, the factorization of dynamics in Eq. (42) leads to

$`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}^2,& U_{e2}^2,& U_{e3}^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1P_L(\nu )& P_L(\nu )& 0\\ P_L(\nu )& 1P_L(\nu )& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (56)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1P_H(\nu )& P_H(\nu )\\ 0& P_H(\nu )& 1P_H(\nu )\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}U_{e1,m}^2\\ U_{e2,m}^2\\ U_{e3,m}^2\end{array}\right),`$
where $`P_L`$ and $`P_H`$ are the crossing probabilities for the low and high density transitions, respectively, and the elements $`U_{ei,m}^2`$ in matter are defined in analogy to Eqs. (33)–(35), but with neutrino mixing angles $`\omega _m`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ in matter given by

$`\mathrm{sin}2\omega _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi V/k_L)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\omega }}},`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{cos}2\omega _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega V/k_L}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi V/k_L)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\omega }}},`$ (58)
and

$`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi }{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega V/k_H)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\varphi }}},`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\varphi V/k_H}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega V/k_H)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\varphi }}},`$ (60)
at zeroth order in $`\delta m^2/m^2`$ . The (high density) initial condition $`V/k_{L,H}1`$ leads then to $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _m1\mathrm{cos}2\omega _m`$ and to the known expression

$$P_{ee}(\nu )=U_{e1}^2P_L(\nu )P_H(\nu )+U_{e2}^2[1P_L(\nu )]P_H(\nu )+U_{e3}^2[1P_H(\nu )].$$
(61)
On the basis of Eq. (42) and of our $`2\nu `$ prescription in Eqs. (12)–(14), $`P_L(\nu )`$ and $`P_H(\nu )`$ can be analytically expressed as

$$P_L(\nu )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Lk_L\mathrm{cos}^2\omega )1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Lk_L)1}$$
(62)
and

$$P_H(\nu )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Hk_H\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Hk_H)1},$$
(63)
where

$$r_{L,H}=\left[\frac{1}{V(x)}\frac{dV(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=x_{L,H}}^1,$$
(64)
and the points $`x_L`$ and $`x_H`$ are defined by the $`V=k`$ condition\*‡\*‡\*‡In principle, Eq. (42) implies an effective potential $`V(x)\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$ for the $`L`$ subsystem, and thus $`V(x_L)\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi =k_L`$. However, we have checked that, within the phenomenological bound in Eq. (41), the resulting difference in the calculation of $`P_{ee}`$ is completely negligible. We prefer then the simpler condition $`V(x_L)=k_L`$, analogous to $`V(x_H)=k_H`$ for the $`H`$ subsystem. \[Eq. (12)\]

$$V(x_{L,H})=k_{L,H}.$$
(65)
Equations (61)–(65) allow the calculation of $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ in the whole $`3\nu `$ parameter space for direct hierarchy.

### C $`3\nu `$ transitions: Antineutrinos with direct hierarchy

The antineutrino case can be obtained in analogy to the neutrino case \[Eqs. (56)–(60)\] through the replacement $`V/k_{L,H}V/k_{L,H}`$. In particular, the antineutrino mixing angles in matter are given by

$`\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\omega }_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega +V\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /k_L)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\omega }}},`$ (66)
$`\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\omega }_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\omega +V/k_L}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}2\omega +V\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /k_L)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\omega }}},`$ (67)
and analogously for $`\overline{\varphi }_m`$. The initial high-density condition gives $`\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\varphi }_m+1\mathrm{cos}2\overline{\omega }_m`$ and leads to

$$P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })=U_{e1}^2[1P_L(\overline{\nu })]+U_{e2}^2P_L(\overline{\nu }).$$
(68)
Our analytical prescription for $`P_L(\overline{\nu })`$ is then obtained, mutatis mutandis, from Eq. (27),

$$P_L(\overline{\nu })=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Lk_L\mathrm{sin}^2\omega )1}{\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Lk_L)1},$$
(69)
with $`r_L`$ defined as in Eqs. (64) and (65).

### D $`3\nu `$ transitions: Neutrinos with inverse hierarchy

For fixed mass spectrum and mixing angles, neutrino and antineutrino probabilities can be transformed one into the other by flipping the signs of $`V/k_{L,H}`$ or, equivalently, by flipping the signs attached to $`\delta m^2`$ and $`m^2`$, while keeping $`V>0`$. The $`\pm \delta m^2`$ sign flip is equivalent to the $`12`$ swap of mass labels (as discussed for the $`2\nu `$ case), leading to $`U_{e1}^2U_{e2}^2`$ \[namely, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \mathrm{cos}^2\omega `$, with no change in $`\varphi `$ or $`U_{e3}^2`$\]. The $`\pm m^2`$ sign flip is instead equivalent to swap hierarchy \[see Eq. (40)\].

From such symmetry properties one obtains

$$P_{ee}(\nu |+\delta m^2,m^2)P_{ee}(\overline{\nu }|\delta m^2,+m^2)P_{ee}(\overline{\nu }|+\delta m^2,+m^2)_{12},$$
(70)
namely, the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability for inverse hierarchy equals the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability for direct hierarchy \[Eq. (68)\], under the substitution $`U_{e1}^2U_{e2}^2`$,

$$P_{ee}(\nu )=U_{e2}^2[1P_L(\nu )]+U_{e1}^2P_L(\nu ),$$
(71)
with $`P_L(\nu )`$ defined as in Eq. (62).

### E $`3\nu `$ transitions: Antineutrinos with inverse hierarchy

In analogy with the previous subsection, it can be easily realized that

$$P_{ee}(\overline{\nu }|+\delta m^2,m^2)P_{ee}(\nu |\delta m^2,+m^2)P_{ee}(\nu |+\delta m^2,+m^2)_{12},$$
(72)
which, applied to Eq. (61), gives

$$P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })=U_{e2}^2P_L(\overline{\nu })P_H(\nu )+U_{e1}^2[1P_L(\overline{\nu })]P_H(\nu )+U_{e3}^2[1P_H(\nu )],$$
(73)
with $`P_L(\overline{\nu })`$ and $`P_H(\nu )`$ defined as in Eqs (69) and (63), respectively.

Notice that we have written $`P_H(\nu )`$ and not $`P_H(\overline{\nu })`$ in Eq. (73), since the $`12`$ swap makes no change in $`P_H`$, defined in terms of $`m_3^2m_{1,2}^2`$ and of $`U_{e3}^2`$. One can then drop the argument of $`P_H`$ and simply writeA formal distinction between $`P_H(\nu )`$ and $`P_H(\overline{\nu })`$ was kept in the notation of  and then dropped in .

$$P_H(\overline{\nu })=P_H(\nu )P_H.$$
(74)
### F $`3\nu `$ transitions: Summary I

The $`3\nu `$ results in Eqs. (61), (68), (71), and (73) can be summarized as

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }=U_{e1}^2X_1+U_{e2}^2X_2+U_{e3}^2X_3,$$
(75)
where the coefficients $`X_i`$ are given in Table I, in terms of $`P_L(\nu )`$, $`P_L(\overline{\nu })`$, and $`P_H`$.

The parametrization of $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ given in Eq. (75) and Table I agrees with the results previously obtained in . In addition, however, we have provided explicit analytical approximations for $`P_L`$ \[Eqs. (62) and (69)\] and for $`P_H`$ \[Eq. (63)\], allowing a straightforward calculation of $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ in the whole mass-mixing parameter space, for generic (realistic or power-law) potential profiles.

### G $`3\nu `$ transitions: Summary II

An alternative summary for $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ can be obtained by introducing, in analogy with the $`2\nu `$ case, the notation

$`P_L^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Lk_L\mathrm{cos}^2\omega )1}{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Lk_L)1}}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}P_L(\nu )& (+),\\ 1P_L(\overline{\nu })& (),\end{array}`$ (79)
and

$`P_H^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Hk_H\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )1}{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Hk_H)1}}`$ (80)
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi r_Hk_H\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )& (+),\\ 1& (),\end{array}`$ (83)
where, in the last equation, we have used the phenomenological inputs in Eqs. (38) and (41), implying that $`2\pi r_Hk_H\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi 1`$ for typical supernova potential profiles and neutrino energies.

Equation (75) can then be written in the equivalent form

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }=U_{e1}^2P_L^\pm P_H^\pm +U_{e2}^2(1P_L^\pm )P_H^\pm +U_{e3}^2(1P_H^\pm ),$$
(84)
where the sign assignment for $`P_{L,H}^\pm `$ is given in Table II for the four possible combinations of neutrino types ($`\nu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }`$) and mass hierarchy (direct or inverse).

The neat $`3\nu `$ summary given in Eqs. (76), (80), (84) and in Table II makes the symmetry properties of $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ rather transparent. Passing from $`\nu `$ to $`\overline{\nu }`$, or from direct to inverse hierarchy, appears to simply require appropriate sign flips.

### H $`3\nu `$ transitions: Representative $`P_{ee}`$ calculations

Figure 5 shows a representative analytical calculation of $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ in the slice $`(\delta m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\omega )`$ of the $`3\nu `$ parameter space, which is relevant for the $`L`$ transition in supernovae \[Eq. (42)\] and for its connection with solar neutrino oscillations. Calculations (solid lines)The dotted curves in Fig. 5 include Earth matter effects, to be discussed in the next Section. are made at fixed $`E=15`$ MeV, $`m^2=3\times 10^3`$ eV2, and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi =4\times 10^5`$ ($`P_H^+=0.48`$), for the power-law profile in Fig. 1. The upper panels refer to $`\nu `$ (left) and $`\overline{\nu }`$ (right) in the case of direct hierarchy. The lower panels refer to $`\nu `$ (left) and $`\overline{\nu }`$ (right) in the case of inverse hierarchy. Notice that all calculations for this figure involve only elementary functions, the density scale factor $`r`$ being explicitly given by Eq. (15) for a power-law profile.

A glance at Fig. 5 shows two apparent symmetries: $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ and $`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$ for direct hierarchy look like the mirror image of $`P_{ee}(\overline{\nu })`$ and $`P_{ee}(\nu )`$ for inverse hierarchy, respectively. This (approximate) symmetry originates from the small value of $`U_{e3}^2`$ used in the calculations of Fig. 5. Indeed, neglecting the third term (proportional to $`U_{e3}^2`$) in Eq. (84), and using Eq. (32) (with the identification $`P_c^\pm =P_L^\pm `$), it is

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }P_H^\pm P_{ee}^{2\nu },$$
(85)
namely, the $`3\nu `$ probability is obtained from the $`2\nu `$ probability through a modulation factor $`P_H^\pm `$. Using Eq. (85) and the symmetry properties in Eqs. (70) and (72), it follows that

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }(\nu ,\mathrm{direct})P_H^+P_{ee}^{2\nu }(\nu )=P_H^+P_{ee}^{2\nu }(\overline{\nu })_{12}P_{ee}^{3\nu }(\overline{\nu },\mathrm{inverse})_{12}$$
(86)
and

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }(\overline{\nu },\mathrm{direct})P_H^{}P_{ee}^{2\nu }(\overline{\nu })=P_H^{}P_{ee}^{2\nu }(\nu )_{12}P_{ee}^{3\nu }(\nu ,\mathrm{inverse})_{12},$$
(87)
as previously observed in Fig. 5. We remark that the above Eqs. (86) and (87) represent approximate mirror symmetries, which become exact only for $`U_{e3}^2=0`$. However, for $`U_{e3}^2`$ obeying the bound in Eq. (41), such symmetries are broken, at most, at the few percent level.

## IV Including Earth matter effects

We briefly review known analytical results about Earth matter effects, for the sake of completeness and self-consistency of the paper. For recent phenomenological studies of such effects in the supernova neutrino context see, e.g., .

In general, possible Earth matter effects preceding supernova $`\nu `$ detection can be implemented by the final-state substitution

$$(U_{e1}^2,U_{e2}^2,U_{e3}^2)(P_{e1},P_{e2},P_{e3})$$
(88)
in Eq. (75) or (84), where $`P_{ei}=P(\nu _e\nu _i)`$ in the Earth.

Under the assumption of mass spectrum hierarchy (either direct or inverse), the $`3\nu `$ calculation of $`P_{ei}`$ is further reduced to a $`2\nu `$ problem ,

$$(P_{e1},P_{e2},P_{e3})[\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi (1P_E),\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi P_E,\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi ],$$
(89)
where

$$P_E=P_{e2}^{2\nu }.$$
(90)
The task is thus reduced to the $`2\nu `$ calculations of $`P_E(\nu )`$ and $`P_E(\overline{\nu })`$, which are independent on $`\pm m^2`$ and on the hierarchy type (direct or inverse). Analytical expressions for $`P_E`$ can be given for particularly simple (or approximated) situations of Earth matter crossing.

### A One shell

If the $`\nu `$ trajectory crosses only the Earth mantle, characterized by an approximately constant (average) density, $`P_E(\nu )`$ is simply given by

$$P_E(\nu )=\mathrm{sin}^2\omega +\mathrm{sin}2\omega _m\mathrm{sin}(2\omega _m2\omega )\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k_L\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{2\mathrm{sin}2\omega _m}L\right)$$
(91)
where $`L`$ is the total pathlength in the mantle, and $`\omega _m`$ is defined as in Eqs. (57) and (58) with the appropriate potential $`V`$ in the mantle \[Eqs. (4) and (5)\]. The antineutrino probability is obtained through the substitution

$$P_E(\overline{\nu })=P_E(\nu )|_{V/k_LV/k_L},$$
(92)
leading to

$$P_E(\overline{\nu })=\mathrm{sin}^2\omega +\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\omega }_m\mathrm{sin}(2\overline{\omega }_m2\omega )\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k_L\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{2\mathrm{sin}2\overline{\omega }_m}L\right),$$
(93)
where $`\overline{\omega }_m`$ is defined through Eqs. (66) and (67).

Figure 5 shows an example of Earth matter effects on $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ for mantle crossing (dotted curves), assuming $`\rho =4.5`$ g/cm3, $`Y_e=0.5`$, and $`L=8500`$ km (parameters which are of interest for SN1987A phenomenology; see, e.g., ). The neutrino potential in the mantle is then $`V_M=1.7\times 10^7`$ eV2/MeV, implying strong effects for $`V_Mk_L`$ and thus for $`\delta m^22EVO(10^6)`$ eV2, which may be relevant in connection with the so-called LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem , as widely discussed recently . Notice that the approximate symmetries in Eqs. (86) and (87) are preserved by Earth matter effects, since they act mainly on the two-neutrino $`L`$ transition in hierarchical approximation \[Eq. (89)\].

### B Multiple shells

Neutrino oscillations across two Earth shells with different densities \[mantle $`(M)`$ \+ core $`(C)`$\] were considered in  in the context of supernovae, and intensively studied in  on general grounds, with emphasis on interesting interference properties peculiar to layered matter (see also ). Adapting, e.g., the notation of  to ours, the expression of $`P_E(\nu )`$ for a mantle+core+mantle path in the Earth ($`L=L_M+L_C+L_M`$) reads

$$P_E(\nu )=\mathrm{sin}^2\omega +W_1(W_1\mathrm{cos}2\omega +W_3\mathrm{sin}2\omega ),$$
(94)
where $`W_{1,3}`$ are the first and third component of the vector

$$𝐖=2S_MY𝐧_M+S_C𝐧_C,$$
(95)
having defined $`Y`$ as

$$Y=C_MC_C(𝐧_M𝐧_C)S_MS_C,$$
(96)
the vectors $`𝐧_M`$ and $`𝐧_C`$ as

$$𝐧_{M,C}=(\mathrm{sin}2\omega _{M,C},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{cos}2\omega _{M,C}),$$
(97)
and $`C_M`$ and $`C_C`$ as

$$C_{M,C}=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{k_L\mathrm{sin}2\omega }{2\mathrm{sin}2\omega _{M,C}}L_{M,C}\right)$$
(98)
(and similarly for $`S_{M,C}`$, with $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{sin}`$), where $`\omega _M`$ and $`\omega _C`$ are the effective neutrino mixing angles in the mantle and in the core. $`P_E(\overline{\nu })`$ is then obtained from $`P_E(\nu )`$ through the replacement indicated in Eq. (92).

In the general case of $`N`$ different shells, not necessarily with constant density in each shell, the calculation of $`P_E`$ can also be performed analytically, through the perturbative approach developed in  in the context of solar neutrinos.

## V Summary and conclusions

In the context of two-flavor (anti)neutrino transitions in supernovae, we have described a simple and accurate analytical prescription for the calculation of the survival probability $`P_{ee}`$, based on a double exponential form for the crossing probability, and inspired by the condition of maximum violation of adiabaticity. The prescription holds in the whole oscillation parameter space and for generic supernova density profiles. The analytical approach has then been generalized to cover three-flavor transitions with mass spectrum hierarchy (either direct or inverse), and to include Earth matter effects.

The final prescription for $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ can be summarized as follows:

1. Assume a supernova potential profile $`V(x)>0`$;
2. Fix the mixing angles $`\varphi =\theta _{13}`$ \[obeying Eq. (41)\] and $`\omega =\theta _{12}`$, and calculate the matrix elements $`U_{ei}^2`$ through Eqs. (33)–(34);
3. Fix the “solar” and “atmospheric” squared mass differences, $`\delta m^2>0`$ and $`m^2>0`$, respectively \[within the phenomenological restrictions in Eqs. (37)–(39)\];
4. At a given (anti)neutrino energy $`E`$, find the points $`x_L`$ and $`x_H`$ where the potential $`V`$ equals the wavenumbers $`k_L=\delta m^2/2E`$ and $`k_H=m^2/2E`$, respectively:

$$V(x_{L,H})=k_{L,H};$$
5. Calculate the corresponding density scale factors $`r_L`$ and $`r_H`$ as

$$r_{L,H}=\left[\frac{1}{V(x)}\frac{dV(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=x_{L,H}}^1$$

(both $`>0`$ for monotonically decreasing $`V`$);
6. Assign the $`\pm `$ signs in $`P_L^\pm `$ and $`P_H^\pm `$ by choosing the neutrino type ($`\nu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }`$) and hierarchy (direct or inverse) in Table II, and calculate then $`P_{L,H}^\pm `$ through

$$P_L^\pm =\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Lk_L\mathrm{cos}^2\omega )1}{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Lk_L)1}$$

and

$$P_H^\pm =\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Hk_H\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi )1}{\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2\pi r_Hk_H)1};$$
7. Calculate $`P_{ee}^{3\nu }`$ as

$$P_{ee}^{3\nu }=U_{e1}^2P_L^\pm P_H^\pm +U_{e2}^2(1P_L^\pm )P_H^\pm +U_{e3}^2(1P_H^\pm );$$
8. Finally, include possible Earth matter effects as reviewed in Sec. IV.

We think that such analytical prescription may be useful to simplify the calculation (and to help the understanding) of supernova neutrino oscillation effects.

###### Acknowledgements.

E.L. thanks G. Raffelt and H. Minakata for useful discussions on supernova neutrinos during the TAUP 2001 Conference. This work was supported in part by the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) under the project “Fisica Astroparticellare.”

Fig. 1. Neutrino potential profiles $`V(x)`$ considered in this work. Dashed curve: “realistic” potential, as graphically reduced from the supernova simulation performed in  assuming $`14.6M_{}`$ for the ejecta. Solid line: “power-law” potential $`(Vx^3)`$ which best fits the realistic one.

Fig. 2. Two-flavor transitions: neutrino crossing probability $`P_c(\nu )`$ in the parameter space $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/E,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$ for the power-law potential profile in Fig. 1. Dotted curves: exact numerical calculations. Solid curves: results of the analytical prescription in Eqs. (12)–(14). Isolines of $`P_c`$ for antineutrinos (not shown) can be obtained by reflection around the axis $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1`$. See the text for details.

Fig. 3. As in Fig. 2, but for the realistic potential profile in Fig. 1.

Fig. 4. Two-flavor transitions: analytical results for the electron neutrino survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ in the mass-mixing plane $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta )`$, at a representative neutrino energy ($`E=15`$ MeV). Solid curves: realistic potential. Dotted curves: power-law potential. Isolines of $`P_{ee}`$ for antineutrinos (not shown) can be obtained by reflection around the axis $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =1`$. See the text for details.

Fig. 5. Three-flavor transitions: analytical results for $`P_{ee}`$ in the mass-mixing subspace $`(\delta m^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\omega )`$, assuming the power-law profile in Fig. 1 and fixing $`E=15`$ MeV, $`m^2=3\times 10^3`$ eV2, and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi =4\times 10^5`$ ($`P_H^+=0.48`$). Dotted lines include Earth matter effects for a representative path of 8500 km in the mantle (assuming $`\rho =4.5`$ g/cm3 and $`Y_e=1/2`$). The upper panels refer to $`\nu `$ (left) and $`\overline{\nu }`$ (right) in the case of direct hierarchy. The lower panels refer to $`\nu `$ (left) and $`\overline{\nu }`$ (right) in the case of inverse hierarchy.


text:
# Multi-wavelength Surveys for Distant Clusters

## 1. Introduction

It is well appreciated by this audience that clusters of galaxies are important as tracers of mass on intermediate and large scales and as laboratories for exploring galaxy evolution. Recently, the application of coordinated multi-wavelength observations has significantly enhanced our understanding of the physics of cluster formation and evolution. In particular, the use of multi-wavelength data

* enables studies of a broad range of physical processes which control cluster and cluster galaxy evolution,
* expands the accessible redshift range,
* enhances detection of distant large-scale structure (e.g., intercluster filaments) via joint passband detection methods, and
* minimizes false positive detections and improves ones understanding of sample selection biases.

Now that the era of objective cluster detection across wide wavelength ranges is upon us, it is critical to ask “How does the cluster detection process affect (bias) the scientific conclusions?” This is an important question because different types of clusters can be found by different algorithms and/or at different wavelengths. The different detection outcomes are a consequence of a cluster detection S/N ratio that is generally a function of redshift, survey passband, and the mathematical details and statistical properties of the detection algorithm applied.

The wavelength-dependent differences in the properties of clusters are directly related to the physical phenomena that dominate the clusters “visibility.” In the x-ray passbands (0.1 – 10 keV), it is the hot intracluster medium (ICM) that is being detected. The ICM in clusters typically shines with a luminosity in the range $`43<\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{x})<45.5`$. A luminous, centrally condensed ICM usually indicates a cluster in a state of dynamical equilibrium with a fairly deep gravitational potential. In the optical and near-IR passbands (0.6 – 2.2$`\mu `$), it is one or more of the following that is being detected: a large overdensity of galaxies, a population of early-type galaxies with a narrow optical/NIR color range, and/or the distortion of the images of background galaxies due to gravitational lensing by the cluster. A large galaxy overdensity does not necessarily imply a well-relaxed or massive cluster. Hence, optical/NIR based surveys may include systems of significantly lower mass and/or age than those found in x-ray based surveys. The spectral energy distribution of most clusters peak in the optical/NIR with luminosities in the range $`44<\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{opt}})<46.5`$. The millimeter wavebands (200 – 300 GHz) are ideal for detection of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. The detection of the SZ effect is independent of redshift in as much as the electron density in the ICM and the effective electron temperature is independent of redshift (i.e., if $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$ are functions of time, then so will be the amplitude of the SZ decrement). SZ based surveys have great potential for detecting systems in a quite homogeneous manner out to $`z>1`$. However, the presence of a significant ICM is obviously required. At the longest wavelengths (1.4 – 30 GHz), detection of radio loud cluster galaxies at very high redshifts and detection of galaxies with bent radio lobes (suggesting passage through an ICM) can be achieved. Because radio-loud cluster galaxies may not always be a by-product of cluster formation, radio-based cluster surveys have significant selection biases. They are, nonetheless, capable of detecting systems at the highest redshifts ($`z>2`$).

## 2. Astronomical & Observational Considerations

In addition to a variety of astrophysical parameters that dictate the area, depth, and geometry of a distant cluster survey, there are also several important observational considerations that must be accounted for. An obvious one is the much greater availability of optical/NIR facilities relative to x-ray telescopes. This makes completing large area surveys in the optical/NIR much easier. Competing with this is the fact that the detection of the ICM is a relatively unambiguous indicator of the physical reality of the cluster candidate. The pros and cons of performing cluster surveys in x-ray, optical, and SZ bandpasses are summarized in the table below.

The lack of a significant background in the x-rays is a key advantage of looking for clusters in this wavelength range. Figure 1 shows a beautiful example of this in the form of Chandra/ACIS imaging of the Lynx supercluster complex at $`z1.3`$ (Stanford et al. 2001). However, such x-ray images require a large investment of telescope time (190 ksec in the example here). The same clusters can be easily detected in NIR images with $`\frac{1}{10}`$th the exposure time. In addition, the presence of a significant background in the optical/NIR when searching for clusters at intermediate and high redshifts has lead to the development of several smart algorithms which selectively suppress the background and, in doing so, yield relatively accurate ($`|\delta z|/z<0.1`$) redshift estimates for the cluster candidates. Having these redshift estimates greatly accelerates the science that can be extracted from a survey conducted primarily111I say primarily because the use of color information can provide a quasi-third dimension that eliminates projection effects on scales larger than $`10,000`$ km s-1. in two dimensions. Note that the $`z=1.27`$ Lynx cluster in Figure 1, CL0848+4453, was initially discovered in a NIR image (Stanford et al. 1997).

Figure 2 summarizes the cluster survey area–depth parameter space covered to date (with a few near-future surveys included). This figure is modeled after that in Ebeling et al. (2001) but includes optical and NIR surveys as well. Survey flux limits have been converted to common cgs units for comparison across a broad wavelength range. Although the primary science motive for each listed survey is not always the study of cluster evolution, each one is well suited to the search for distant clusters. Within a given passband, the survey flux limit is an indicator of the effective redshift depth of the survey. However, in order to directly compare effective depths across a large spectral range one must also understand how the cluster and galaxy luminosity functions vary with wavelength. Fortunately, this is relatively well known. The characteristic luminosity of clusters in the x-ray (0.5 – 2 keV), and the characteristic luminosity of cluster galaxies in the optical (0.8$`\mu `$), and NIR (2.2$`\mu `$) passbands are plotted for $`z=0.15`$ and $`z=1`$. Also shown are curves which indicate the areas and depths at which one would expect to find 10 and 100 clusters, respectively, with $`L_x>5\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 at any z (Ebeling et al. 2001).

Recent deep optical/NIR surveys are now reaching areas in excess of 100 square degrees enabling the discovery of the richest clusters at $`z1`$ and the study of the evolution of the moments of the cluster distribution. In this regard, optical/NIR surveys still provide the largest numbers of distant ($`z>0.6`$) cluster candidates. However, new untargetted SZ surveys and very wide area x-ray surveys (e.g., MACS) provide substantial potential for the creation of distant cluster catalogs with very low contamination rates. The NOAO Deep Wide survey (Jannuzi et al. 2000) and the proposed Primordial Explorer (see http://prime.pha.jhu.edu) mission will provide superb datasets, enabling detection and study of clusters out to $`z2`$.

An optimal cluster survey strategy would be to take advantage of the benefits of each particular passband by observing a given region of sky in optical/NIR and x-rays. At the least, this will yield important constraints on differences in the selection functions at these wavelengths. At best, this will produce a comprehensive set of data with which to study cluster evolution. While this is currently difficult to do to sufficient depth to study distant clusters over a large area of sky, it is feasible over regions of a few square degrees. Indeed, several teams have recently done precisely such studies either using existing x-ray data and re-imaging in the optical (Donahue et al. 2001) or using existing optical data and searching in x-ray archives for the corresponding high energy imaging (Holden et al. 1999). I review the conclusions reached from these two studies later in this talk to demonstrate the important constraints that multi-wavelength distant cluster surveys can yield. First, however, I will briefly review the cluster detection algorithms in use today, emphasizing some of the wavelength dependent pros and cons of each, as well as highlighting the importance of quantifying the selection function prior to attempting scientific analysis of any objectively derived cluster sample.

## 3. Cluster Detection Algorithms

The advancement of cluster detection algorithms has benefited greatly from the adaptation of well-known signal and image processing techniques to astronomical use. These include matched filters (e.g., Postman et al. 1996, Kawasaki et al. 1998, Kepner et al. 1999, Lobo et al. 2000, Gladders & Yee 2000) and adaptive wavelet transforms (e.g., Rosati et al. 1995). Other methods come to astronomy from the realm of multi-parametric statistical and clustering analysis such as the Voronoi Tessellation Technique (e.g., Scharf et al. 1997, Ramella et al. 2001). One characteristic of distant clusters, almost regardless of observational bandpass, is that they are relatively low contrast features222The contrast of a distant cluster in a survey is often low because the survey goal is to cover a modest to large area at the expense of depth. The contrast of the same cluster in a given bandpass can, of course, be increased by increasing the exposure time as in the Chandra/ACIS example in Figure 1.. A key property of many of the above methods is, thus, to take the basic input data (e.g., , an x-ray image or a galaxy catalog) and process it in a manner that significantly enhances the contrast. For example, the matched filter algorithm developed by Postman et al. (1996), and modified further by Kepner et al. (1999), enhances the contrast of a $`z0.8`$ cluster observed in the $`I`$band sufficiently to turn a $`2.4\sigma `$ fluctuation in raw galaxy counts into a $`4.5\sigma `$ fluctuation in the matched filter signal. Similarly, the color cut used by Gladders & Yee (2000) in their red-sequence detection method can transform a $`2\sigma `$ fluctuation in galaxy counts (due to a $`z1`$ cluster) into a $`5\sigma `$ fluctuation. Most of the methods above can be applied at a wide range of redshifts and over a broad spectral range. Exceptions include methods which rely on cluster characteristics that span a limited spectral range (e.g., the red galaxy sequence) or are best applied in the optical/NIR (e.g., detection of gravitational lensing). Because each method comes with advantages and disadvantages, using multiple methods is desirable. Multiple algorithm application can assure high completeness across a broad range of cluster properties.

Indeed, the use of multiple algorithms highlights the importance of determining an accurate selection function. Figure 3, adopted from the work of Goto et al. 2001, shows an example of the differences in the richness and redshift distributions of cluster candidates identified using 4 different detection methods applied to identical data. The input data was the early release data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The differences in the resulting cluster catalogs can be understood as a consequence of the different selection function each algorithm yields. Accurate interpretation of cluster data is thus critically dependent on accurate estimation of the relevant selection function.

An example of how cluster selection might affect scientific conclusions is a comparison of the recent work of Dressler et al. 1999 and Poggianti et al. 1999 (MORPHS) versus that of Balogh et al. 1999 and Ellingson et al. 2001 (CNOC). The CNOC study used 15 x-ray selected ($`L_x>2\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1) clusters in the redshift range $`0.18<z<0.55`$. These clusters are mostly rich, relaxed systems. The CNOC clusters also exhibit a prominent E/S0 red sequence in their color-magnitude diagrams. The 10 MORPHS clusters were primarily optically selected and lie in a similar redshift range, $`0.37<z<0.56`$. They span a wide range of mass and $`L_x`$, with 40% being classified as “irregular” in their overall morphology (as traced by the galaxy distribution). The CNOC clusters are reported to contain a low $`k+`$A galaxy fraction of 4.5% and after correction for scatter this value decreases to 1.5%. The field $`k+`$A fraction, for comparison, is 1 – 2%. In contrast, the MORPHS survey finds a significantly larger $`k+`$A fraction of $`20`$% and a significant excess of post-starburst galaxies. The MORPHS study also concludes that star formation in clusters is truncated relatively quickly ($`1`$ Gyr). The CNOC study finds no excess starburst or post-starburst activity relative to the field and concludes that cluster galaxy star formation is truncated gradually over a 2 – 3 Gyr period. How can these two studies reach such different conclusions given the similarity in sample size and redshift range? The answer may, in part, lie in the different selection biases associated with optical vs. x-ray selection. X-ray luminous clusters at $`z<0.5`$ tend to be dynamically older systems – as indicated by the existence of a well-established and centrally-compact intracluster medium. Their galaxy populations, at least within the central 500$`h^1`$ kpc, are dominated by early type galaxies with a narrow range in optical color. While such systems would easily be detected in optical surveys, systems that are dynamically younger may often not satisfy the minimum x-ray luminosity constraint and would thus be systematically excluded from an x-ray selected survey. Infall of late type galaxies into clusters may be more prominent in younger clusters and, hence, so to the presence of starburst and post-starburst objects. While one cannot attribute all differences between the CNOC and MORPHS survey results to the cluster selection process (e.g., some of the differences are likely due to differences in the data analysis or data quality), it is clearly an important factor.

## 4. Case Studies

To better understand the consequences of using x-ray and optical selection criteria, as well as to improve constraints on cluster evolution in general, it is essential to study a common region of sky in multiple wavelengths. Two recent works, the CFHT Optical PDCS Survey (COPS; Holden et al. 1997, 1999, 2000; Adami et al. 2000) and the ROSAT Optical X-ray Survey (ROXS; Donahue et al. 2001), have done just this and have reached some interesting conclusions which are worth reviewing here.

In the COPS study, the ROSAT archive was searched for PSPC data with exposure times of 3 ksec or more and lying within 40 arcminutes of the centers of 31 optically selected clusters from the Palomar Distant Cluster Survey. The x-ray data were then processed using the SHARC source detection software (Romer et al. 2000). A cumulative x-ray luminosity function (XLF) was derived from the resulting extended source catalog and compared with previous XLFs from Burns et al. (1996), Ebeling et al. (1997), Burke et al. (1997), and Rosati et al. (1998). Of the 31 PDCS clusters studied, 7 (23%) were detected in the x-ray data. The cumulative XLF of both the detections and the upper limits are consistent with those from previous x-ray selected samples. Holden et al. conclude that optical selection does not appear to miss a significant number of x-ray emitting clusters within a given area and that optical selection finds both intrinsically luminous and intrinsically faint ($`L_x10^{43}`$ erg s-1) x-ray clusters. Of course, the errors on the derived XLF in the COPS study are substantial given the small sample. Further, while this effort was the first to systematically explore objectively derived optical and x-ray cluster samples it was not a double blind experiment – the existence of an optically selected cluster was the trigger for the ROSAT archive search.

The ROXS study takes the spirit of the COPS study and raises it one level higher by performing completely independent optical and x-ray cluster detection over a common 4.8 deg2 area. The ROXS x-ray data are 23 deep ($`T_{exp}>`$ 8 ksec) ROSAT PSPC pointings. Optical images in the $`V`$ and $`I`$ passbands were obtained for each ROSAT pointing. An adaptive wavelet algorithm (Rosati et al. 1995) was applied to the ROSAT images to detect extended sources. A matched filter algorithm was applied to the optical data to detect clusters and derive an optical richness estimate, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}`$, which corresponds to an effective optical luminosity. The availability of complete x-ray and optical data over the same sky area enabled the ROXS team to generate entirely independent cluster catalogs. The two catalogs were compared in a variety of ways and the following key results derived:

* 57 x-ray detections and 155 optical detections were found. 72% of the x-ray candidates are co-identified in the optical survey. Of the remaining 28%, one third are bona fide optically faint candidates. The rest are systems with poor x-ray flux measurements.
* Most $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}>30`$ optically selected clusters are real if the $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}^\beta `$ relationship is steep. The best fit is $`\beta =3.8\pm 0.8`$.
* There is no need to hypothesize a sizeable population of optically rich, x-ray faint clusters. The observed cluster distribution is consistent with a steep $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}`$ relation in which there is also significant scatter between x-ray and optical luminosity and a false positive rate (in the optical) of $`25`$%.

Indeed, if the slope of the $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}^\beta `$ relation is steeper than 2 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{CL}L_{Opt}`$, then the $`M/L`$ ratio of clusters will continue to increase with mass (at least into the moderate mass range of ROXS clusters). Specifically, if $`L_xM^2`$ then $`M/L_{Opt}M^{12/\beta }`$. Figure 4 shows this prediction overplotted on actual observational data obtained for low redshift clusters (Hradecky et al. 2000).

## 5. Goals for Multi-wavelength Distant Cluster Surveys

Multi-wavelength surveys for distant clusters have conclusively demonstrated their value in quantifying wavelength-dependent selection biases, establishing fundamental relationships between global cluster properties, and for predicting and characterizing key evolutionary trends. The near term goals for the current and next generation of cluster surveys will likely focus on addressing the following key scientific questions:

* How do global cluster properties (mass, gas fraction, mass profile) depend on the size of the early type galaxy population, star formation rate, and internal kinematics. For example, is the red sequence unique to virialized clusters?
* How does clustering on large-scales evolve? Cluster surveys are now reaching volumes and depths that enable detection of several hundred clusters with $`z>0.6`$. The utility of clusters as tracers of large-scale structure has been proven at low redshift and that same advantage can now be employed at $`z1`$.
* How do clusters themselves evolve? The assembly of a statistically complete sample of clusters in the range $`1<z<2`$ over an area of $`>100`$ deg2 is within reach of current technology (NIR mosaic cameras, more efficient millimeter band receivers for SZE detection). Coupled with spectroscopic, HST, and x-ray observations, such a large survey will yield precise constraints on cluster evolution.

To achieve these goals, equally dedicated efforts must be undertaken in the development and/or enhancement of cluster detection algorithms (e.g., , see Nichol et al. 2001) and improved methods for comparing and analyzing independently derived cluster catalogs over a broad spectral range. This is especially important given the current or near future availability of homogeneous multi-wavelength surveys that have significant sky overlap (e.g., 2MASS, SDSS, ROSAT/MACS, MAP, PRIME). The LSST (Tyson, Wittman, & Angel 2000) holds the potential for wide-area “mass”-selected cluster catalogs, substantially simplifying the scientific interpretation of the resulting cluster samples. In all these efforts, however, the question of understanding how the cluster detection process affects the scientific conclusions must always be in the fore.

## References

Adami, C., Holden, B. P., Castander, F. J., Mazure, A., Nichol, R. C., Ulmer, M. P. 2000, A&A, 362, 825.

Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., Ellingson, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54.

Burke, D. J., Collins, C. A., Sharples, R. M., Romer, A. K., Holden, B. P., Nichol, R. C. 1997, ApJ, 488, L83.

Burns, J. O., Ledlow, M. J., Loken, C., Klypin, A., Voges, W., Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., White, R. A. 1996, ApJ, L49.

de Propris, R., Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R., Dickinson, M., Elston, R. 1999, AJ, 118, 719.

Donahue, M., Mack, J., Scharf, C., Lee, P., Postman, M., Rosati, P., Dickinson, M., Voit, G. M., Stocke, J. T. 2001, ApJ, 552, L93.

Dressler, A., Smail, I., Poggianti, B. M., Butcher, H., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., Oemler, A., Jr. 1999, ApJS, 122, 51.

Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., Fabian, A. C., Allen, S. W., Crawford, C. S., Boehringer, H. 1997, ApJ, 479, L101.

Ebeling, H., Edge, A. C., & Henry, P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 668.

Ellingson, E., Lin, H., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 609.

Gladders, M. D. & Yee, H. K. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2148.

Goto, T. et al. 2001, AJ, submitted for publication.

Holden, B. P., Romer, A. K., Nichol, R. C., Ulmer, M. P. 1997, AJ, 114, 567.

Holden, B. P., Nichol, R. C., Romer, A. K., Metevier, A., Postman, M., Ulmer, M. P., Lubin, L. M. 1999, AJ, 118, 2002.

Holden, B. P., Adami, C., Nichol, R. C., Castander, F. J., Lubin, L., Romer, A. K., Mazure, A., Postman, M., Ulmer, M. P. 2000, AJ, 120, 23.

Hradecky, V., Jones, C., Donnelly, R. H., Djorgovski, S. G., Gal, R. R., Odewahn, S. C. 2000, ApJ, 543, 521.

Jannuzi, B. T., Dey, A., Tiede, G. P., Brown, M. J. I., NDWFS Team 2000, B.A.A.S., 197, 7709.

Kawasaki, W., Shimasaku, K., Doi, M., Okamura, S. 1998, A&AS, 130, 567.

Kepner, J., Fan, X., Bahcall, N., Gunn, J., Lupton, R., Xu, G. 1999, ApJ, 517, 78.

Lobo, C., Iovino, A., Lazzati, D., Chincarini, G. 2000, A&A, 360, 896.

Nichol, R. C. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0110230.

Poggianti, B. M., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W. J., Barger, A. J., Butcher, H., Ellis, R. S., Oemler, A., Jr. 1999, ApJ, 518, 576.

Postman, M., Lubin, L. M., Gunn, J. E., Oke, J. B., Hoessel, J. G., Schneider, D. P., Christensen, J. 1996, AJ, 111, 615.

Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Szapudi, I., & Oegerle, W. 1998, ApJ, 506, 33.

Ramella, M., Boschin, W., Fadda, D., Nonino, M. 2001, A&A, 368, 776.

Romer, A. K., Nichol, R. C., Holden, B. P., Ulmer, M. P., Pildis, R. A., Merrelli, A. J., Adami, C., Burke, D. J., Collins, C. A., Metevier, A. J., Kron, R. G., Commons, K. 2000, ApJS, 126, 209.

Rosati, P., Della Ceca, R., Burg, R., Norman, C., Giacconi, R. 1995, ApJ, 445, L11.

Rosati, P., Della Ceca, R., Norman, C., Giacconi, R. 1998, ApJ, 492, L21.

Scharf, C. A., Jones, L. R., Ebeling, H., Perlman, E., Malkan, M., Wegner, G 1997, ApJ, 477, 79.

Stanford, S. A., Elston, R., Eisenhardt, P. R., Spinrad, H., Stern, D., Dey, A. 1997, AJ, 114, 2232.

Stanford, S. A., Holden, B., Rosati, P., Tozzi, P., Borgani, S., Eisenhardt, P. R., Spinrad, H. 2001, ApJ, 552, 504.

Tyson, J. A., Wittman, D., Angel, J. R. P., 2000, in proceedings of the Dark Matter 2000 conference (Santa Monica, February 2000) to be published by Springer, astro-ph/0005381.

Voit, M., & Donahue, M. 1999, private communication.


text:
# Quantum catastrophe of slow light

\[

\]

Catastrophes are at the heart of many fascinating optical phenomena1. The rainbow1, for example, is a ray catastrophe where light rays become infinitely intense. The wave nature of light resolves the infinities of ray catastrophes1 while drawing delicate interference patterns such as the supernumerary arcs of the rainbow1. Black holes2 cause wave singularities. Waves oscillate with infinitely small wave lengths at the event horizon2 where time stands still. The quantum nature of light evades this higher level of catastrophic behaviour while producing a quantum phenomenon known as Hawking radiation3. As this letter describes, light brought to a standstill in laboratory experiments4,5,6 can suffer a similar wave singularity caused by a parabolic profile of the group velocity7. In turn, the quantum vacuum is forced to create photon pairs with a characteristic spectrum. The idea may initiate a theory of quantum catastrophes, in addition to classical catastrophe theory8,9, and the proposed experiment may lead to the first direct observation of a phenomenon related to Hawking radiation3.

Optical media govern the propagation of light. Media are transparent substances such as glass or water, but empty yet curved space is a medium as well10. One can manipulate certain material media to give them extraordinary optical properties. Inside such media light may propagate with a negative11 or very low12 group velocity7 or light may be completely frozen4,5,6. In a medium with Electromagnetically-Induced Transparency13 (EIT) an external control beam dictates the group velocity $`v_g`$ of a second and weaker probe beam to slow down the probe light4,5,6,12. Once the first beam has gained control, the group velocity of the second one is essentially proportional to the control intensity $`I_c`$, even in the limit when $`I_c`$ vanishes14.

Imagine that the control beam illuminates the EIT medium from above. Initially, the control intensity is uniform, but then the control light develops a dark stripe. The stripe shall continue down through the medium as an interface $`𝒵`$ of zero intensity $`I_c`$ where, consequently, the group velocity of any potential probe light vanishes. In the following we show theoretically that the interface $`𝒵`$ forms the optical analog of an event horizon. The formation of the horizon should trigger a quantum catastrophe that results in a continuous emission of slow-light quanta out of the vacuum. First we analyze classical waves of slow light and then we turn to the quantum theory.

Assume that the interface $`𝒵`$ of zero control intensity $`I_c`$ is sufficiently flat such that the optical properties generated do not vary much in the spatial directions parallel to $`𝒵`$. Consider a line $`z`$ orthogonal to $`𝒵`$. Over a small fraction of a characteristic length $`a`$, the group-velocity profile of the slow probe light is parabolic,

$$v_gc\frac{z^2}{a^2},$$
(1)
because $`I_c`$ increases quadratically in the vicinity of a zero. As usual, $`c`$ denotes the speed of light in vacuum. For simplicity we concentrate on slow-light waves $`\phi (t,z)`$ that propagate in $`z`$ direction only and we ignore their polarizations.

To predict the propagation properties of slow light we may use the specific physics of EIT illustrated in figure 2. Equivalently and more generally, we translate the phenomenological dispersion relation15 of slow light with frequencies close to the EIT-resonance $`\omega _0`$ into a wave equation that is subject to the principle of least action of the canonical formalism16,

$$\left(\frac{}{t}(1+\alpha )\frac{}{t}c^2\frac{^2}{z^2}+\alpha \omega _0^2\right)\phi =0.$$
(2)
After the formation of the interface $`𝒵`$ the group index $`\alpha `$ has developed a quadratic singularity

$$\alpha =c/v_g1=\frac{a^2}{z^2}.$$
(3)
As a consequence, slow light propagates independently on the two sides of the interface $`𝒵`$ and can never cross $`𝒵`$, because, in mathematical terms, we can multiply any solution $`\phi `$ with the step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\pm z)`$ and still solve the wave equation (2). On either side of $`𝒵`$ we can decompose a slow-light pulse into monochromatic waves, i.e. into stationary solutions of the wave equation (2)

$$\phi =\sqrt{z}J_{\pm \nu }(kz)e^{i\omega t},\nu =\sqrt{1/4a^2(k^2k_0^2)}$$
(4)
expressed in terms of the Bessel functions17 $`J_\nu `$ and the wave numbers $`k=\omega /c`$. Two cases emerge. First, when $`4a^2(\omega ^2\omega _0^2)c^2`$, the index $`\nu `$ is real. In this case, the incident waves are totally reflected away from the interface $`𝒵`$, as we infer from the behavior of the Bessel functions17 for large $`kz`$. In the other case, $`4a^2(\omega ^2\omega _0^2)>c^2`$, the index is imaginary,

$$\nu =i\mu ,\mu =\sqrt{a^2(k^2k_0^2)1/4},$$
(5)
and the reflected and incident waves are not balanced. The remaining transmitted light is trapped at the interface $`𝒵`$, because here17

$$\phi \zeta ^{i\mu +1/2}e^{i\omega t}=\sqrt{\zeta }e^{i\mu \mathrm{ln}\zeta i\omega t},\zeta =kz.$$
(6)
Close to $`𝒵`$ the slow-light intensity falls with falling distance $`z`$ and the phase $`\mu \mathrm{ln}(kz)`$ becomes infinite, causing the light to oscillate with linearly decreasing wave length7 $`(2\pi /\mu )z`$. Waves freeze near the interface $`𝒵`$. We regard a process that creates an interface where waves separate and develop a logarithmic phase singularity18 as a wave catastrophe.

Close to the event horizon of a black hole2 an outside observer would see a similar behavior of waves19. The horizon cuts space into two disconnected parts. All motion freezes near the horizon where time seems to stand still. Waves develop a logarithmic phase singularity. Yet an observer falling inwards could pass the horizon without noticing anything unusual. This characteristic difference in perception has a profound consequence, because the quantum vacuum behaves similar to a fluid that shares the fate of the inward-falling observer19-21. Consequently, the quantum vacuum must not occupy the waves seen by the outside observer. In other words, this observer does not see a vacuum. Instead, the observer detects the quanta of Hawking radiation3,19.

Consider the quantum physics of our wave catastrophe. According to quantum field theory16, waves are potential particle carriers called modes. Modes describe the spatial-temporal fields of single quanta and, therefore, they are normalized with respect to a characteristic scalar product20. We normalize the waves (4) with imaginary index (5) to find the set of modes

$`w_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1e^{2\pi \mu }}}}\left(u_R^+e^{\pi \mu }u_R^{}\right),w_L(z)=w_R(z),`$ (7)
$`u_R`$ $`=`$ $`u_R^{},u_L(z)=u_R(z),`$ (8)
$`u_R^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(z)}{\sqrt{2c}}}e^{\mu \pi /2}\sqrt{k_0z}J_{\pm i\mu }(kz)e^{i\omega t}.`$ (9)
The step function $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ indicates that the $`R/L`$ modes exist either on the right or on the left side of the horizon $`𝒵`$. We have chosen the $`w`$ modes such that they appear as outgoing plane waves far away from $`𝒵`$. These are the modes that carry detectable quanta.

Complex analysis18 is an imaginative mathematical method to understand real physics. Regard hypothetically the distance $`z`$ and the time $`t`$ as complex variables18. The modes (9) are non-analytic functions18 of $`z`$, because they vanish18 on one of the sides of the horizon. However, the quantum vacuum should occupy a set of analytic modes, for the following reason: The formation of the horizon is a dynamic process14. Initially, the quantum vacuum occupies analytic modes such as packets of plane waves. The process conserves the analyticity in $`z`$, even after the wave catastrophe has occurred. Furthermore, the light waves are analytic on the lower half of the complex $`t`$ plane on at least one side of the horizon. One can prove that at any arbitrary time $`t_0`$ after the catastrophe the vacuum modes are certain combinations of the detector modes,

$`v_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w_L}{e^{\pi \mu }+e^{\pi \mu }}}iw_Rie^{2i\omega t_0}{\displaystyle \frac{w_R^{}}{e^{\pi \mu }+e^{\pi \mu }}},`$ (10)
$`v_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{2\pi \mu }}}}\left(u_R+ie^{\pi \mu }u_L\right),`$ (11)
supplemented with analogous formulas where $`R`$ and $`L`$ are interchanged. The vacuum modes (11) contain complex-conjugated $`w`$ modes with negative frequencies and hence negative energies. This is the decisive sign of particle creation19,20.

Similar to a gravitational collapse2, the tuning of the control field towards a parabolic intensity profile triggers a wave catastrophe. In turn, the slow-light quantum field sets out to deplete the control beam, taking energy from it, in an attempt to alter the intensity profile that has caused the catastrophe, yet in vain. The control beam continuously replenishes the profile, driving a stationary production of slow-light quantum pairs. The two particles of each pair are created on opposite sides of the horizon, they depart at a snail’s pace, accelerate gradually and emerge as detectable photons, similar to the Hawking radiation3,19 of black holes. In contrast to gravitational holes, one can explore the other side of the horizon and measure the non-local correlations22 of the photon pairs. The weight of the negative-frequency component $`w^{}`$ in the vacuum modes (11) gives20 the average photon number per mode,

$$\overline{n}=\frac{1}{\left(e^{\pi \mu }+e^{\pi \mu }\right)^2}.$$
(12)
Maximally $`1/4`$ photons are created on average, which is quite substantial, considering the fact that bright sunlight carries a mere $`0.01`$ photons per mode in the optical range of the Planck spectrum22. Yet the pair production occurs in a narrow frequency window above the critical frequency $`\omega _0+c^2/(8a^2\omega _0)`$ which, for realistic experimental parameters4,6, reduces the total photon flux to a few millions of particles per second, a respectable rate. One could perhaps see the radiation with the naked eye. The characteristic length $`a`$ of the group-velocity profile (1) determines the spectral width (12) of the pair production. The steeper the control-field gradient is, the more quanta are created. Black holes show a similar behavior3. The smaller the hole is, the larger is the gravity gradient at the horizon and the stronger is the radiation generated3.

Close to the horizon the susceptibility of slow light diverges. Yet Nature tends to prevent infinite susceptibilities: Instead of responding infinitely strongly, optical media become absorptive or non-linear. According to the physics of EIT illustrated in figure 2, the optical non-linearity of slow light depends on the ratio of the probe and control intensities $`I_p`$ and $`I_c`$. Equation (6) shows that $`I_p|\phi |^2`$ grows linearly in $`z`$, whereas $`I_c`$ is quadratic in $`z`$. Therefore, at a critical distance from the horizon the EIT medium becomes non-linear. A detailed three-dimensional calculation, using the parameters of the experiments4,6, indicates that the non-linearity sets on before the absorption of the medium becomes important, given a sufficiently steep control-intensity gradient. The Rabi frequency22 of the control light should grow at least by $`10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ per distance measured in wave lengths $`\lambda _0=2\pi /k_0`$. In this case the scale $`a`$ is about $`5\times 10^3\lambda _0`$.

The quantum radiation of a slow-light catastrophe resembles Hawking radiation but also exhibits some interesting differences. The emitted spectrum (12) is not Planckian, whereas a black hole of Schwarzschild radius $`r_s`$ appears as a black-body radiator with temperature3 $`\mathrm{}c/(4\pi r_s)`$. The differences between the two spectra can be traced back to two different classes of wave catastrophes. In both cases18, waves freeze at an horizon in the form $`\zeta ^p`$ with an exponent $`p`$ of $`i\mu +1/2`$ for slow-light media but with an exponent $`i\mu `$ for black holes where $`\mu =2\pi r_s\omega /c`$. Note that Unruh’s effect21 of radiation seen by an accelerated observer is of Hawking-class as well19 and so are most of the proposed artificial black holes15,23-29. Remarkably, Schwinger’s pair production of charged particles in electrostatic fields30 is accompanied by a subtle wave catastrophe of exponent19 $`i\mu 1/2`$ and leads to a Boltzmannian spectrum $`\overline{n}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mu )`$. All three catastrophes agree in the limit of large $`\mu `$ but deviate significantly in the regime of maximal particle production where $`\mu `$ is small. It might be interesting to find out whether Nature offers more than the three quantum catastrophes.

Details of the calculations will be published elsewhere.

1. Berry, M. V. & Upstill, C. Catastrophe optics: morphologies of caustics and their diffraction patterns. Progress in Optics XVIII 257-346 (1980).
2. Misner, Ch. W., Thorne, K. S. & Wheeler, J. A. Gravitation (Freeman, New York, 1999).
3. Hawking, S. M. Black hole explosions? Nature 248, 30-31 (1974).
4. Liu, Ch., Dutton, Z., Behroozi, C. H. & Hau, L. V. Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses. Nature 409, 490-493 (2001).
5. Philips, D. F., Fleischhauer, A., Mair, A., Walsworth, R. L. & Lukin, M. D. Storage of Light in Atomic Vapor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 783-786 (2001).
6. Dutton, Z., Budde, M., Slowe, C. & Hau L. V. Observation of quantum shock waves created with ultra-compressed slow light pulses in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Science 293, 663-668 (2001).
7. Born, M. & Wolf, E. Principles of Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
8. Thom, R. Stabilité structurelle et morphogénèse (Benjamin, Reading, 1972).
9. Poston, T. & Stewart, I. Catastrophe Theory and Its Applications (Dover, Mineola, 1996).
10. Schleich, W. & Scully, M. O. General relativity and modern optics. Les Houches Session XXXVIII New trends in atomic physics (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984).
11. Wang, L. J., Kuzmich, A. & Dogariu, A. Gain-assisted superluminal light propagation. Nature 406, 277-279 (2000).
12. Hau, L. V., Harris, S. E., Dutton, Z. & Behroozi, C. H. Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. Nature 397, 594-598 (1999).
13. Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
14. Fleischhauer, M. & Lukin, M. D. Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically-induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5094-5097 (2000).
15. Leonhardt, U. & Piwnicki, P. Relativistic effects of light in moving media with extremely low group velocity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 822-825 (2000).
16. Weinberg, S. The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
17. Erdélyi, A., Magnus, W., Oberhettinger, F. & Tricomi, F. G. Higher Transcendental Functions, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981).
18. Ablowitz, M. J. & Fokas, A. S. Complex Variables (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
19. Brout, R., Massar, S., Parentani, R. & Spindel, Ph. A primer for black hole quantum physics. Phys. Rep. 260, 329-446 (1995).
20. Birrell, N. D. & Davies, P. C. W. Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982).
21. Unruh, W. G. Notes on black-hole evaporation. Phys. Rev. D 14, 870-892 (1976).
22. Mandel, L. & Wolf, E. Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
23. Unruh, W. G. Experimental black-hole evaporation? Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 1351-1353 (1981).
24. Visser, M. Acoustic black holes: horizons, ergosheres and Hawking radiation. Class. Quantum. Grav. 15, 1767-1791 (1998).
25. Jacobson, T.A & Volovik, G. E. Event horizons and ergoregions in 3He. Phys. Rev. D 58, 064021-1-7 (1998).
26. Volovik, G. E. Simulation of a Panlevé-Gullstrand black hole in a thin 3He-A film. JETP Lett. 69, 705-713 (1999).
27. Garay, L. J., Anglin, J. R., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Sonic analog of gravitational black holes in Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4643-4647 (2000).
28. Reznik, B. Origin of the thermal radiation in a solid-state analogue of a black hole. Phys. Rev. D 62, 044044-1-7 (2000).
29. Chapline, G., Hohfeld, E., Laughlin, R. B. & Santiago, D. I. Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity. Phil. Mag. B 81, 235-254 (2001).
30. Schwinger, J. On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization. Phys. Rev. 82, 664-679 (1951).

| Example | Exponent | Average particle number |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hawking radiation | $`i\mu `$ | $$\frac{1}{e^{2\pi \mu }1}$$ |
| Unruh effect |  |  |
| Schwinger’s pair production | $`i\mu 1/2`$ | $$e^{2\pi \mu }$$ |
| Slow light | $`i\mu +1/2`$ | $$\frac{1}{\left(e^{\pi \mu }+e^{\pi \mu }\right)^2}$$ |

Quantum catastrophes. In each example a wave develops a singularity with a characteristic exponent. Quantum physics resolves the singularity and produces particle pairs with a characteristic spectrum (average particle number).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The Discussion Meeting on Artificial Black Holes at the Royal Institution has been an inspiration for this work. I take this opportunity to thank the participants and the organizers. I acknowledge the support of the ESF Programme Cosmology in the Laboratory.

CORRESPONDENCE should be addressed to U. L. (e-mail: ulf@st-andrews.ac.uk).


text:
# Acknowledgement

## Acknowledgement

We are very much indebt to Professors Yuri Obukhov and I.Shapiro for carefully reading the manuscript and for helpfull discussions. Financial support from CNPq. and UERJ is acknowledged.


text:
# Higher Dimensional Static Cosmological Model in Lyra Manifold

## 1  Introduction

The geometry proposed by Lyra  stands for the Riemannian geometry and was utilized by Sen , Halford , Bhamra  and Kalyanshetti and Waghmode  to probe into some of the aspects of cosmological theory. Having known that the conformally flat space-time are of particular interest in the context of petrov classification in view of their degeneracy. In this paper, we imply the geometry to study the static conformally flat cosmological model filled with perfect filled.

### 1.1 Field Equation

The field equations in normal gauge for Lyra’s manifold as obtained by Sen  are

$$R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}R+\frac{3}{2}\varphi _i\varphi _j\frac{3}{4}g_{ij}\varphi _k\varphi ^k=8\pi T_{ij}$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _i`$ as a displacement field and the other symbols have their usual meanings as in Riemannian geometry. We assume the vector displacement field $`\varphi _i`$ to be the time like constant vector.

$$\varphi _i=(0,0,0,0,\beta )$$
(2)
where $`\beta `$ is a constant. Consider the five dimensional static conformally flat spherically symmetric perfect fluid represented by the space-time metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\alpha }\left(dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2+dm^2\right)$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ is a function of r alone. The energy momentum tensor $`T_{ij}`$ for perfect fluid distribution is given by

$$T_{ij}=(P+\rho )V_iV_jPg_{ij}$$
(4)
together with

$$g_{ij}V^iV^j$$
(5)
where $`V^i`$ is the five velocity vector of the fluid and $`P`$ and $`\rho `$ are the proper pressure and density respectively.
By use of equations (2), (4) and (5), the fields equations (1) for the line element (3) can be written as

$$e^{2\alpha }\left(6\alpha _1^2+\frac{6\alpha _1}{r}\frac{3}{4}\beta ^2\right)=8\pi P$$
(6)
$$e^{2\alpha }\left(3\alpha _{11}+3\alpha _1^2+\frac{3\alpha _1}{r}\frac{3}{4}\beta ^2\right)=8\pi P$$
(7)
$$e^{2\alpha }\left(3\alpha _{11}+3\alpha _1^2+\frac{6\alpha _1}{r}+\frac{3}{4}\beta ^2\right)=8\pi \rho $$
(8)
where $`\alpha _1=\frac{d\alpha }{dr},\alpha _{11}=\frac{d^2\alpha }{dr^2}`$ etc.
Eliminating $`P`$ between equation (6) and (7) we get

$$\alpha _{11}\alpha _1^2\frac{\alpha _1}{r}=0$$
(9)
which results into the solution

$$e^\alpha =(Ar^2+B)$$
(10)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are arbitrary constants. Hence, the static conformally flat cosmological models in Lyra geometry takes the form

$$ds^2=(Ar^2+B)^2\left(dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2+dm^2\right)$$
(11)
It is interesting to observe that the model (11) is similar to the static conformally symmetric model obtained by Kalyanshetti and Waghmode  in the Einstein-Cartan theory for a perfect fluid with a classical description of spin.

### 1.2 Some Properties of the Model

The pressure $`P`$ and density $`\rho `$ in the model are given by

$$8\pi P=12A^2r^212AB\frac{3}{4}\beta ^2(Ar^2+B)^2$$
(12)
$$8\pi \rho =18AB6A^2r^2\frac{3}{4}\beta ^2(Ar^2+B)^2$$
(13)
The dominant energy conditions,

$$\rho =0,\rho P0,\rho +P0.$$
(14)
For the general perfect fluid distribution leads to

$$5AB3A^2r^2,\beta <\frac{4A}{(Ar^2+B)}$$
(15)
If $`A=0`$ and $`B=0,`$ we have from (15) that $`\beta ^2<0`$ so that the displacement vector $`\varphi _i`$ in Lyra manifold is imaginary and thus the model is physically unrealistic. Also when $`A=0,`$ the space-time is flat. Also with $`P0`$ and $`\beta ^2>=0,`$ one obtains

$$A^2r^2AB$$

so that

$$\frac{5B}{3A}>r^2\frac{B}{A}$$

The solution is restricted to a comparatively small region of the space-time.

### 1.3 Conclusions

It is observed that the situation in this case is similar (apart from a difference of sign) to that discussed by Kalyanshetti and Waghmode  in the Einstein-Cartan theory with number $`\beta ^2`$ and therefore, the displacement vector $`\varphi `$ in Lyra manifold plays the role of the spin density.