text:
# Photometric properties of Stellar Populations in GGCs: a multi-wavelength approach

## 1. Introduction

Stellar evolution theory is crucial to yield a reliable clock for dating astrophysical objects. Suitable Color Magnitude Diagrams (CMDs) and Luminosity Functions (LFs) are the most powerful tools to test theoretical models and, in turn, the running of the stellar clock. Within this framework, our group started a long–term project devoted to the quantitative analysis and testing of each individual evolutionary sequence in the CMDs of Galactic Globular Clusters (GGCs) in the most appropriate photometric bands (from the near-IR to the far UV). The most recent results obtained are presented and discussed in this review. In particular, I present results of a systematic study of (i) the Red Giant Branch (RGB) in the near-IR (J,K) and in the optical bands; (ii) the Horizontal Branch (HB), Blue Stragglers stars (BSS) and some UV-excess stars (UVE) from mid- and far-UV observations obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope.

## 2. Cool Stellar Populations in GGCs

The main aim of this part of the project is to obtain a complete quantitative description of the RGB as a function of the intrinsic cluster parameters, and to yield a few observational relationships for general use and suitable to carefully test the theoretical models. The full set of results were published in two recent papers: Ferraro et al 1999 (F99) and Ferraro et al 2000a (F00).

### 2.1.  The Optical catalog

As a first step, we reviewed the papers on CMDs for GGCs published over the last ten years, in order to select populous and high quality CMDs. As a result, a catalog including the most recent CMDs for a sample of 61 GGCs has been presented in F99. We used this data-base to perform an homogeneous systematic analysis of the evolved sequences (namely, RGB, HB and AGB). In F99, we presented: (1) a new methodology to derive the actual level of the Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) and the distance moduli from the matching of V(ZAHB) and the theoretical models computed by Straniero, Chieffi & Limongi (1997, hereafter SCL97); (2) an independent estimate for RGB metallicity indicators and new calibrations of these parameters in terms of both spectroscopic ($`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{CG97}}`$) and global metallicity ($`[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]`$, including also the $`\alpha `$elements enhancement). In particular, we adopted the metallicity scale presented by CG97 based on high quality measurements of iron abundances using high dispersion spectra of $`FeI`$ and $`FeII`$ lines. However, in order to perform a correct parametrization of the RGB behavior as a function of metallicity, the simple knowledge of the quantity usually called iron abundance is not sufficient. since the RGB location mainly depends on the \[Mg+Si+Fe\] mixture abundance rather than on the \[Fe\] abundance alone. Therefore, a more reliable parameter to describe the actual metal content of the RGB stars is the so–called global metallicity, which takes into account not only the iron but also the $`\alpha `$–element (like Mg and Si) abundance. In doing this, we adopted the relation proposed by Salaris, Chieffi & Straniero (1993).

In F99 we presented a complete set of equations which can be used to simultaneously derive a photometric estimate of the metal abundance and the reddening from the morphology and the location of the RGB in the $`(V,BV)`$-CMD. Moreover, we were able to determine the location of the RGB-Bump and the AGB-Bump in a number of GGCs. In the following subsection I breafly summarize the results we got for these two peculiar evolutive features along the Giant Branches.

The RGB-Bump –The RGB evolution is characterized by a narrow burning hydrogen shell which is moving towards the outer region of the star. The shell is quite thin in mass and a temporary drop in luminosity is expected when it reaches the discontinuity in the hydrogen distribution profile generated by the inner penetration of the convective envelope. This interruption in the expansion of the stellar envelope has its signature in the differential LF star excess, the so–called bump.

Since the early work presented in Fusi Pecci et al 1990 (F90), the RGB-Bump has been identified in a growing number of GGCs (see for example Brocato et al. 1996). As pointed out by F90, the best tool to identify the RGB-bump is the Luminosity Function (LF), and both the integrated and the differential LFs are useful (Ferraro 1992). Following the prescriptions of F90 we independently identified the RGB-bump in 47 GGCs. This is the largest GGCs sample listing the RGB-bump locations available so far.

To allow comparisons with theoretical models, following F90, we have measured the parameter: $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{HB}}^{\mathrm{Bump}}=V_{\mathrm{Bump}}V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$, which has the advantage of being actually independent of the photometric zero-point of the cluster data, the reddening, and the distance modulus. In Figure 1(a) we compare the observed values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{HB}}^{\mathrm{Bump}}`$ parameter with the latest theoretical predictions (SCL97) as a function of the global metallicity $`[M/H]`$. As a result, we found that by using the latest theoretical models and the new metallicity scales the discrepancy between theory and observations ($`0.4`$ mag) found by F90, completely disappears.

The AGB-Bump – According to the evolutionary models (Castellani, Chieffi & Pulone, 1991), the beginning of the AGB is characterized by a rapid increase of the luminosity followed by a slowing down in the evolutionary rate. Then, from an observational point of view, a well defined clump of stars is expected to indicate the base of the AGB.

The models suggest (Castellani, Chieffi & Pulone 1991, Pulone 1992) a luminosity level of the AGB-clump of $`M_V^{\mathrm{AGB}\mathrm{Bump}}=0.3\pm 0.1`$, almost independent of the chemical composition of the cluster stars (both $`Z`$ and $`Y`$), so that this (quite bright) feature could be a very promising “standard candle”. However, we note that the theoretical calibration of the AGB clump location is affected by the uncertainties in the actual extension of the convective core of an He burning low mass stars. On the other hand, as pointed out by Caputo et al. (1989) one might use the observed differences between the HB luminosity level and that of the AGB-clump (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{AGB}}^{\mathrm{HB}}=V_{clump}^{\mathrm{AGB}}V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$) to constrain the convection theory (see Dorman & Rood 1993).

Unfortunately, the identification of such a clump is not easy since the AGB phase itself is very short ($`10^7`$ yr) and, in turn, always poorly populated. There are a few identifications of the AGB-clump in the literature: Ferraro (1992) reported a preliminary identification of this feature in a few GGCs. Then, to initiate a systematic study of the properties of the AGB-clump, in F99 we have identified such a feature in 9 GGCs whose CMDs show a significant clump of stars in the AGB region.

In Figure 1(b), we compare the theoretical and observed values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{HB}}^{\mathrm{AGB}}`$ parameter. The shaded region represents the quoted uncertainty ($`\pm 0.1`$) in the absolute location of the AGB clump. Despite the quite large error bar affecting most of the (few) available measurements of the AGB-clump, the level of the agreement with the theoretical prediction is remarkable. Such a result, especially combined with that obtained for the RGB-bump location, is comforting about the reliability and the internal consistency of the adopted theoretical prescriptions.

### 2.2. IR Observations

The advantage of observing GGCs in the near IR is well known since many years. The contrast between the red giants and the unresolved background population in the IR bands is greater than in any optical region, so they can be observed with the highest S/N ratio also in the innermost region of the cluster. Moreover, when combined with optical observations, IR magnitudes provide useful observables such as for example the V–K color, which is an excellent indicator of the stellar effective temperature (Te) and allows a direct comparison with theoretical models predictions.

In F00 we presented a new set of high quality IR Color Magnitude Diagrams for a sample of 10 GGCs, spanning a wide range in metallicity. This new, homogeneous data–base has been used to determine a variety of observables quantitatively describing the main properties of the Red Giant Branch, namely: (a) the location of the RGB in the CMD (both in (J–K)0 and (V–K)0 colors at different absolute K magnitudes (–3, –4, –5, –5.5) and in temperature); (b) its overall morphology and slope; (c) the luminosity of the Bump and the Tip. All these quantities have been measured via a homogeneous procedure applied to each individual CMD. Their behavior as a function of the cluster global metallicity has been investigated.

In doing this we used the distance moduli scale defined in F99 to locate the observed RGB fiducial ridge lines in the absolute MK,(J–K)0 and MK,(V–K)0 planes. The result is plotted in Fig.2. The dashed lines in the figure represent the magnitude levels and the colours at which some of the parameters defined in F00 are measured. The full discussion of these morphologic parameters and slopes and their dependance from the metallicity can be found in F00, here I will only show the results we got for the RGB-Bump and the RGB-Tip (TRGB).

The RGB-bump – In Fig.3 the absolute K magnitude of the RGB-bump as a function of the cluster global metallicity $`[M/H]`$ is plotted. The dashed line in Figure 3 represents the theoretical expectations based on the SCL97 models, for an age of $`t=16`$ Gyr (Straniero 1999, private comunication). As can be seen, the models show an excellent agreement with the observational data. This result fully confirms the finding of F99 (from the location of the RGB bump in 47 GGCs in the visual band - see Fig. 1a) that the earlier discrepancy between theory and observations ($`0.4`$mag) (cf. F90, Ferraro 1992) has been completely removed using the latest theoretical models and the global metallicity ($`[M/H]`$).

In order to allow a direct comparison (and calibration) of the theoretical models we transformed the fiducial lines plotted in Figure 2 in the absolute $`(M_{Bol},T_e)`$-plane by using the bolometric corrections and temperature scales for Population II giants computed and adopted by Montegriffo et al. (1998) (cf. their Table 2). In Fig. 2 (panel (c)) the fiducial RGB ridge lines for the 10 GGCs in the F00 sample are plotted in the MBol vs Te theoretical plane.

The RGB tip – A quite well defined relationship between the bolometric luminosity of the brightest RGB star in a GGC and its metallicity has been found by Frogel, Persson & Cohen (1981) and Frogel, Cohen & Persson (1983, FCP83). This finding had a noteworthy impact both on testing the theoretical models and on the use of the brightest TGB stars as possible distance indicators.

In order to derive a similar relation using our sample of GGCs, we identified the candidate brightest giant in each cluster, paying particular care in the decontamination of possible field objects and (especially in the case of metal–rich clusters) of bright AGB stars and the variables commonly associated to the AGB, the so–called Long Period Variables (LPV). Of course, the degree of reliability of the decontamination is hard to quantify due to the very small number of stars populating the brightest extreme of the giant branch, possibly affected by severe statistical fluctuations.

Fig.4 reports the bolometric magnitude of the adopted brightest star (the observed RGB tip) for 9 of the 10 clusters considered in F00 (M4 was excluded since the number of sampled giants is too low).

As can be seen, our result is fully consistent with FPC83 (plotted as dashed line in Figure 4), and with theoretical models. Two theoretical relations have been over–plotted in Fig.4: Caloi et al. (1997) (dotted line) and Salaris & Cassisi (1997, hereafter SC97) (solid line), respectively. Indeed, the theoretical prediction nicely agrees with the observations and, though residual contamination and statistical fluctuations could still affect the sample, the success of the theory in reproducing the data seems quite rewarding. It may also be interesting to note that such an agreement indirectly implies that the adopted distances and reddening should not be affected by large errors. It is important to remind here that the theoretical relationships have to be considered indeed as upper limits to the luminosity of the observed giants, because of the statistical fluctuations affecting these poor samples (Castellani, Degl’Innocenti & Luridana, 1993).

### 2.3. The Global Test: the LF of M3

One of the classical tests of stellar evolutionary calculations is through the comparison of theoretical and observed stellar LFs. The LF for the stars below the main sequence turn-off (MSTO) can be related to the stellar initial mass function and be used as a probe of stellar dynamics within a cluster. The LF of stars after the MSTO depends primarily on the rate of evolution and provides a direct and straight-forward test of evolutionary calculations. Features in the observed LF can be related to interior structure, as for example the RGB-Bump (see Section 2.1). Beside the bump, more subtle observables are also present: the slope of the LF below and above the LF bump are different because the H-burning shell is in the first case passing through a region of varying H abundance and later through a region of constant H (F90,F99,F00). In particular, a breakdown in canonical stellar evolution theory (Renzini & Fusi Pecci, 1988) can affect the LF in the region of the subgiant branch (SGB). Some preliminary evidences of the existence of a breakdown in the canonical models for very low metallicity clusters was showed by Stetson (1991) and Bolte (1994) and recently confirmed for M30 (Sandquist et al. 1999). This region could be affected by non-canonical assumptions like WIMP energy transport (Faulkner & Swenson 1993), and helium settling (SCL97), both of which could reduce cluster age estimates. If large enough, also stellar rotation could affect the region of the LF (VandenBerg, Larsen, & de Propris 1998).

In this scenario, a few years ago, we started an ambitious project aimed to a new global approach to the test of theoretical sequences: the immediate objective of this project was the construction of a new generation of LFs  for a selected sample of GGCs, in which all post–MS stars at all radii have been measured. The validity of this approach is shown by our work in the GGC M3. In this intermediate-metallicity cluster, we have constructed (by using a combination of ground-based and HST observations) the most complete CMD ever obtained in a GGC.

The data-base for this cluster was collected during the last decades (Buonanno et al 1994, Ferraro et al 1993, 1997a, 1997c) and the global LF constructed over this huge database was finally recently published in Rood et al (1999). The differential LF for the global sample is shown in Figure 5. Even though it extends only 2 mag below the turnoff, this LF, including more than 50,000 stars, is the most populated LF ever published for a GGC. The solid line in the figure represent the SCL97 theoretical models for $`(mM)_V=15.03`$, $`\mathrm{age}=12\mathrm{Gyr}`$ and $`[M/H]=1.2`$. As shown in the Figure, the theoretical and observed LFs agree well in the SGB region and lower-RGB. Indeed the fit is essentially perfect: basically, there is no indication for a breakdown in the canonical models.

## 3. Hot Stellar Populations in GGCs

As discussed in previous Sections, the CMD of a GGC in the classical $`(V,BV)`$-plane is dominated by the cool stellar component. However, relatively populous hot stellar components do exist in GGCs and are significant emitters in the UV, namely: (i) the hot post AGB (PAGB) stars, (ii) the blue part of the HB, (iii) the BSS and, (iv) various by-products of binary system evolution, such as interacting binaries (IB), for example Cataclysmic Variables (CVs), Low Mass X-ray Sources (LMXB), etc. Some of these sources (such as CVs, WDs, BSS, X-ray sources, binaries, as well as the complete luminosity function of the HBs) look hopelessly faint in the classical plane and for this reason remained unobserved until the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope, whose space resolution and imaging/spectroscopic capabilities in the UV gave a new impulse to these studies.

As a part of the global multi-band approach to the study of the stellar population in GGCs we are involved in a long-term observational programme which uses the Hubble Space Telescope to perform UV observations for a selected sample of GGCs. In this section I summarize the most recent results about the UV populations (namely, HB, BSS, and faint UV sources). The advantages of studying hot populations in the UV can be easily deduced from the comparison of the two panels in Figure 1 of Ferraro, Cacciari & Paltrinieri (1999).

### 3.1. Gaps Along the HB: UV CMD to Proof Their Reality

Besides the global HB morphology difference between clusters at the same metallicity, another peculiarity was noted since the first CMDs of NGC 6752 (Cannon, 1981): the discontinuous stellar distribution along the branch. The blue extension of the HB is, in fact, often interruped by underpopulated regions or gaps.

The most recent evidence has been found in NGC 2808 (Sosin et al. 1997), M13 (Ferraro et al 1997b) and M80 (Ferraro et al 1998). In particular, the comparison of the CMDs of M13 and M80 showed that the HB in this two clusters do have similar characteristics: (1) the very long blue tail extending $`4.5`$ mag (2) the non-uniform stellar distribution, with at least 4 groups of stars separated by gaps.

To get a better impression of the similarities in the overall HB morphology we aligned the CMDs in the $`(V,UV)_{\mathrm{STMAG}}`$ plane, shifting the CMDs to match the M13 principal sequences and then co-adding the result. We included also M3 in the comparison. Figure 6 shows the combined CMD, in which more than 50,000 stars have been plotted. As can be seen from the small scatter along the RGB and HB the sequences match well, showing the high degree of similarity of the main branches in the CMD for these clusters: the HB of M3 nicely matches the reddest part of the HB in M13 and M80. Moreover, the HB multi-group distribution is still (perhaps more obviously) present. This is the cleanest demonstration that the gaps observed along the HB are indeed real, since they have been observed at the same location in different GGCs.

A preliminary comparison with the theoretical models (Dorman et al. 1995) and with other clusters (see Table 2 in Ferraro et al 1998) suggests that:

(a) all the clusters with extreme long blue tail have a gap on the lower blue tail at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}18,000\mathrm{K}`$. It is present in at least 6 clusters (M13, M80, NGC 6752, NGC 2808, $`\omega `$ Cen);

(b) others gaps occur in many but not all clusters: the gap at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}9,000\mathrm{K}`$ is present in 5 clusters (M13, M80, NGC6681, M79, M15), the gap at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}11,000\mathrm{K}`$ is present in 3 clusters (M13, M80, NGC6681).

Which is the scenario emerging from this picture? The hottest gap occurs at a $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at which the HB/post-HB evolutionary tracks change morphology: the hotter stars (so-called extreme-HB or EHB) evolve essentially vertically in the H-R diagram and do not return to the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) after core He exhaustion (AGB-manqué stars). For this reason it is tempting to identify it with the onset of EHB behavior (Newell 1973, Rood 1997). No simple explanation can be found for the existence of the other gaps.

Evolutionary as well as statistical considerations seem to suggest that these gaps are produced by random mass loss efficiency during the RGB phase, which drives the mass distribution on the HB. Multiple mass loss mechanisms, or the multimodal behavior of a single mechanism, may be required in order to account for all the observed gaps (see Ferraro et al 1998 for a full discussion of the problem).

### 3.2. Blue Straggler Stars

Blue Straggler stars (BSS), first discovered by Sandage (1953) in M3, are interpreted as Main Sequence stars of larger mass, possibly originated by coalescence of binary/multiple stars, either from original systems or via later stellar collisions. Therefore they represent an important tool to study dynamical interactions inside star clusters. See Bailyn (1995) for a recent review on this subject.

In this context, the first surprising result has been obtained in the GGC M3. By using HST data and complementary ground-based observations, we were able for the first time to follow the BSS radial distribution over the entire extension of the cluster: it turns out to be clearly bimodal (Ferraro et al 1993, 1997c). Moreover the LF for BSS in the inner region has been found to be significantly different from that obtained in the external regions, suggesting that BSS in different environments could have different origin: while BSS in the core could be originated by stellar interactions, BSS in the external regions could be a merging of primordial binary systems.

Encouraged by the results obtained in M3 we used our UV data-base to extend the search for BSS in the core of three other cluster: M80, M13 and M10. Figure 7 shows the ($`m_{255},m_{255}U`$) CMDs for the four clusters: more than 50,000 stars are plotted in four panels of Figure 7. Horizontal and vertical shifts have been applied to M13, M80 and M10 principal sequences in order to match those in M13. The bright BSS $`(m_{255}<19)`$ are put in evidence in the Figure as big filled circles. The BSS population selected in such a way (bright BSS) has been compared to reference stellar populations (RGB and HB) observed in the same area of the cluster. The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) BSS are more centrally concentrated than the corresponding RGB stars in M3, M80 and M10, whereas in M13 no significant difference has been found in the radial distribution of these stars; (2) the BSS Specific Frequency (defined as $`F_{BSS}=N_{BSS}/N_{HB}`$) turns out to be largely variable in the four clusters, varying by a factor 10 from M13 (the lowest) to M80 (the highest). Particularly interesting is the case of M80 which shows an execeptionally high BSS frequency: indeed, considering the whole BSS content – not only the bright BSS – in the field of view of the PC, BSS turn out to be almost twice as abundant as HB stars. Indeed BSS are overabundant in M80: more than 300 BSS have been identified in this cluster (Ferraro et al 1999b): this is the largest and most concentrated BSS population ever found in a GGC. Since M80 is the GGC which has the largest central density among those not yet core-collapsed, this discovery could be the first direct evidence that stellar collisions could indeed be effective in delaying the core collapse.

These results seem to generally confirm the qualitative scenario proposed by Ferraro, Bellazzini & Fusi Pecci (1995) concerning the possible origin of BSS in globular clusters: the most important formation mechanisms would be coalescence of primordial binaries, most efficient in low density environments, and stellar collisions, most efficient in high density environments. Both mechanisms could be at work in different areas of the same cluster (e.g. M3), while the mechanism producing BSS via the collisional channel should be at its maximum efficiency in M80 (Ferraro et al 1999b).

### 3.3. Faint UVE

GGC cores have long been thought to harbor other exotic objects which are supposed to result from various kinds of binary systems: low mass X-ray binaries, cataclysmic variables, millisecond pulsars, etc. Though the number of such peculiar objects is admittedly low, they are fundamental probes of GGC cores. The systematic study of these objects will permit a better understanding of the impact of environmental conditions on stellar evolution. In particular, some of them are most often connected to binary systems containing compact objects (like neutron stars or white dwarfs) and are detected via X-ray emission.

In this respect, the faintest low luminosity X-ray sources (LLGCXs) ($`L_X<10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$) might be associated with cataclysmic variables (CVs), i.e., binary systems in which a white dwarf is accreting material from a late type dwarf, for example a MS-SGB star (Hertz, Grindlay & Bailyn, 1993). The search for optical counterparts for LLGCXs is essential to determine their origin and the role of the dynamical history of the parent cluster.

Up to now, in all the GGCs observed in our UV-HST survey we identified a few faint objects with a strong UV excess standing significantly outside the main loci defined by other cluster stars. Many of these objects have been found to lie within the error boxes of LLXGCs (see for example Ferraro et al 1997d, 2000c). In a recent review (Ferraro et al 2000b) the photometric characteristics of 10 UVE objects, associated to LLGCXs, detected in the core of 6 GGCs have been compared and discussed. Here I report on our most recent discovery: the surprising UVE population in 47 Tuc.

In Ferraro et al 2001, we presented UV–CMDs obtained for $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ stars detected within the Planetary Camera (PC) field of view in the core of 47 Tuc. We have pinpointed a number of interesting objects: (i) 43 blue stragglers stars (BSSs) including 20 new candidates; (ii) 12 bright (young) cooling white dwarfs (WDs) at the extreme blue region of the UV-CMD; (iii) a large population of UV-excess (UVE) stars, lying between the BSS and the WD sequences. The UVE stars discovered in the core of 47 Tuc represent the largest population of anomalous blue objects ever observed in a globular cluster – if the existence of such a large population is confirmed, we have finally found the long-searched population of interacting binaries predicted by the theory. A zoom of the ($`m_{F218W},m_{F218W}m_{F439W}`$) CMD is shown in Figure 8: as it can be seen there are at least a dozen of UVE stars (plotted as filled triangles in Figure 8) lying between the WD and the BSS sequence and a large population of faint UVE (small empty squares in Figure 8). The true nature of these anomalous UVE stars cannot be satifactorily assessed yet. In fact many different evolutionary mechanisms involving stellar collisions and interactions could account for them. High resolution, deeper imaging and spectroscopic observations in the UV are required to discriminate among the various models. However, the large number of positional coincidences with X-ray sources (from the recent CHANDRA catalog by Grindlay et al. 2001) indeed suggests that part of them could be IBs. In particular, a significant number of X-ray sources ($`30\%`$) have been found to be possibly associated with the faint UVE population discovered here, supporting the presence of a large population of faint CV in the core of this cluster.

#### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank all the collaborators involved in this complex project, and E. Pancino & E. Sabbi for a critical reading of the manuscript. The financial support of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and of the Ministero della Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST) to the project Stellar Dynamics and Stellar Evolution in Globular Clusters is kindly acknowledged.

## References

Bailyn, C.D.: 1995, ARA&A, 33, 133

Bolte, M. 1994, ApJ, 431, 223

Brocato, E., Buonanno, R., Malakhova, Y., Piersimoni, A.M. 1996, A&A, 311,778.

Buonanno, R., et al., 1994, A&A, 290, 69

Caloi V., D’Antona F., Mazzitelli I., 1997, A&A 320, 823

Caputo, F., et al., 1989, ApJ, 340, 241

Carretta, E., Gratton, R.G. 1997, A&ASS, 121, 95

Castellani, V., Chieffi, A., Pulone, L., 1991, ApJS, 76, 911

Castellani, V., Degl’Innoconeti, S., Luridiana, V.,1993, A&A, 272, 442

Dorman, B., Rood, R.T., 1993, ApJ, 409, 387

Faulkner, J., & Swenson, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 411, 200

Ferraro, F.R., 1992, MSAIt, 63, 95.

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1993, AJ, 106, 2324

Ferraro, F.R., Fusi Pecci, F. & Bellazzini, M. 1995, A&A, 294, 80

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1997a, A&A, 320, 757

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1997b, ApJ, 484, L145.

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1997c, A&A, 324, 915

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1997d, MNRAS, 292, L45

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1998, ApJ, 500 311

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1999a, AJ, 118, 1783 (F99)

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1999b, ApJ, 522, 983

Ferraro, F.R., Paltrinieri B., Cacciari, C., 1999, MSAIt, 70, 599

Ferraro, F.R., et al., AJ, 119, 1282 (F00)

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 2000b, ApJ, 537, 312

Ferraro, F.R., Paltrinieri, B., Paresce, F., De Marchi, G., 2000c, ApJ, 542, L29.

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 2001, ApJ, 561, 337

Fusi Pecci, F., et al., A&A, 238, 95 (F90).

Frogel J.A., Persson S.E., Cohen J.G., 1981, ApJ 246, 842

Frogel J.A., Cohen J.G., Persson S.E., 1983, ApJ 275, 773 (FCP83)

Grindlay, J.E., Heinke, C.,Edmonds, P.D., Murray, S.S., 2001, Science, 292, 2290

Hertz P., Grindlay J. E., Bailyn C. D.: 1993, ApJ, 410, L87

Montegriffo P., Ferraro F.R., Origlia L., Fusi Pecci F., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 872

Newell, E. B. 1973, ApJS, 26, 37

Pulone, L., 1992, MSAIt, 63, 485.

Renzini, A., Fusi Pecci, F. 1988, ARA&A, 26, 199

Rood, R. T. 1997, in Fundamental Stellar Properties: The Interaction Between Theory and Observation, eds. T. R. Bedding, A. J. Booth, & J. Davis (Dordrect: Kluwer), 363

Rood, R. T., et al., 1999, ApJ, 523, 752

Sandage, A. R.: 1953, AJ, 58, 61

Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., Straniero, O., 1993, ApJ, 414, 580.

Salaris M., Cassisi S., 1997, MNRAS 289, 406 (SC97)

Sandquist, E. L., et al., 1999, ApJ, 518, 262

Sosin, C., et al., 1997, in Advances in Stellar Evolution, eds. R. T. Rood & A. Renzini (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press), 92

Stetson, P. B. 1991, in ASP Conf. Ser. 13, The Formation and Evolution of Star Clusters, ed. K. Janes (Sanfrancisco: ASP), 88

Straniero, O., Chieffi, A., 1991, ApJS, 76, 525

Straniero, O., Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 425 (SCL97).

Vandenberg, D. A., Larson, A. M., & De Propris, R. 1998, PASP, 110, 98

Wood, M.A., 1995, in Lecture Notes in Physics, 443, White Dwarfs, ed. D. Koester & K.Werner (berlin:Springer), 41


format: text

text:
# Measurement of the angular correlation function of radio galaxies from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey

## 1 Introduction

**footnotetext: E-mail: cab@astro.ox.ac.uk

Describing the large-scale structure of the Universe is of fundamental importance for testing theories of structure formation and measuring the cosmological parameters. The angular distribution of galaxies, whilst merely a projection of the true 3D structure, is useful to quantify: it is easy to assemble a large sample of objects and it is possible to de-project the angular clustering (in a global statistical manner) to measure the 3D clustering.

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) detected at radio wavelengths are a powerful means of delineating large-scale structure. They can be routinely detected over wide areas of the sky out to very large redshifts ($`z4`$) and hence describe the largest structures (and their evolution); radio emission is not sensitive to dust obscuration; accurate large-scale calibration should be possible; and the current generation of radio surveys such as WENSS, FIRST and NVSS contain AGN in very large numbers ($`10^6`$).

We quantify the angular distribution of AGN using the two-point angular correlation function . It is well-known that this method loses much of the clustering information: two very different structure morphologies can have the same correlation function. However, the statistic provides a simple point of contact with prediction, the statistical errors are well-understood, it has a relatively simple de-projection into 3D, and perhaps most importantly, its measurement can reveal observational problems with the survey data. It is an essential first analysis step before the application of more powerful techniques is warranted.

The key difference between angular correlation function analyses in the optical (e.g. Maddox, Efstathiou & Sutherland 1996) and the radio regimes is in the latter, the wide redshift range of radio sources washes out much of the clustering signal through the superposition of unrelated redshift slices. Hence an angular clustering signal was only marginally detected in datasets such as the 1.4 GHz Green Bank survey (Kooiman, Burns & Klypin 1995) and the Parkes-MIT-NRAO survey (Loan, Wall & Lahav 1997). Deeper radio surveys such as FIRST (Becker, White & Helfand 1995) and WENSS  revealed a clearer imprint of structure, quantified by the correlation function analyses of Cress et al.  and Magliocchetti et al. . Here we use the more extensive sky coverage and source list of the NVSS  to test the robustness of previous conclusions with a higher signal-to-noise ratio. We also reconsider the two critical observational effects: radio galaxies being resolved into separate components of radio emission, and calibration problems causing apparent source surface density gradients and discontinuities.

## 2 Observational data and methods

### 2.1 The angular correlation function

The angular correlation function $`w(\theta )`$ compares the observed (clustered) distribution to a random (unclustered) distribution of points across the same survey area, by simply measuring the fractional increase in the number of close pairs separated by angle $`\theta `$. Specifically, if we let $`DD(\theta )`$ be the number of unique pairs of galaxies with separations $`\theta \theta +\delta \theta `$, and $`RR(\theta )`$ be the number of random pairs in the same separation range, then $`w(\theta )`$ can be estimated as

$$w_1=\frac{DD}{RR}1$$
(1)
Landy & Szalay  point out that the estimator

$$w_2=\frac{DD}{RR}\frac{DR}{RR}+1$$
(2)
which also involves the cross-pair count $`DR(\theta )`$, is superior because it has a much smaller variance, given by the ‘Poisson’ error

$$\mathrm{\Delta }w=\frac{1+w}{\sqrt{DD}}$$
(3)
assuming the statistical error in the random sets can be neglected. This can be achieved by averaging over a large number of random sets to obtain $`\overline{DR}`$ and $`\overline{RR}`$.

### 2.2 The NVSS

The 1.4 GHz NVSS (NRAO VLA Sky Survey, Condon et al. 1998) covers the sky north of declination $`40\mathrm{°}`$ (82 per cent of the celestial sphere). The source catalogue contains $`1.8\times 10^6`$ sources and is claimed to be 99 per cent complete at integrated flux density $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}=3.5`$ mJy. The survey was performed with the VLA in D configuration, with DnC configuration used for fields at high zenith angles ($`\delta <10\mathrm{°},\delta >78\mathrm{°}`$), and the FWHM of the synthesized beam is 45 arcsec. The raw fitted source parameters are processed by a publicly-available program NVSSlist, which performs the deconvolution and corrects for known biases to produce source diameters and integrated flux densities. We used NVSSlist version 2.16 for our analysis.

Before measuring the angular correlation function from the survey, we must mask out various regions of the sky; identical masks must be used in the random comparison catalogues. Firstly, we masked the survey within $`5\mathrm{°}`$ of the Galactic plane to eliminate Galactic sources (such as supernova remnants). Secondly, by virtue of the fitting algorithm, nearby bright extended radio galaxies can appear in the NVSS as a large number of separate elliptical Gaussians. These objects introduce a very large number of spurious close pairs. By visual inspection of the survey, we compiled a list of 22 masks around such galaxies. Finally, the sidelobes of very bright sources may appear as spurious entries in the source catalogue. As a precautionary measure, we placed circular masks of radius $`0.5\mathrm{°}`$ around all radio sources brighter than 1 Jy (although ultimately this was found to have no effect on the measurement).

### 2.3 Calibration/surface density problems

The NVSS suffers from calibration problems at low flux densities: spurious systematic fluctuations in source surface density. As illustrated by Figure 1, declination-dependent variations occur at flux densities below 10 mJy, including significant jumps at the declinations at which the array configuration changes. These stem from the difficulty in compensating for the sparse uv-coverage of the NVSS (W.Cotton, private communication, 2001).

A varying source density will spuriously enhance the measured value of $`w(\theta )`$. This is because the number of close pairs of galaxies depends on the local surface density ($`DD\overline{\sigma ^2}`$), but the number of close pairs in the random distribution depends on the global average surface density ($`RR(\overline{\sigma })^2`$). Systematic fluctuations mean $`\overline{\sigma ^2}>(\overline{\sigma })^2`$, so according to equation 1, $`w(\theta )`$ is increased.

To quantify this effect, we can show (Blake & Wall, in preparation) that on angular scales less than those on which $`\sigma `$ is varying, $`w(\theta )`$ is subject to a constant offset $`\overline{\delta ^2}`$, where $`\delta =(\sigma \overline{\sigma })/\overline{\sigma }`$ is the surface over-density. To estimate the magnitude of the offset, take a simple toy model in which a survey is divided into two equal areas between which there is an $`ϵ`$ per cent shift in density. A simple calculation shows $`\overline{\delta ^2}=ϵ^2/4`$. So $`\overline{\delta ^2}2.5\times 10^3`$ for NVSS sources above 2 mJy ($`ϵ0.1`$), and $`\overline{\delta ^2}10^4`$ above 10 mJy ($`ϵ0.02`$).

## 3 Multiple-component sources

The complex morphologies of radio sources mean that a single galaxy can be resolved in a radio survey as two or more closely-separated components of radio emission. The median angular size of mJy radio sources is several arcseconds (Oort 1988). Thus NVSS, with its beam-size of 45 arcsec, will leave the majority of this population unresolved. However, there is a significant tail to the size distribution: many arcminute-size radio sources have been discovered (e.g. Lara et al. 2001) whose sub-structure will be resolved by NVSS. These multiple components will produce spurious clustering at small separations.

Consider a single radio source in the survey. How many pair separations would this contribute to a separation bin at angular distance $`\theta `$ of width $`\delta \theta `$? This bin contains area $`\delta A=2\pi \theta \delta \theta `$ and hence the probability of another source falling in it is $`\sigma _g\delta A[1+w_g(\theta )]`$ where $`\sigma _g`$ is the surface density of galaxies and $`w_g`$ is the galaxy angular correlation function. Suppose another source does fall in the bin. In general, both sources will be observed as a group of radio components: a single pair separation is replaced by several pair separations. Some of these pair separations will lie within an individual source, the rest will be between the different sources.

Suppose $`\theta `$ is large enough that there are no pair separations of size $`\theta `$ within individual sources. If there are on average $`\overline{n}`$ radio components per source, then there will be on average $`(\overline{n})^2`$ pair separations between these sources. As the radio components will be roughly symmetrically distributed about their host galaxy, the average pair separation between the components remains equal to that of the original pair of sources, $`\theta `$. It follows that the expected number of radio component pairs involving our original source in this separation bin is $`\sigma _g\delta A[1+w_g(\theta )]\times (\overline{n})^2`$. Hence over the whole survey, the expected number of radio component pairs in this bin is (neglecting edge effects)

$$DD=\frac{1}{2}N_g\sigma _g\delta A[1+w_g(\theta )](\overline{n})^2$$

where we have divided by 2 because all pairs are counted twice. If $`N_r`$ and $`\sigma _r`$ are the total number and surface density of radio components, then $`N_r=\overline{n}\times N_g`$ and $`\sigma _r=\overline{n}\times \sigma _g`$ and this may be written

$$DD=\frac{1}{2}N_r\sigma _r\delta A[1+w_g(\theta )]$$

Generating a random set containing $`N_r`$ components, the number of random pairs in this bin is

$$RR=\frac{1}{2}N_r\sigma _r\delta A$$

and hence the measured correlation function from the radio components (using equation 1) is simply $`w_r=w_g`$. So multiple radio components have no effect on the measured correlation function at angular separations bigger than individual sources.

At what separation $`\theta `$ may we neglect the effect of radio sources of size $`\theta `$? The problem may be clarified by a realistic example. Consider a separation bin at $`\theta =3`$ arcmin = $`0.05\mathrm{°}`$ of width $`\delta \theta =0.01\mathrm{°}`$. Putting $`\sigma =10`$ deg-2, there are $`\sigma 2\pi \theta \delta \theta /2=1.6\times 10^2`$ random pairs per original source in this bin. But we are trying to measure $`w(\theta )`$, which is a fractional enhancement $`w_g(0.05\mathrm{°})2\times 10^2`$ of this number of random pairs, which is $`3\times 10^4`$ pairs per original source. Observations (e.g. Lara et al. 2001) indicate that $`>1`$ in $`10^4`$ radio sources are as large as 3 arcmin. Hence we cannot neglect pair separations within individual sources. Thus the small number of surplus pairs that determine the value of $`w(\theta )`$ mean that even a tiny fraction of giant radio sources can substantially change our measurement.

Suppose $`\theta `$ is small enough that radio component pairs originating within individual sources are also important. If $`e`$ is the fraction of sources observed to have multiple components, and $`f(\theta )\delta \theta `$ is the fraction of those component separations in the range $`\theta \theta +\delta \theta `$, then the total number of extra separations in the bin is $`DD=N_gef(\theta )\delta \theta `$ and hence in this separation regime,

$$w_r(\theta )=w_g(\theta )+\frac{ef(\theta )}{(\overline{n})^2\sigma _g\pi \theta }$$
(4)
The angular scale on which the dominant source of NVSS pairs changes from multi-component sources to individual sources is 6 arcmin ($`0.1\mathrm{°}`$), as evidenced by a clear break in the measured correlation function (see Figure 2).

## 4 Results

### 4.1 The angular correlation function

Figure 2 displays the measured $`w(\theta )`$ for $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}>15`$ mJy. We use the Landy-Szalay estimator (equation 2) with the error from equation 3. A good fit to $`w(\theta )`$ is a sum of two power-laws. One power-law dominates at small angles ($`\theta <0.1\mathrm{°}`$) and is a direct indication of the size distribution $`f(\theta )`$ of giant radio sources. The other power-law dominates at large angles ($`\theta >0.1\mathrm{°}`$) and describes the clustering between individual radio sources. We measured $`w(\theta )`$ for a variety of flux thresholds and fitted a sum of two power-laws to the results. Turning first to radio galaxy clustering, we find:

* The slope of the clustering power-law does not depend on flux threshold and is consistent with $`w(\theta )=a\theta ^{0.8}`$, as found for optically-selected galaxies. Our most accurate determination (for a 10 mJy threshold) is $`0.85\pm 0.1`$.
* The clustering amplitude is also independent of flux threshold: our most accurate value is $`a=1.04\pm 0.09\times 10^3`$ (with $`\theta `$ in degrees).
* Below $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}10`$ mJy, the calibration problems described in section 2.3 become dominant, as evidenced by a sudden increase in the $`\chi ^2`$ of the best fit, as well as direct measurement of the surface density (Figure 1).

To view the errors on the clustering parameters $`w(\theta )=a\theta ^b`$, in Figure 3 we plot contours of constant $`\chi ^2`$ in $`(a,b)`$ parameter space for flux thresholds 50 mJy, 20 mJy and 10 mJy. As the survey becomes deeper, the increasing number of sources enables us to measure the clustering parameters more accurately until the calibration problems intervene.

Considering the size distribution, we find:

* The slope of the small-angle correlation function is independent of flux threshold and has the value $`3.4`$.
* The amplitude of the small-angle correlation function changes with flux threshold (equivalently surface density $`\sigma `$) as $`1/\sigma `$, as predicted by equation 4.

In table 1 we list the best-fitting amplitudes for both power-laws for the flux thresholds considered, obtained by minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic. For purposes of comparison, we fix the slopes of the small-angle and large-angle power-laws at $`3.4`$ and $`0.8`$ respectively. The fits are performed to angles $`\theta >2`$ arcmin $`=0.033\mathrm{°}`$, safely above the resolution limit of the NVSS. We derive $`1\sigma `$ errors on the fitted amplitudes by varying each in turn from the best-fitting combination and finding when $`\chi ^2`$ increases by 1.0 from its minimum. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ statistic of the best fit is also indicated.

Previous correlation function analyses of radio surveys (Cress et al. 1996, Magliocchetti et al. 1998) did not consider either the gradients in source surface density (present in FIRST as well as NVSS, Blake & Wall in preparation) or the large angular scales on which multi-component sources affect the measured $`w(\theta )`$. Conclusions from these analyses must be regarded as suspect.

### 4.2 Determination of spatial clustering properties

The angular distribution of galaxies is a projection of the true 3D distribution. Not knowing the individual redshifts of the NVSS sources, we cannot infer their full spatial distribution. However, we can infer their spatial clustering properties from their angular clustering knowing only their redshift distribution $`N(z)`$ . This is not surprising: clustering properties are global statistical measures of the sample, like the redshift distribution.

The spatial correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ is usually parameterized by a power-law of slope $`\gamma `$ and ‘correlation length’ $`r_0`$. To allow for redshift evolution of clustering we introduce the ‘clustering index’ $`ϵ`$ such that

$$\xi (r)=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^\gamma (1+z)^{3ϵ}$$

$`ϵ=0`$ implies constant clustering in proper co-ordinates, $`ϵ=\gamma 3`$ implies constant clustering in co-moving co-ordinates, and $`ϵ=\gamma 1`$ represents growth of clustering under linear theory (Peebles 1980).

It can be shown  that a power-law $`\xi (r)`$ projects on to the celestial sphere as another power-law $`w(\theta )=a\theta ^{1\gamma }`$, where the projection involves an integral over $`N(z)`$. Conversely, knowing the amplitude and slope of $`w(\theta )`$, we can deduce $`\gamma `$ and $`r_0`$. This is discussed further by Cress & Kamionkowski  and Magliocchetti et al. . Our measured slope of $`0.8`$ demonstrates that $`\gamma =1.8`$; to deduce $`r_0`$ we must also assume a value for $`ϵ`$, a form for $`N(z)`$ and a cosmology (we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$). In the current absence of observed redshift distributions for complete samples of mJy radio galaxies, we use the $`N(z)`$ predicted from the luminosity-function models of Dunlop & Peacock . With these assumptions, in Figure 4 we use our 10 mJy measurement of $`w(\theta )`$ to deduce $`r_0`$ for a range of $`ϵ`$.

In Figure 5, we fix $`ϵ=\gamma 1`$ and investigate if $`r_0`$ depends on flux threshold (using the appropriate $`N(z)`$ for each threshold). The result is $`r_06`$ h-1 Mpc with a marginal dependence on flux. A more detailed study of spatial clustering inferences will be the subject of a future paper.

### 4.3 Determination of the size distribution

Our measurements of the small-angle $`w(\theta )`$ indicate that the size distribution of giant radio galaxies ($`\theta >2`$ arcmin) is a power-law, $`f(\theta )\theta ^{2.4}`$, at all flux thresholds considered. (This differs from the correlation function slope $`3.4`$ by virtue of the extra power of $`\theta `$ in equation 4). Such a steep slope is naturally produced in toy models: if radio sources have linear sizes up to a maximum $`L_0`$, then the available volume for sources with angular sizes $`>\theta `$ scales as $`\theta ^3`$.

We can use the measured amplitude of the small-angle $`w(\theta )`$, in conjunction with equation 4, to determine the fraction $`e`$ of radio galaxies that are resolved by NVSS into multi-component sources. Figure 6 illustrates that $`e0.07`$.

To compare these numbers with observations, we note that Lara et al.  used visual inspection of the NVSS to find $`80`$ radio galaxies with sizes greater than $`\theta _0=4`$ arcmin and total fluxes $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}>100`$ mJy in the region $`\delta >60\mathrm{°}`$. Integrating our derived size distribution above $`\theta _0`$ predicts a total of 62 such objects.

## 5 Conclusions

Using the NVSS radio survey, we have measured the angular correlation function $`w(\theta )`$ of radio galaxies with unprecedented precision. The results may be summarized as follows:

1. The correlation function has two contributions: that due to multiple components of the same galaxy, dominant at $`\theta <0.1\mathrm{°}`$, and that due to clustering between galaxies, which dominates at larger angles. A clear break in $`w(\theta )`$ is evident between these scales.
2. The clustering part has a slope consistent with that measured for other classes of galaxy, $`w(\theta )\theta ^{0.8}`$.
3. The clustering amplitude corresponds to a spatial clustering length $`r_06`$ h-1 Mpc (under certain assumptions), independent of flux-density threshold.
4. The NVSS suffers from calibration problems that prevent the measurement of $`w(\theta )`$ at flux densities below 10 mJy.
5. The size distribution of arcminute radio sources is well-described by a power-law with slope $`2.4`$; $`7`$ per cent of galaxies are resolved by NVSS into multiple components.

For the first time, our investigation has untangled the imprint of radio galaxy clustering from the other observational effects, in particular the resolution of radio galaxies into multiple components. As such it opens a new observational window for large-scale structure investigations, as well as providing a novel means of measuring the size distribution of giant radio galaxies.

## acknowledgments

We thank Lance Miller and Steve Rawlings for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


text:
# Production of Spinning Black Holes at colliders

## Abstract

When the Planck scale is as low as TeV scale, there will be chances to produce Black holes (BH’s) at future colliders. Generally, BH’s produced via pariticle collisions could have non-zero angular momentum. We estimate the production cross section of spinning and non-spinning BH’s for future colliders. Although the production cross section for the rotating BH is much suppressed by angular momentum dependent factor, the total cross section could be $`23`$ times enhanced for the case of $`\delta =46`$.

preprint:  SNUTP 01-038
PACS number(s): 11.30.Pb, 11.30.Er

Introduction.– Some of the most intriguing phenomena of the TeV-scale gravity ,  is the production of Black holes(BH’s) at the future colliders like Large Hadronic Collider (LHC) of the CERN , (see also  as earlier study on the properties of black holes in the large extra dimensions/TeV-scale gravity scenario) and at the atmosphere by cosmic rays .

The mass of the BH, $`M_{BH}`$, produced at LHC could be larger than the $`D`$-dimensional gravity scale, $`M_D`$, which is related with four dimensional Planck scale, $`M_P`$, as $`M_D^{\delta +2}R^\delta =M_P^2`$, where $`D=4+\delta `$ and $`R`$ is the size of extra dimensions.

When $`M_D𝒪(1)`$ TeV, the size of the extra dimensions is much larger than the Schwarzschild radius, $`R_S`$, of $`D`$-dimensional BH of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}M_D`$:

$$R_{\mathrm{BH}}\frac{1}{M_D}(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D})^{1/(\delta +1)}<<R.$$
(1)
Since the Compton wavelength of the BH($`L_{\mathrm{BH}}`$) is smaller than $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ when $`M_D<M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, the following relation is assumed to be valid for our interests:

$$L_{\mathrm{BH}}<R_{\mathrm{BH}}<<R.$$
(2)
In Ref. and , the production cross section of BH via particle collisions were estimated by semi-classical arguments. Semi-classical approximation is strictly valid when $`L_{\mathrm{BH}}<<R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and as $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ approaches $`M_D`$ unknown stringy effects might be important.

As a first try to estimate, they just considered the case for the non-spinning, non-charged BH production. It is important to note that such tiny black holes could be generated only provided their electric charge is zero, otherwise they would be naked singularities . In the contrary, any object which is produced via fusion process of colliding particles could have angular momentum or spin. Non-spinning case could occur only when the orbital and internal angular momenta are exactly cancelled. We may imagine the case of exactly head-on collision of initial particles for the production of non-spinning BH.

The main objective of this letter is re-estimation of the the spinning and non-spinning BH production cross section for the improved estimation. We will point out that even though the spinning BH production cross section is suppressed, the total cross section for the spinning and non-spinning BHs could be much enhanced. That means we may have bigger chance to see the BH at our future lab experiments.

Non-spinning BH production.– We first review the production process of non-spinning BHs. Classically speaking, BH can be formed when and only when the energy $`M`$ is compacted into a region whose circumference in every direction is less than $`2\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is Schwarzschild radius of BH which is determined by mass $`(M)`$, angular momentum $`(J)`$ and possiblly (electric) charge $`(Q)`$. From the above classical argument, we deduce the simple picture of BH production at particle collision as following. Consider two partons with the center of mass (CM) energy $`\sqrt{s}=M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ moving in opposite directions. When the impact parameter $`(b)`$ is less than the Schwarzschid radius, the particles effectively inject the critical mass of BH in the radius. Then a BH is formed and almost stationay in the CM frame. From this semi-classical arguments, we could find the geometrical approximation for the cross section for producing a BH of mass $`M_{BH}`$ as

$$\sigma (M_{\mathrm{BH}})\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.$$
(3)
The Schwarzschild radius for the non-spinning BH is given by

$$R_{\mathrm{BH}}(J=0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }M_D}(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\delta +3}{2})}{\delta +2})^{\frac{1}{\delta +1}},$$
(4)
so the larger $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ provides the larger $`R_S`$. From the above expression for the parton level cross sections, we can obtain the total cross section by convoluting parton distribution function (PDF) for the initial partons:

$$\frac{d\sigma (pp\mathrm{BH}+X)}{dM_{\mathrm{BH}}}=\frac{2M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{s}\underset{a,b}{}_{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2/s}^1f_a(x_a)f_b(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{x_as})\widehat{\sigma }(ab\mathrm{BH})|_{s=M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}.$$
(5)
There are several uncertainties in this semi-classical estimation.

Firstly, there could be quantum probability that BH is produced even when $`b>R_S`$. However, as Voloshin argued in Ref. , this probability might be exponentially suppressed by Euclidean BH action( see also Ref. ).

Secondly, as $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ approaches $`M_P`$ (or $`M_D`$ for $`D`$-dimensional BH), BH becomes stringy. Unfortunately we do not have enough information of this unknown stringy correction, yet. In this study, we simply ignore such uncertanties.

Spinning BH production. – Now, let us consider the case with the spinning BH. In the Ref., the rotating BH solution in $`4+\delta `$ dimensional space-time is obtained. The rotating BH generally has inner and outer horizons. They are described not only by $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ but also by the angular momentum of the BH parametrized by dimensionless paramter $`a`$ like

$`R_{\mathrm{BH}}(J)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }M_D}}({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\delta +3}{2})}{\delta +2}})^{\frac{1}{\delta +1}}`$ (7)
$`=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a^2}})^{\frac{1}{\delta +1}}R_S(J=0),`$
where $`a\frac{(\delta +2)J}{2M_{BH}R_{\mathrm{BH}}}`$ and $`J`$ is the angular momentum of BH.

For the produced BH from the particle collision, the angular momentum of the BH is allowed upto $`(M_{\mathrm{BH}}R_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ at the classical limit. The range of the $`a`$ parameter is given as

$$0a\frac{(\delta +2)}{2}.$$
(8)
As we will show below, the upper bound for the angular momentum does not much affect the estimation of total cross section.

To estimate the BH production cross section for rotating BH, we assume that the semi-classical reasoning for the non-rotating BH might be still valid for rotating BH. Semi-classical reasoning suggests that, if the impact parameter is less than the size of BH given in Eq.(7), a BH with the mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and angular momentum $`J`$ forms. The total cross section can be estimated and is of order

$`\sigma (M_{\mathrm{BH}})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\widehat{\sigma }(J)`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{a=0}{\overset{\frac{\delta +2}{2}}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+a^2}})^{\frac{2}{\delta +1}}\widehat{\sigma }(J=0)`$
at the parton level.

We see that the production cross section for the large angular momentum is a bit suppressed by the angular momentum dependent factor. In Fig.1, we plotted the ratio of $`\widehat{\sigma }(J)/\widehat{\sigma }(0)`$ with respect to $`J`$ (or $`a`$) at the parton level. Solid(black) line and dashed(red) line describe the cases with $`\delta =4`$ and $`\delta =6`$, respectively. The higher spin states of BH is seen to be quite suppressed and we can understand this suppression from the $`a`$ dependent factor $`(\frac{1}{1+a^2})^{\frac{2}{\delta +1}}`$. This factor is originally introduced to describe the radius of spinning BH. With the factor the radius of the spinning BH is smaller than that of non-spinning BH for the same energy and the geometrical cross section is also suppressed since $`\sigma R_S^2`$.

The total cross section could be obtained after convoluting about parton distribution fuction. With the geometrical arguments, the spin dependent part of the BH production cross section could be factored out. We found that the total cross section of spinning and non-spinning BH production process is about $`2`$ and $`3`$ times larger than that of only non-spinning BH production process for $`\delta =4`$ and $`\delta =6`$, respectively.

Decay of spinning BH. – Produced BH might decay primarilly via Hawking radiation. Hence with the large extra dimension, we may have chance to test the Hawking’s speculative BH thermodynamics . There are some known properties of BH radiation for the BH located on the brane. BH acts as a point radiator and emit mostly $`s`$-waves since the wavelength of the thermal radiation of Hawking themperature is larger than the size of the BH . BHs radiate mainly on the brane since there are much more particles on the brane than in the bulk . Typically, TeV-scale BHs is belived to decay very fastly ($`10^{25}`$ sec.)(however there are very different estimation based on canonical and micro-canonical pictures of BH .)

Hawking radiation is thermal process which is governed by Hawking temperature, which is given as

$$T_H=\frac{(\delta +1)+(\delta 1)a^2}{4\pi (1+a^2)}\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{BH}}}.$$
(11)
Since $`T_H1/R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, we see that the rotating BH has a bit larger Hawking temperature than non-rotating one. BH decay occurs in several stages: ‘balding phase’, ‘spin-down phase’, ‘Schwarzschild phase’, and ‘Planck phase’ . Through the balding phase, BH will settle down to a symmetrical rotating BH by emitting gauge and gravitational radiation. Then by emitting quanta with non-zero angular momenta BH will lose its spin. In Schwarzschild phase, BH is non-rotating or Schwarzschild BH. After the Schwarzschild phase, the BH mass is much reduced and the complex stringy effects will be important. This is Planck phase. In principle, we can measure the energy spectrum of the radiation from the BH and by reconstructing Wien’s displacement law, we may have chance to test Hawking’s law for rotating and non-rotating BH.

Summary and Conclusion.– In this letter, we study the spinning and non-spinning BH production at particle collider based on the semi-classical arguments. We point out that from the angular momentum dependence of the size of BH, geometrical cross section for the rotating BH production process is much suppressed. However the total cross section obtained by summing rotating and non-rotating BH production cross sections could be $`23`$ times enhanced at the parton level. Rotating BH might decay by Hawking radiation by several steps. Its temperature is a bit higher than that of non-rotating BH with same mass.

In this study, we just consider the case when the BH is produced on the rigid brane. However, crucial modification is expected when the fluctuation of the brane is considered , especially in the decay process of the BH which occurs mainly on the brane. Still there remains stringy corrections to our estimation and we are waiting for the further study. Acknowledgments.– The work was supported in part by the BK21 program and in part by the Korea Research Foundation(KRF-2000-D00077).


text:
# Low Energy Singlets in the Excitation Spectrum of the Spin Tetrahedra System 𝐂𝐮_𝟐𝐓𝐞_𝟐𝐎_𝟓𝐁𝐫_𝟐

## 1 Introduction

Raman light scattering is a powerful tool to investigate the low energy excitation spectrum of quantum spin systems realized, e.g. in transition metal oxides. This is based on its high sensitivity to all relevant degrees of freedom, especially to collective magnetic excitations as singlet modes or bound states, that are not observable in neutron scattering experiments. Singlet modes play an essential role in the description of many particle effects in the gapfull spin liquid phase of quantum spin systems . Furthermore, scenarios have been developed for systems that are at a boundary to another competing phase, e.g. related to long range magnetic ordering . Interesting in this respect are frustrated magnets like the Shastry-Sutherland lattice  or the $`\mathrm{Kagom}\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$-lattice . In this report we demonstrate, that a recently found quantum spin system based on weakly coupled $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$-spin tetrahedra, $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Br}_2`$ , shows low energy modes related to the spin system and an unusual instability that is easily tunable by the composition and the volume of the unit cell, i.e. a substitution of Br- by the smaller Cl-anions.

## 2 Results and Discussion

The crystal structure of $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Br}_2`$ is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of $`\mathrm{Cu}^{2+}`$-spin tetrahedra that are formed by an O- and Br-superexchange network of ions that is additionally supported by the lone pair-cation Te. Magnetic susceptibility measurements show a maximum at $`\mathrm{T}_{\chi _{\mathrm{max}}}`$ = 23 K for this compound and at 30 K for the isostructural $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Cl}_2`$. A strong reduction is evident at low temperatures, consistent with a spin gap system. A fit to these susceptibility data has been obtained with an intra-tetrahedra coupling of $`\mathrm{J}`$ 40 K and a spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of similar magnitude .

The excitation spectrum of such an individual tetrahedron is simple, however, the inherent degeneracy in the singlet sector may lead to interesting low temperature properties. The 16 states divide into a quintuplet, two triplets (with one state doubly degenerate) and two singlet states. The later singlets should form the ground state of the magnetic system. A seemingly negligible distortion of the tetrahedra should prefer one of them and shift the other to a small but higher energy. This low energy excited singlet state above the singlet ground state should only be observable in magnetic Raman scattering due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}=0`$ Heisenberg exchange scattering.

In Fig. 2 Raman scattering spectra in (cc) polarization of the bromide and the chloride are compared at low temperatures. In $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Br}_2`$ a pronounced mode is evident and attributed to a singlet state at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{S}=18\mathrm{cm}^10.6\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In addition, a pyramidal-shaped scattering continuum is observed centered at 61 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ = 88 K with a total linewidth of 40 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$. This continuum is attributed to a two-magnon-like scattering process  and its linewidth points to an appreciable inter-tetrahedra coupling. The polarization selection rule on the other hand supports a predominant exchange path along the crystallographic c-axis of the compound. This would justify models of 1D coupled tetrahedra . The center energy corresponds very well to $`2\mathrm{\Delta }80\mathrm{K}`$ determined from the magnetic susceptibility . In the chloride the low energy scattering is less pronounced and even more spread out. Also the phonon modes differ in frequency due to the different volume of the unit cell of the two compounds.

A study of the temperature dependence of the spectra in $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Br}_2`$ shows a strong soft mode-like decrease of the frequency of the mode at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{S}=18\mathrm{cm}^1`$ pointing to some instability. Thermodynamic experiments indeed support this evidence since a broad bump at $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{o}`$=11.4 K is observed in the specific heat together with a kink in the magnetic susceptibility . The transition temperature shows a well pronounced increase with a magnetic field. In contrast, for $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Cl}_2`$ the specific heat shows a lambda-like anomaly at $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{N}`$=18.2 K and essentially no effect of a magnetic field. Here, all observations are consistent with long-range $`\mathrm{N}\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{el}`$-Ordering.

## 3 Conclusion

The peculiar experimental observations in these two Cu-Oxo-Halides give evidence that, although structurally related, their low energy excitation spectrum and ground state properties are very distinct. Although details of the electronic band structure, hopping elements and especially the important inter-tetrahedra exchange coupling constants of these systems are unknown, some conclusions can be made. In first approximation and neglecting the electronic difference between Cl- and Br-anions the main difference is the 7% larger unit cell volume of $`\mathrm{Cu}_2\mathrm{Te}_2\mathrm{O}_5\mathrm{Br}_2`$, that should be related to a smaller inter-tetrahedra coupling. This coupling is evidenced in a more concentrated spectral weight of the two-magnon-like continuum in Raman scattering and the smaller transition temperature. In the proposed scenario the transition itself lifts the degeneracy of the singlet states. This however does not necessarily mean that a large structural distortion is involved. A careful investigation of the optical phonon excitations does not give any evidence for superlattice peaks. In this sense the phenomenology is much different from a spin-Peierls transition, as observed in $`\mathrm{CuGeO}_3`$, or the charge ordering related instability in $`\mathrm{NaV}_2\mathrm{O}_5`$, although in these compounds low energy singlets are observed as well . Further studies are underway to understand this material.

Acknowledgement: We are grateful for helpful discussions with H. Kageyama, Yu. Ueda, and K. Ueda. This work was supported in part by the DFG through SPP1073 and the Swiss Science Foundation under grant nr. 21-63749.


text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

This problem was mentioned by G. ’t Hooft in reference . The author is also grateful to R. Jackiw and R. Jaffe for many helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U. S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818.


text:
# Quantum correlations, measurement and the origin of uncertainty

## Abstract

I argue that the correlations that are predicted by Quantum Field Theory should not be interpreted as a real sign of non locality.

Quantum Field Theory; Measurement Problem; Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox; Entanglement

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) Einstein et al. (1935) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This was considered a paradox, since it made the Quantum Theory incompatible with Special Relativity, suggesting the need for a more fundamental description of Nature.

Recently, I have shown that this EPR paradox is removed in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) due to an uncertainty on the number of soft photons that can appear in any process Tommasini (2001, 2001). For instance, let me consider a typical EPR experiment, involving two spin 1/2 particles A and B that are produced in coincidence in a rotation-invariant process with zero initial angular momentum. In my previous works, I have shown that when the spin component is measured on particle A, no certain conclusion can be obtained for the result of the measurement on B, since the angular momentum conservation involves also an unknown number of soft photons Tommasini (2001, 2001). This fact is sufficient to remove the paradox at least in practice, since it makes it impossible to use the supposed quantum nonlocality, e.g. to teleport a state to distant particles.

In Ref. Tommasini (2001), I have also argued that the QFT correlations turn out to be smaller than those obtained by ignoring the soft photons, but still can allow for the observed violation of the “Bell’s inequalities” Bell (1964); Bransden and Joachain (2000). However, such correlations are commonly thought to be a sign of quantum nonlocality by themselves. Then, even if the hardest part of the EPR paradox is removed by the soft photons argument, we are left with the residual mystery of explaining how comes that in the correlations the angular momentum is exactly conserved after the measurement due to an apparent cancellation amongst distant particles (A, B and the soft photons).

In Ref. Tommasini (2001), I have noticed that in QFT the angular momentum is conserved locally. Therefore, if one interprets the measurement as the result of scattering processes, only the particles that come in causal contact with A during the measurement can change their state as a consequence of the measurement. No effect can be induced on the distant particles (B and the possible soft photons), and the correlations should be causal. This is also a sound prediction of QFT Weinberg (1995), however it seems to be contradicted by the fact that in the actual correlations Tommasini (2001) the angular momentum is conserved for the system of particles A, B and the soft photons, independently of the measuring apparatus. How comes that some quantities that are obtained by a causal theory apparently imply an instantaneous action at a distance (whatever unobservable it would be)?

Even if this can be considered a philosophical problem, I think that it is relevant. One could hope that it would disappear in a more fundamental theory, such as a String Theory. Of course, such an attitude is legitimate, and is justified by the fact that QFTs themselves are not thought to be the ultimate Theory of Everything, since e.g. they do not describe gravity. However, I think that we should already get a solution to this apparent contradiction without leaving QFT. In fact, it has been shown that QFT is the form that any Relativistic Quantum Theory should get at “low” enough energies Weinberg (1995). Since our problem has to do with “large” distances, i.e. with low energies, it can be expected that it should be solved without waiting for the ultimate Theory of Everything. In this brief note, I will show that this is actually the case: when QFT is interpreted correctly, the contradiction between the causality of the theory and the apparent nonlocality of the correlations that it predicts will disappear.

To see this, let me first notice that the field equations are deterministic. If we consider the Universe as a whole, instead of dividing it in an examined system, a measurement apparatus and the rest, QFT would just describe a smooth, deterministic evolution. We can consider as the dynamical variables the fields themselves, or equivalently the Complete Set of Commuting Observables (CSCO) made with the number operators $`N^i(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )`$ that count the (density) number of particles of the type (i) (e.g., electrons, or positrons, or photons, etc.) having momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and spin/helicity $`\lambda `$. In any case, in the Heisemberg picture, all these dynamical variables have a well determined, smooth evolution (equivalently, in the Schrödinger picture the vector state evolves continuously in a deterministic way). Then, where comes the quantum uncertainty from? It is obvious that the determinism of the theory is not destroyed by the apparatus of measurement itself, that is included in the system of the whole Universe. The uncertainty only appears when we split the world in a measuring apparatus and a measured system (and the rest). Of course, this division is necessary if we want to do physics, i.e. to describe the phenomena that occur in a given subsystem of the Universe. But it is important to understand that this is the unique origin of the uncertainty: the separation between the object and the observer, and the limited point of view of the latter, that has to renounce even to take into account the effect of the measurement on the measuring apparatus itself.

This artificial division implies a lack of information which is the ultimate reason for the probabilistic character of the predictions of the QFT. This is also evident in scattering theory: the scattering matrix (giving the correlations) is obtained by considering the amplitudes of the state at $`t\mathrm{}`$ (using the Schrödinger picture) into the out states, that are just the possible eigenstates of the CSCO $`\{N^i(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )\}`$. Any such a scalar product is usually thought to correspond to a “collapse” process, but the latter is actually a result of smooth scattering processes. In other words, the state vector of the Universe evolves continuously, and the correlations are just made out of its components, integrating out the variables that do not correspond to the observed (sub)system 111Actually, there is also a theoretical impossibility to define unambiguously the system, due e.g. to the uncertainty on the soft photons.. Therefore, the collapse does not happen at a fundamental level. According to the discussion of Ref. Tommasini (2001), this is sufficient to remove also the last piece of the EPR paradox, i.e. the contradiction between the causality of QFT and its apparently nonlocal correlation functions. It is now obvious that the correlations are actually the reminder of the common origin of our two particles A and B, as we also expected from the causality of the theory. This also reconciles us with the relativistic intuition.

In my previous paper Tommasini (2001), I concluded that Einstein was right in thinking that local realism was a fundamental characteristic of any reasonable theory of physics. Moreover, we see now that, in some sense, his intuition that the solution to the EPR paradox should be a deterministic theory was also correct. QFT is amazing, since it is at the same time extremely probabilistic and fully deterministic, without being a Hidden Variable theory 222Actually, it could be said that the number of soft photons plays a role similar to that of an Hidden Variable.. The Universe evolves in a deterministic way, while the act of measuring on an object subsystem, using another subsystem called measuring apparatus, implies a restricted knowledge, allowing only for probabilistic predictions. Einstein would probably say that God does not play dice; but we actually do.

I am grateful to Humberto Michinel, Ruth García Fernández, Uwe Trittmann and Rafael A. Porto for very useful discussions, help, comments and criticism.


text:
# 1 Classical case.

## 1  Classical case.

Consider classical integrable model with the $`l`$-operator which is an $`N\times N`$ matrix depending on the spectral parameter $`z`$:

$`l(z)=l^+(z)+l^0(z)+zl^{}(z),`$ (1)
$`l^\pm (z)`$ are polynomials of degree $`n1`$, $`l^0(z)`$ is polynomial of degree $`n`$, $`l^+(z)`$ ($`l^{}(z)`$) is upper (lower)-triangular, $`l^0(z)`$ is diagonal. The classical algebra of observables $`𝒜`$ is generated by the coefficients of polynomials giving the matrix elements of $`l(z)`$. The algebra $`𝒜`$ a is Poisson algebra, Poisson structure being given by the $`r`$-matrix relations:

$`\{l(z)\stackrel{}{,}l(z^{})\}=[r(z,z^{}),l(z)l(z^{})]`$
where the classical $`r`$-matrix is

$`r(z,z^{})={\displaystyle \frac{(z+z^{})}{2(zz^{})}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E^{ii}E^{ii}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{zz^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}E^{ji}E^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{zz^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}E^{ji}E^{ij}`$
with

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & j& \end{array}`$
$`E^{ij}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& 1& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ i\end{array}`$
Let us introduce the polynomials $`t_k(z)`$:

$`\text{det}(wI+l(z))={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}}w^{nk}t_k(z)`$
and there coefficients $`t_k^{(j)}`$ defined by

$$t_k(z)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{kn}{}}t_k^{(j)}z^{nkj}$$

The form of the Poisson brackets implies that all coefficients of characteristic polynomial are in involution:

$$\{\text{det}(wI+l(z)),\text{det}(w^{}I+l(z^{}))\}=0$$

Moreover, part of them belongs to the center of the Poisson brackets: these are

$$t_N^{(j)}j$$

because of

$$\{det(l(z))\stackrel{}{,}l(z^{})\}=0$$

and

$$t_k^{(kn)}=t_k(0)k$$

because $`r(z,z^{})`$ becomes a constant matrix for $`z=0`$.

Let us fix the center. Then the remaining phase space $``$ is of dimension:

$$\text{dim}()=nN(N1)$$

The number of remaining integrals of motion (of coefficients $`t_k^{(j)}`$ except the central ones) is

$$\frac{1}{2}nN(N1)=\frac{1}{2}\text{dim}()$$

So, the number of integrals of motion in involution is exactly one half of the dimension of the phase space and, hence, we are dealing with an integrable model.

However, there is one subtlety here. We consider some specific real form of the model (without going into the details at this point). For the real form in question the level of integrals looks as follows:

Figure 1.

The integrals are divided into “compact” and “non-compact” ones. The typical integral curve of Hamiltonian vector-field corresponding to “compact” integral is the spiral on Figure 1 while the one corresponding to “non-compact” integral is strictly vertical. We would like to reduce the model in order that the “non-compact” integrals disappear and the integral curves of “compact” ones close. Such reduction is important for several reasons:
1. To consider average and adiabatic approximation we need compact levels of integrals.
2. In the quantum case non-compact directions must correspond to continuous spectrum which we would like to eliminate.
3. The integrable model in question can be viewed as lattice approximation of CFT. Non-compact directions correspond to zero-modes. We would like to separate them from the rest of degrees of freedom in order to have clear identification of primary fields.
4. There is an algebra-geometric reason to eliminate the non-compact directions on which we would like to make some detailed comments.

It is well known that the integrable model in question is closely related to the algebraic geometry through the study of the spectral curve:

$$X:r(w,z)\text{det}(wI+l(z))=0$$

of genus: $`g=\frac{1}{2}(N1)(Nn2)`$. The relation is as follows. Consider the Jacobi variety of the curve $`X`$ i.e. the complex torus:

$$J=\frac{^g}{^g\times B^g}$$

where $`B`$ is the period matrix. Introduce corresponding Riemann Theta-function which satisfies:

$$\theta (\zeta +m+Bn)=\text{exp}2\pi i\left(\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{t}nBn{}_{}{}^{t}n\zeta \right)\theta (\zeta ),m,n^g$$

The relation between integrable models and algebraic geometry is normally based on the following “identity”:

Liouville torus = Real part of Jacobi variety.

However, this relation only holds in the usual cases because the levels of the “non-compact” integrals are usually fixed from the very beginning in the particular integrable model under consideration, so these integrals rarely, if ever, appear explicitly in the discussion (the problem of having “extra” degrees of freedom resulting from imposing some additional implicit constraints is well-known though).

But in our case this “identity” cannot be correct as can be easily seen from the comparison of dimensions:

$$\text{dim}()=2g+2(N1)$$

In fact, the real part of Jacobi variety describe only the compact part of the level of integrals and, clearly, to use the usual algebra-geometric formulation we need to eliminate $`N1`$ non compact integrals. Let us discuss this point in some more details.

The integrable model under consideration allows a complexification. Complexification of the compact part of the level of integrals should give the Jacobi variety. More precisely, the complexification gives the Jacobi variety from which the following divisor is cut off:

$$D=\{\zeta J|\theta (\zeta +\rho _1)\mathrm{}\theta (\zeta +\rho _N)=0\}$$

where $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _N`$ are images under Abel map of $`N`$ points of $`X`$ which project onto the point $`\mathrm{}`$ on $`z`$-plane. In other words the observables considered as functions on the Jacobi variety possess singularities (only) on $`D`$. Generally we have:

Functions on the Level of Integrals of Motion =

=(Functions on $`J_{\text{aff}}`$) $`\times `$ (Sections)

where $`J_{\text{aff}}JD`$ stands for affine Jacobi variety. Sections correspond exactly to non-compact directions of the level of integrals. In algebra-geometric language they are given by expressions of the form

$$\frac{\theta (\zeta +\rho _i)}{\theta (\zeta +\rho _j)}$$

Our goal is to reduce the model on the sub-manifold of the phase space which does not contain the non-compact directions. There is a general Dirac procedure to do that: we have to fix $`N1`$ first kind constraints (the integrals of motion $`t_k^0`$), the non-compact coordinates being the “auxiliary” relations. However, in the case under consideration there is a very direct way of describing the reduced model which allows quantum analogue. To be precise, there is an $`N\times N`$ matrix $`s`$ whose matrix elements are dynamical variables such that the similarity transformation of $`l(z)`$:

$`m(z)=sl(z)s^1`$ (2)
is of the form:

$`m(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a(z)& b(z)\\ c(z)& d(z)\end{array}\right),`$
where $`d(z)`$ is $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrix, $`c(z)`$ is $`(N1)`$-vector, $`b(z)`$ is $`(N1)`$-covector and $`a(z)`$ is a scalar. The similarity transformation (2) is such that $`a(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n2`$, $`c(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$,

$$b(z)=z^{n1}e_{N1}+\stackrel{~}{b}(z),d(z)=z^nd_0+\stackrel{~}{d}(z)$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{b}(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$, the matrix elements of $`d_0`$ are in the center. Here and later we use the notation:

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & j& & \end{array}`$
$`e_j=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& \mathrm{}& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)`$
Moreover, the coefficients of matrix elements of $`m(z)`$ have closed Poisson brackets. Thus the matrix $`m(z)`$ defines the reduced phase space $`_r`$ and the reduced algebra of observables $`𝒜_r`$ as $`l(z)`$ defines $``$ and $`𝒜`$. We do not write down corresponding Poisson brackets because they can be obtained from quantum commutation relations described later. In the classical case a similar construction for linear Poisson brackets is given in .

It is easy to calculate that

$$\text{dim}(_r)=2g$$

That is why the algebra-geometric parametrization is well defined for the reduced model. Namely, consider the symmetric power of the spectral curve:

$$X(g)=X^g/S_g$$

where $`S_g`$ is the symmetric group. The points on $`X(g)`$ are divisors: $`P=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_g\}`$ where $`p_j=(z_j,w_j)`$ are points on the spectral curve. Consider the Abel transformation:

$$X(g)J$$

This transformation is one-to-one on non compact varieties:

$$X(g)\stackrel{~}{D}J_{aff}$$

With every $`1ig`$ we associate two numbers $`k,l`$ defined as follows. $`k`$ is such that

$$\frac{1}{2}(k1)(kn2)<i\frac{1}{2}k((k+1)n2)$$

and $`l`$ is defined by

$$l=i\frac{1}{2}(k1)(kn2)$$

The polynomial $`f_i(z,w)`$ is defined by

$`f_i(z,w)=w^{k1}z^{l1}`$ (3)
The meaning of $`f_i(z,w)`$ is clear: the holomorphic differentials on the spectral curve are given by

$$\omega _i=\frac{f_i(z,w)dz}{_wr(w,z)}i=1,\mathrm{}g$$

The divisor $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is defined in terms of polynomials $`f_i(z,w)`$. A point on $`X(g)`$ for which $`p_ip_jij`$ belongs to $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ if

$$\text{det}(f_i(z_j,w_j))=0$$

When there are coinciding points the definition needs some changes, but we shall not go into details here.

There is an explicit construction:

$$m(z)X(g)$$

such that

$$\{z_i,w_j\}=\delta _{i,j}z_iw_i$$

Thus the variables $`z_j,w_j`$ describe separated variables for the reduced integrable model. It is important that the inverse map (algebraic) exists with singularities on $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ only. So, the level of integrals of the complexified reduced model give exactly the affine Jacobian.

## 2 Quantum reduction.

Consider a quantum integrable model described by the l-operator $`L(z)`$ satisfying standard commutation relations

$`R(z,z^{})(L(z)I)(IL(z^{}))=(IL(z^{}))(L(z)I)R(z,z^{})`$ (4)
The quantum $`R`$-matrix is given by:

$$R(z,z^{})=zR_{12}(q)z^{}R_{21}(q)^1$$

where

$$q=e^{i\gamma },$$

$`\gamma `$ plays the role of Plank constant. The constant R-matrix is given by

$$R_{12}(q)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}q^{E^{jj}}q^{E^{jj}}+(qq^1)\underset{j>i}{}E^{ji}E^{ij}$$

Define the quantum determinant of $`L(z)`$:

$$\text{q-det}(L(z))=\underset{\pi }{}(q)^{l(\pi )}L_{1\pi (1)}(zq^{\frac{N1}{2}})L_{2\pi (2)}(zq^{\frac{N3}{2}})\mathrm{}L_{N\pi (N)}(zq^{\frac{N1}{2}})$$

where $`l(\pi )`$ is the minimal number of transpositions of nearest neighbors in $`\pi `$.
Integrals of motion and elements of center appear in

$$\text{q-det}(wI+L(z))$$

Now we have to be a little bit more specific. Like in classics (1) we shall assume that the leading coefficient of $`L(z)`$ is lower-triangular:

$$L(z)=z^n\mu +O(z^{n1})$$

where

$$\mu =\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mu _{21}& \mu _{22}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mu _{31}& \mu _{32}& \mu _{33}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mu _{N1}& \mu _{N2}& \mu _{N3}& \mathrm{}& \mu _{NN}\end{array}\right)$$

such form is consistent with the commutation relations (4). Setting $`\mu _{11}=0`$ is very convenient for us, it corresponds to some special choice of integrable model.

Take the first row of $`L(z)`$:

$$e_1L(z)=z^{n1}\nu +O(z^{n2}),$$

and consider the $`N\times N`$ matrix whose matrix elements are operators:

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ \nu \mu ^{N2}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \nu \mu \\ \nu \end{array}\right)$$

Let us show that

$`S\mu =US`$
where

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& t_1& \mathrm{}& t_{N2}& t_{N1}\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),`$
and $`t_j`$ are defined by

$$\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}(xq^1\mu _{jj})=\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}x^{N1j}t_j$$

Obviously, the only thing we have to prove is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}t_k\nu \mu ^{N1k}=0`$ (5)
where $`t_0=1`$. Notice two circumstances. First, the relations (4) imply that

$`\mu _{jj}q^{E^{jj}}\mu =\mu q^{E^{jj}}\mu _{jj}`$
$`\nu \mu _{jj}=\mu _{jj}\nu `$ (6)
Second, the expression $`\mu ^k`$ contains

$`\mu _{j_1j_2}\mu _{j_2j_3}\mu _{j_3j_4}\mathrm{}`$ (7)
with $`j_1j_2j_3j_4\mathrm{}`$. From (6) one finds:

$`\nu \mu ^l\mu _{jj}E^{jj}=\nu \mu ^l\mu _{jj}q^{E^{jj}1}E^{jj}=q^1\mu _{jj}\nu \mu ^lE^{jj}`$
So, in the expression $`\mu ^k`$ one can move to the left all the $`\mu _{jj}`$ replacing them by $`q^1\mu _{jj}`$, the rest consists of expressions of the form (7) with strictly ordered indices. Hence the equation (5) follows from the corresponding classical equation: a matrix with commuting entries satisfies its characteristic equation.

Introduce the matrix $`M(z)`$:

$`M(z)=SL(z)S^1`$
We have shown that

$`M(z)=z^nU+O(z^{n1})`$
Moreover, since $`\nu `$ is the last row of $`S`$ we have

$$e_1M(z)=z^{n1}e_N+O(z^{n2})$$

It is important that $`t_j`$ commute with elements of $`M(z)`$.

Similarly to the classical case introduce the notations

$`M(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(z)& B(z)\\ C(z)& D(z)\end{array}\right),`$
where $`D(z)`$ is $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrix etc. We have the same behavior in $`z`$ as in classics: $`A(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n2`$, $`C(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$,

$$B(z)=z^{n1}e_{N1}+\stackrel{~}{B}(z),D(z)=\stackrel{~}{U}z^n+\stackrel{~}{D}(z)$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{B}(z)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}(z)`$ are respectively polynomials of degrees $`n2`$ and $`n1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ matrix obtained from $`U`$ by omitting first row and first column.

The algebra $`𝒜_q`$ is generated by coefficients of matrix elements of $`M(z)`$, $`t_j`$ can be considered as $``$-number parameters of $`𝒜_q`$.

We wand to find closed commutation relations for $`M(z)`$. Introduce the following object:

$`\widehat{S}_{12}=qE^{11}q^{E^{11}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}}(\nu I)(R_{12}(q)(\mu I))^{Ni}(E^{ii}I)`$
which is a matrix in the tensor product $`^N^N`$ with non-commuting entries. It is possible to prove the auxiliary commutation relations:

$`Y_{12}(SI)\widehat{S}_{21}=(IS)\widehat{S}_{12}R_{12}(q),`$
$`(SI)\widehat{S}_{21}(T(z)I)=Z_{12}(z)(M(z)I)(SI)\widehat{S}_{21}R_{21}(q)`$ (8)
where we use the usual notation $`X_{21}=PX_{12}P`$ with $`P`$ being the permutation matrix acting in $`^N^N`$. The matrices $`Y_{12}`$ and $`Z_{12}(z)`$ have $``$-number matrix elements. They are defined as follows. Consider the matrix

$$C_{12}=(IE^{11})I+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V^jU^j$$

where

$`V=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
The matrices $`Y_{12}`$ and $`Z_{12}(z)`$ are defined using $`C_{12}`$:

$`Y_{12}=qI(qq^1)C_{12}(IP),`$
$`Z_{12}(z)=I(qq^1)z(IU)C_{12}(E^{N,1}I)`$
where $`P`$ is permutation.

It is easy to see that the operator $`C_{12}(IP)`$ is a projector:

$$\left(C_{12}(IP)\right)^2=C_{12}(IP)$$

which explains the following simple formula for the inverse of $`Y_{12}`$:

$$Y_{12}^1=q^1I+(qq^1)C_{12}(IP)$$

Now we are ready to find the closed commutation relations in question. Take the relation (4) and multiply it by $`(IS)\widehat{S}_{12}`$ from the left and by $`((SI)\widehat{S}_{21})^1`$ from the right. After some calculations using (8) one finds

$`\stackrel{~}{R}(z_1,z_2)K_{12}(z_1)(M(z_1)I)K_{21}(z_2)(IM(z_2))=`$
$`=K_{21}(z_2)(IM(z_2))K_{12}(z_1)(M(z_1)I)\stackrel{~}{R}(z_1,z_2)`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{R}(z_1,z_2)=z_1Y_{12}z_2Y_{21}^1,`$
$`K_{12}(z)=Y_{12}^1Z_{12}(z)`$
## 3 Discussion.

Similarly to  it is possible to construct quantum separated variables:

$$M(z)(z_1,w_1),\mathrm{},(z_g,w_g)$$

such that

$$w_iz_i=q^2z_iw_i$$

It should be possible to show that every element of $`𝒜_q`$ can be expressed in terms of these separated variables. This is a complicated statement which we did not prove yet, but exactly this property of $`𝒜_q`$ is the reason for introducing reduced model. An analogue of singularities on $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ that we had in classical has to manifest itself after quantization.

The original Hilbert space where the elements of $`𝒜_q`$ act should be unitary equivalent to the Hilbert space: functions of

$$\zeta _j=\frac{1}{2}\text{log}(z_j)$$

The operator $`w_j`$ is shift of $`\zeta _j`$ by $`i\gamma `$. To finish the definition of the Hilbert space we need to define the scalar product. The duality of quantum integrable model is to be emphasized. There is dual integrable model which is similar to the original one but for which the Plank constant changes

$$\gamma \frac{\pi ^2}{\gamma }$$

Consider the dual operators

$$Z_j=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\gamma }\zeta _j\right),W_j=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi i\frac{}{\zeta _j}\right)$$

It is easy to see that formally $`Z_j`$, $`W_j`$ commute with $`z_j`$, $`w_j`$. But, again, to make real sense of the commutativity we have to define the Hilbert space where the operators act. We would conjecture that the scalar product in the space of functions of $`\zeta _j`$ is given by

$`F|G=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\zeta _1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\zeta _g\overline{F(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _g)}`$
$`\times \text{det}(f_i(z_j,w_j))\text{det}(f_i(Z_j,W_j))G(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _g)`$
where $`f_i`$ are the polynomials defining the holomorphic differentials (3). Notice that $`w_j`$, $`W_j`$ act on $`G(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _g)`$. There are two reasons why we believe this formula to be true. First of them is quasiclassics: the determinant $`\text{det}(f_i(z_j,w_j))`$ enters Liouville measure rewritten in the separated variables. The second is known case $`N=2`$ . We shall comment more on this point in later publications.