text:
# Spacetime and vacuum as seen from Moscow

## 1 Introduction

This talk presents: a few episodes from the history of ideas on the structure and evolution of vacuum during last 50 years as seen from ITEP; the impact on the theory of vacuum by I.Pomeranchuk, L.Landau, Ya.Zeldovich, A.Sakharov, D. Kirzhnits and their disciples; the importance of international exchange of ideas; the crucial role of experiments on P and CP violation; interconnection of particle physics and cosmology.

## 2 Pomeranchuk on vacuum

Being a student of Isaak Pomeranchuk I first heard from him in 1950: “The vacuum is filled with the most profound physical content” and “The Book of Physics consists of two volumes: v.1. Pumps and Manometers, v. 2. Quantum Field Theory.” In the middle of 1950’s Pomeranchuk proved his famous theorem about equality of particle and antiparticle cross-sections at the same target. It is not an accident that the Regge pole with quantum numbers of vacuum, which is responsible for this equality, was called later Pomeranchuk pole or pomeron.

In 1956 Pomeranchuk encouraged Boris Ioffe, Alexei Rudik and myself to work on P-non-conservation. By applying CPT theorem  to the famous paper of T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang  we came to the conclusions  that: 1) $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$ correlations suggested by them would signal not only P-, but also C-violation. 2) $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ are respectively even and odd under T (or, better, CP), but not under C . Hence $`K_S\to ̸3\pi ^0`$, $`K_L^03\pi ^0`$ (November 1956). The same conclusions were reached by T.D. Lee, R. Oehme and C.N. Yang  (January 1957) (see Nobel lectures by T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang  (December 1957)).

## 3 Landau on parity, P, and combined parity, CP

Till the end of 1956 Lev Landau did not believe in the possibility of P-violation. In the summer of 1956 he did not encourage Iosif Shapiro to publish a Moscow University report , in which an experiment of the type carried out later by C.S.Wu et al. was suggested (according to Shapiro’s report energy of a system changed its value under mirror reflection). Landau was convinced that P must be conserved because vacuum is mirror symmetric. (One would not expect this argument from an author of 1950 article with Ginzburg  in which spontaneous symmetry breaking was introduced into theory of superconductivity.)

We (IOR) discussed our paper with Landau. A few weeks after it was submitted to JETP, Landau  put forward (December 1956) the idea of absolute CP-invariance and conservation of “combined parity”. According to this idea the “sin” of P-violation was committed by particles and antiparticles (with opposite signs), but the mirror symmetry of vacuum was preserved.

The idea was widely accepted. I considered it to be beautiful, but on the other hand, I did not understand why the Lagrangian could not have complex coefficients. Therefore in lectures given at ITEP (1960-61) and Dubna (1961)  and in the book  based on these lectures (1963) the importance of experimental tests of CP was stressed, in particular search for $`K_L2\pi `$.

## 4 Search and discovery of $`𝑲_𝑳^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$

A special search at Dubna was carried out by E. Okonov and his group. They have not found a single $`K_L^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ event among 600 decays of $`K_L^0`$ into charged particles  (Anikina et al., JETP, 1962). At that stage the search was terminated by administration of the Lab. The group was unlucky.

Approximately at the level 1/350 the effect was discovered by J.Christensen, J.Cronin, V.Fitch and R.Turlay  at Brookhaven in 1964 in an experiment the main goal of which was $`K_LK_S`$ regeneration in matter.

Thus absolute CP-invariance was falsified.

## 5 “Mirror world”

Still the appeal of Landau’s idea of absolutely symmetric vacuum was so strong that in 1965 Igor Kobzarev, Isaak Pomeranchuk and myself suggested the hypothesis of a “mirror world” . We assumed CPA invariance, where $`A`$ \[from “Alice through the Looking Glass”\] transforms our part of the Lagrangian into its mirror part.

Each of our particles has its mirror counterpart. The mirror particles have between them the same electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions as ours. In principle there might exist mirror nuclei, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies, even mirror life. Whether they actually exist depends on cosmological evolution.

The possibility of the existence of both “left protons”, $`p_L`$, and “right protons”, $`p_R`$, had been discussed by T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang in two last paragraphs of their famous article . But they believed that $`p_L`$ and $`p_R`$ can interact with the same pion and the same photon. We have proved that this is impossible.

According to our original assumption, the only particles which belong to both our and mirror worlds are gravitons. If there were two gravitons, nothing would connect the two worlds and the idea of a mirror world would have no physical consequences.

Why the graviton but not, say, a photon? As soon as you assume that the photon is common to both worlds, you immediately come to contradiction with experiments. Colliding $`e^+e^{}`$ through a virtual photon would annihilate not only into our particles but also into mirror ones. Besides, the electromagnetic radiative corrections would be doubled destroying the beautiful agreement of QED with experiment.

In 1982 I studied the oscillations between our photons and sterile ones, “paraphotons” ; in 1983 – considered a stronger coupling between two worlds which could be caused by exchange of some hypothetical neutral bosons . A number of authors considered mirror particles as a substantial component of dark matter. Many enthusiastic papers about mirror matter were written recently by R. Foot (see  and references therein) without proper citation of ref. .

## 6 Zeldovich and cosmological term

Yakov Zeldovich was very excited when he realized that a non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term is strongly required by quantum field theory. In 1967 he estimated $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the basis of pairs of virtual elementary particles in vacuum. First he started with $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }m_{Pl}^4`$ and found enormous (124 orders) discrepancy with observations (private communication). Then  he assumed that quartically divergent loops ($`m_{Pl}^4`$ and even $`m^4`$) vanish and estimated

$$\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{m^6}{m_{Pl}^2},$$

where $`m`$ is the mass of a typical elementary particle of the order of a proton mass (1 GeV). That was the first attempt to put $`m_{Pl}^2`$ in denominator. (The contribution of the loop is proportional to gravitational interaction.) In order to bridge the gap of $`10^8`$, he tried

$$\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }GG_Fm^8,$$

where $`G`$ is Newton constant ($`m_{Pl}=G^{1/2}`$), while $`G_F`$ is Fermi constant.

In 1968 Zeldovich noticed the negative sign of the contribution of fermions and indicated that the contributions of bosons and fermions might cancel each other!  This was before Yuri Golfand and his student Evgeni Likhtman published  the first paper on supersymmetry.

Recently Johannes Blümlein and Paul Söding kindly informed me about references , in which early unpublished estimates made by young W. Pauli are described. Pauli discussed vacuum fluctuations and their influence on cosmology. Note that he overlooked that cosmological term would lead to inflation and concluded that the universe would be smaller than the distance from the earth to the moon. Even earlier, in 1916, the “zero point energy” had been considered by W. Nernst (, see also ).

## 7 QCD vacuum condensates

Here I will make a digression from cosmology to Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) with its quarks and gluons.

In 1965 V. Vanyashin and M. Terentyev  discovered the negative sign of the vacuum polarization of gauge bosons in the case of SU(2) gauge symmetry. Their numerical result was slightly incorrect, as the “ghost” was unknown at that time. A correct number (with the same negative sign!) was derived by I. Khriplovich in 1969 by using Coulomb gauge . The negative sign of vacuum polarization was a novelty: for photons in QED it is positive. But at that time the nonabelian theories with gauge vector bosons were not considered seriously at ITEP. Even after SLAC experiments on deep inelastic scattering and their parton interpretation by J. Bjorken  and R. Feynman  we were not clever enough to realize the importance of negative vacuum polarization.

The situation has drastically changed in 1973 when H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler  suggested QCD with its SU(3) color gauge symmetry. In papers by H.D. Politzer  and D.J. Gross and F. Wilczek  the negative sign was rediscovered, and its importance for QCD was stressed: it lead to decreasing color charge at short distances (and hence to asymptotic freedom at high momentum transfers).

It should be noted that Vanyashin and Terentyev  considered as “absurd” not the ultraviolet, but the infrared behaviour of the charge where its square first rises and then becomes negative. At present we know that this region is never reached: in Electroweak Model because of the Higgs mechanism, in QCD because of confinement. The increase of charge at large distances makes perturbation theory invalid at such distances. Non-perturbative effects manifest themselves in non-vanishing vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of colorless products of quark and gluon fields, the so-called QCD condensates. These condensates were used at ITEP by Michael Shifman, Arkady Vainshtein and Valentin Zakharov in order to successfully describe the properties of various hadrons . This work was followed by many hundreds of theoretical papers (for a review see ).

## 8 Sakharov and baryonic asymmetry of the universe, BAU

In 1967 I had the privilege to witness the creation of Sakharov’s seminal paper  on the Baryonic Asymmetry of the Universe (BAU). He started out from the CP-violating charge asymmetry of the semileptonic decays of $`K_L^0`$ and from the nonequality of branching ratios in the decays of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$ discussed by S.Okubo . Using it as a springboard, he jumped from strange particles to the universe and from strangeness violation to baryon number violation. A small excess of baryons over antibaryons in the hot big bang soup survived, while the bulk annihilated into photons, neutrinos and antineutrinos. Photons are observed today as CMBR. The cosmic background neutrinos are tantalizing. When devising the baryon nonconserving ad hoc interaction Sakharov was helped by ITEP team. In the framework of SM and its extensions there are several mechanisms of baryon number violation; among them grand unification  and triangle anomalies . The latter mechanism raises serious problems  at electroweak scale: it might wipe out baryon asymmetry, unless the original lepton asymmetry is involved . The problem of BAU can not be solved in the framework of Standard Model. (V. Rubakov and M. Shaposhnikov .)

## 9 Kirzhnits and phase transitions

With the advent of the Standard Model based on $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge symmetry new concepts came to particle physics; one of them is the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the Higgs field. It reduces $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ to $`U(1)_{em}`$ and provides with masses leptons, quarks, $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons. An important step was made  in 1972 by David Kirzhnits, a theorist at the Lebedev Institute, who realized that the Higgs VEV is a function of temperature and has to vanish in the early universe, when we go backwards in time to temperatures much higher than the present value of VEV. Hence the masses of particles have also to vanish. This idea was further developed by Kirzhnits and his student Andrei Linde  and later by many others . (Both A. Sakharov and D. Kirzhnits were disciples of Igor Tamm.) I first heard about the vacuum phase transition from David on a street during a conference in Tashkent in 1972.

## 10 Vacuum domain walls

Two years later Igor Kobzarev, Yakov Zeldovich and myself  merged the idea of vacuum phase transition with a model of spontaneous CP violation proposed by T.D.Lee . According to this model a neutral pseudoscalar field has two degenerate vacua (see Fig. 1).

The vacuum around us has a sign that was fixed by chance during the cooling of the universe and formation of VEVs. But at any distant enough place the other sign might have been chosen. The domains of different sign are separated from each other by “domain walls” the thickness and density of which are determined by VEVs of the field $`\phi `$ and by its self-coupling. Typical electroweak scale is several hundred GeV. We discussed the evolution of the universe filled with domain walls and concluded that at present the nearest wall should have gone beyond the horizon, leaving as a farewell an anisotropy of CMBR. The advent of inflational cosmology (see below) greatly weakened this argument against spontaneous CP-violation.

## 11 Monopoles, strings, instantons, and <br>sphalerons

Vacuum domain walls were the first megascopic cosmological elementary objects considered in the framework of quantum field theory. They were caused by spontaneous breaking of discrete symmetry. Later in 1974 G.’t Hooft  and A.Polyakov  discovered magnetic monopoles as solutions of spontaneously broken SU(2) gauge symmetry. Cosmological creation of monopoles and of strings (the latter appear as solutions of a broken U(1) gauge symmetry) was considered in 1976 by T.W.B.Kibble . (Microscopic U(1) strings of Nambu type underlying dual resonance model of hadrons were considered in 1973, without any reference to cosmology, by H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen , who were inspired by Abrikosov’s vertices in a superconductor .)

Since the early 1980’s a whole “industry of theoretical papers” on cosmological role of domain walls, strings and monopoles appeared. I will mention here only articles by Ya.B. Zeldovich , A. Vilenkin  and an exotic example of a cosmic string invented by Albert Schwartz  in 1982 after he learned from me about the “mirror world”. A particle, after making a circle around his “Alice string”, transforms into a mirror particle and becomes invisible for a terrestrial observer .

A special type of non-perturbative transitions between topologically different vacua of non-abelian gauge fields were constructed by A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Schwartz, V. Tyupkin  in 1975 and by ’Hooft  in 1976. The latter called them instantons. In the four-dimensional eucledian space (with imaginary time) instantons represent solutions with finite action. Many attempts to understand the mechanism of confinement in QCD have exploited instantons.

Amplitudes of high temperature transitions between vacua in electroweak theory, called sphalerons, were first analyzed by N. Manton  in 1983 and by F. Klinkhamer and N. Manton  in 1984 in connection with baryon nonconserving phase transition at electroweak scale.

## 12 False vacuum

In 1974 T.D.Lee and G.C.Wick  suggested a Higgs potential with two vacua, one of which lies a little bit higher than the other (see Fig. 2).

The cosmological consequences for universe that lives in an upper metastable vacuum were elaborated  by Igor Kobzarev, Mikhail Voloshin and myself in 1974 and later, in 1977, by Curt Callan and Sidney Coleman  (they dubbed it “false vacuum”) and also by Paul Frampton .

The spontaneous decay of a false vacuum starts by formation through quantum tunneling of the smallest bubble of the true vacuum surrounded by a wall which separates the two vacua. The critical radius of this bubble is such that the gain of energy proportional to its volume becomes large enough to compensate the mass of the wall which is proportional to its surface:

$$\frac{4\pi }{3}R_c^3\epsilon =4\pi R_c^2\sigma ,$$

where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy density of the false vacuum (see Fig. 2), while $`\sigma `$ is the surface density of the wall. After that the bubble expands classically, destroying the universe.

When I first thought that the creation of a bubble could be catalyzed at a collider, my back shivered. Then I reassured myself: all possible collisions have already occurred in the early universe. A few months later I told Andrei Sakharov about the bubble. His reaction was: “Such theoretical work should be forbidden”. My argument about collisions in the early universe was rejected by him: “Nobody had collided two nuclei of lead”.

In 1984 P.Hut  published an estimate of uranium-uranium collisions in cosmic rays during the time of the existence of universe. It turned out that the number of such collisions, $`N`$, was many orders of magnitude larger than at any future heavy ion collider: $`N10^{47}`$ for Fe with $`E100`$ GeV/nucleon. Experiments at RHIC (BNL) study Au - Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}200A`$ GeV $`40`$ TeV ($`A197`$ for gold). There will be $`210^{11}`$ collisions in 10 years, first at 30 GeV, then at 70 GeV, and finally at 100 GeV/nucleon. A fixed target NA 50 experiment at CERN gathered $`210^{12}`$ Pb - Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}17A`$ GeV$`3.5`$ TeV ($`A207`$ for lead). The experiment ALICE at LHC (CERN) will study Pb - Pb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}1200`$ TeV. The abundances of heavy nuclei may be $`10^510^{10}`$ of that of Fe, which still leaves a huge safety factor in cosmic rays. For a recent update of these arguments see .

## 13 Inflation

The notion of a false vacuum with large energy density (VEV) naturally led Alan Guth  to the idea of inflationary universe (1980). The exponential expansion solves the problems of flatness and the horizon as well as homogeneity and isotropy problems. It also explains the vanishing abundance of magnetic monopoles. (For earlier models of exponential expansion of the universe see papers by E.B. Gliner  and A.A. Starobinsky .)

In 1982 Andrei Linde  and independently Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt  suggested how to stop this expansion by producing many vacuum bubbles and high entropy. Also in 1982 Alexander Dolgov  suggested a mechanism with a rolling scalar field which led to what later was dubbed “quintessence”.

Recent measurements with high angular resolution of CMBR fluctuations confirm the inflation scenario (experiments BOOMERANG , MAXIMA , DAST ). The flatness of the universe is corroborated by observations of high-z supernova of type Ia . On the other hand, they give a puzzling result: the fractional energy density of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\epsilon /\epsilon _c`$, where $`\epsilon _c`$ is the critical density, corresponding to the flat universe, is dominated by cosmological term – i.e. energy density of vacuum ($``$ 70%), then follows the so-called dark matter ($``$ 30%), while ordinary baryonic matter constitutes only about 3%. To understand the cause and mechanism of such fine tuning is a great challenge.

During the 1990s the development of inflation cosmology has lead to a new view on the place of our universe in the world. According to this view, our universe is a part of eternal metauniverse, which consists of innumerable universes. They create their offsprings by forming Big-Bang bubbles in false vacua. The properties of vacua, fields, particles and even number of space-time dimensions differ from one universe to the other . This enormous variety may explain the anthropic properties of our universe which is so nicely tuned for our existence (see, e.g. ).

## 14 Brane and bulk

The idea of extra dimensions  has been actively discussed for 60 years before it was first combined with the idea of “domain walls” in these extra dimensions , . According to this idea, our four-dimensional world is a “brane” in a multidimensional bulk  \- . All known particles and their fields are confined (completely, or almost completely) within the brane, while real and virtual gravitons are allowed to leave the brane and to propagate in the bulk. This drastically changes gravity. The Planck scale may become as low as 1 TeV. There could be deviations from the standard Newton’s force at distances of the order of millimeters and many other strange phenomena. But at present all this is a kind of a daydreaming.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful for their hospitality to Mike Duff who invited me to the Inaugural Conference of the MCTP and to Guido Altarelli and Marcella Diemoz who invited me to give the Historical Lecture at the CERN Summer School.


format: text

text:
# Securing quantum bit commitment through reverse quantum communication

## I Introduction

Quantum cryptography is concerned with harnessing the principles of quantum mechanics to create secure cryptosystems . It can broadly be divided into quantum key distribution (QKD) , which is concerned with secure sharing of cryptographic keys, and a host of other schemes, such as quantum coin tossing , quantum oblivious mutual identification , quantum oblivious transfer  and “two party secure computation” (TPSC) , essentially concerned with secure processing of private information to reach a public decision. The latter schemes depend on the validity of quantum bit commitment (QBC) , a quantum cryptographic primitive for secure information processing. In a concrete realization of bit commitment, Alice writes 0 or 1 on a note, puts it in a safe, which she hands over to Bob. Upon Bob choosing to enter the transaction, she gives him the key to the safe. The main point is that Alice cannot cheat by changing her mind after handing Bob the safe, nor can Bob cheat by finding out about Alice’s decision unless she gives him the key. A secure bit commitment is one which is (at least, exponentially) binding on Alice and unconditionally concealing (of her commitment) from Bob and thus prevents either party from cheating.

That entanglement can undermine QBC was first realized by Bennett and Brassard , who pointed out that the BB84 scheme  was insecure against an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) attack by Alice , i.e., a deception where she sends Bob part of entangled photons instead of ones in a definite polarization state, and waits until after the initial phase of the protocol to measure the part she retains. A subsequent proposition, namely the BCJL protocol , though impervious to an EPR attack, is nevertheless rendered insecure by an entanglement-based attack independently uncovered by Lo and Chau  and Mayers . The essence of their proof is that if the protocol is secure against Bob, Alice can cheat by supplying him a pure state entangled system, and switching her commitment by local unitary operations. It has come to be accepted that QBC simultaneously secure against both Alice and Bob is impossible, though a trade-off is permitted .

Almost all QBC schemes we know conform to a model wherein the quantum system encoding the committer’s (Alice’s) commitment $`b`$ is prepared by her. She is the sender. The party that accepts her commitment, the “acceptor” called Bob, is the receiver of the quantum information. The present article explores whether QBC can be made secure if Bob, rather than Alice, prepares and sends the initial state of the encoding quantum system, and Alice is the receiver who “inscribes” her commitment on the state furnished by Bob. The motiviation to do so is quite straightforward, given that the insecurity of QBC so far stems from Alice preparing the initial state as she likes.

## II The modified BCJL scheme

In a typical QBC scheme, Alice prepares a quantum state consisting of a pre-agreed number $`n`$ of photons in a pure product state determined by her commitment $`b`$ ($`\{0,1\}`$). Four possible preparations of a photon are permitted: in the rectilinear basis (denoted +), with horizontal (denoted 0) or vertical (denoted 1) polarization; else, in the diagonal basis (denoted $`\times `$) with polarization oriented at $`45^{}`$ (denoted 0) or $`135^{}`$ (denoted 1). She sends these photons to Bob as a piece of evidence of her commitment. If Bob signals his acceptance to enter the transaction, she unveils $`b`$ and the preparation information of her photons, which Bob then verifies by measuring their polarizations. In order that Bob should not cheat, the density matrices of the system given to Bob corresponding to $`b=0,1`$ – namely $`\rho _0^B,\rho _1^B`$ should be (almost) indistinguishable. On the other hand, the preparation of the photons she sends Bob should be binding on her. As noted earlier, if a Mayers-Lo-Chau (MLC) attack can be launched, then these two requirements are mutually exclusive .

A simple way to circumvent an EPR or MLC attack is to prevent Alice from launching one. The main point of the present article is that Bob can achieve this by preparing a seperable $`n`$-particle quantum state and sending it to Alice to inscribe her commitment. We need to show that any subsequent action by Alice will not permit her to launch an attack. Then, a classical communication from Alice is sufficient to guard against her cheating. The hallmarks of the class of protocols we envisage are (1) a reverse quantum communication, wherein Alice and Bob have exchanged their traditional sender-receiver roles, and (2) a classical communication from Alice to signal the end of the commitment phase.

We present a version of the BCJL protocol modified to include these two features. The proof of its security is given thereafter. The modified BCJL scheme consists of two phases, the commitment phase and unveiling phase, enumerated below. An intervening phase of arbitrary duration, referred to as the holding phase, is implicit but ignored in the analysis. Since we only wish to present a proof of principle, discussion on error correction is not included here.

1. Commitment phase:

1. Alice and Bob agree upon an $`n`$-bit code $`𝒞`$ (with some required properties).
    2. They also agree upon a random $`n`$-bit string $`r\{0,1\}^n`$.
    3. Bob chooses a random $`n`$-bit string $`R_B𝒞`$.
    4. He chooses a random $`n`$-bit string $`\eta \{+,\times \}^n`$ and prepares the state $`|R_B_\eta =|R_B(1)_{\eta (1)}\mathrm{}|R_B(n)_{\eta (n)}`$ and sends it to Alice.
    5. She chooses a random $`n`$ bit string $`\theta \{+,\times \}^n`$ and measures Bob’s photons in bases $`\theta `$, obtaining outcomes $`R_A\{0,1\}^n`$.
    6. To encode her commitment $`b`$, Alice checks whether $`\{R_A𝒞|rR_A=b\}`$, where the symbol $``$ denotes scalar product modulo 2, or the parity of the bitwise AND operation. If the check succeeds (fails), she excludes a photon at a randomly chosen position $`x`$ where she obtained outcome 0 (1), to obtain $`R_A^{}`$ such that $`\{R_A^{}𝒞|rR_A^{}=b\}`$.
    7. She communicates to Bob the value of $`x`$. This announcement serves as a piece of evidence of her commitment.
2. Unveiling phase:

1. Alice announces $`b`$, $`R_B`$ and $`\theta `$.
    2. Bob verifies that: $`rR_B^{}=b`$.
    3. He also verifies that whenever $`\eta (i)=\theta (i)`$, $`R_A(i)=R_B(i)`$.

Even though Bob prepares and thus knows the state $`|R_B_\eta `$ he sent Alice, without access to her outcomes where $`\eta (i)\theta (i)`$, he cannot deduce $`b`$. In fact, he doesn’t even know where $`\eta `$ and $`\theta `$ don’t match. Further, Alice need not fear that by sending in an entangled state rather than a seperable state $`|R_B_\eta `$, Bob can hope to get information about her measurement outcomes. The very nature of quantum measurement (assumed to be a von Neumann projection or, more generally, a positive operator valued measure) prohibits Bob from knowing anything about her action, because Bob’s local density matrix is unaffected by Alice’s measurement. Therefore, even empowered with a quantum computer, Bob cannot hope to deduce her outcomes by observations local to him. One way to view this is that if this were not the case, then Alice could transmit superluminal signals to Bob according to her choice of $`\theta `$ . Another deterrent for Bob, as shown below, is that Alice could launch an MLC attack against him if the system remains entangled with a hidden system on his side at the time of her measurement. Therefore the modified protocol is indeed secure against Bob.

Since Bob knows the exact pure, seperable state he sent her, any entanglement-based attack cannot be launched by Alice. Moreover the no-cloning theorem  prevents her from knowing the exact state Bob sent her. Were this not so, she could find out the exact state Bob sent her and cheat by unveiling some $`\theta (i)`$ in the wrong basis and claim any outcome she likes. Thus, if she decides to switch her commitment in the unveiling phase, the best she can do is to flip some $`R_B^{}(i)`$ with outcome 1, and announce the dishonest $`R_B^{}`$ to Bob. But her probability for getting away without Bob noticing is 1/2. Therefore, if the scheme is implemented on $`s`$ rounds, her probability for cheating successfully falls exponentially as $`\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^s`$. Alice’s classical communication in step 1(g) serves the crucial dual role of signaling Bob that the commitment phase is over, as well as binding Alice’s to-be-unveiled commitment. This step is necessary because he cannot deduce based on local measurements whether she has measured or not. On the other, a mere intimation on her part is clearly insufficient, since she could simply lie that she measured, while actually intending to delay the decision on her commitment. It must bind her future unveiling, but without betraying $`b`$. Therefore, we expect that any proposed scheme that constrains outcomes of measurements– with the result that $`\rho _0^B`$ and $`\rho _1^B`$ slightly differ (eg., the BCJL scheme)– rather than measurement basis (eg., the BB84 scheme), permits a secure version along the lines given above.

## III Entanglement weakens security against Alice

If Bob were to send Alice half of EPR pairs instead of the pure state $`|R_B_\eta `$, the above protocol would still be secure against EPR attacks by Alice. However, Alice can launch an MLC attack. To this end, she does not execute the measurement in 1(e). For step 1(g), Alice chooses a random photon for exclusion. Suppose each of Alice’s remaining photons is half of an EPR pair in the state $`|\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_+|0_++|1_+|1_+)`$, the other half being sent to Bob. The $`2(n1)`$ particle state is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}=2^{(n1)/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{n1}}{}}|j_A|j_B$$
(1)
in the $`+`$ basis. The register $`A`$ is sent to Alice, while $`B`$ remains with Bob. Since the BCJL permits $`N2^{n1}2^{n2}`$ states encoding a given commitment, she augments register $`A`$ she received from Bob by adding ancilla $`C`$, so that $`_C_A`$, the Hilbert space of the combined $`CA`$ system, has the dimension $`N`$ .

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{CAB}=2^{(n1)/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2^{n1}}{}}|e_j_C|j_A|j_B2^{(n1)/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}|f_j_{CA}|j_B,$$
(2)
where, for $`j>2^{n1}`$, we set $`|j_B=0`$, or null state, but retain the the $`|j_B`$’s as before for $`j2^{n1}`$.

We denote an ensemble of states in the BCJL scheme encoding commitment $`b=0`$ by $`\{\sqrt{p_j}|0_j\}`$ where $`_jp_j|0_j0_j|\rho _0^B\mathrm{Tr}_A\left(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{AB}\right)`$. To produce it, she determines the $`N\times N`$ unitary mixing matrix $`U^0`$ such that:

$$2^{(n1)/2}|j_B=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}U_{jk}^0\sqrt{p_j}|0_k_B.$$
(3)
Denoting $`|g_j_{CA}_{k=1}^NU_{jk}^0|f_k_{CA}`$, we rewrite Eq. (2) as:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{CAB}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{p_j}|g_j_{CA}|0_j_B.$$
(4)
By measuring in the $`\{|g_j\}`$ basis of the $`AC`$ system, she produces a state compatible with $`b=0`$. On the other hand, to convince Bob she is committed to $`b=1`$, starting from Eq. (4), Alice applies a unitary transformation to the $`CA`$ register to produce an ensemble $`\{\sqrt{q_j}|1_j_B\}`$ where $`_jq_j|1_j1_j|\rho _1^B\mathrm{Tr}_A\left(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{AB}\right)`$ on Bob’s side. Such a transformation exists since $`\rho _0^B\rho _1^B`$ . Alternatively, she can directly determine the $`N\times N`$ unitary mixing matrix $`U^1`$ of her incremented system needed to generate $`\{\sqrt{q_j}|1_j_B\}`$ state.

The attack works if Alice knows the exact entangling state ($`|\varphi `$, in this case) Bob used. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the danger of an MLC attack exists even when Bob prepares the state that is to encode Alice’s commitment. The main lesson is that the use of entanglement in any form undermines the security of QBC against Alice.

## IV Conclusion

The vicissitudes of QBC’s fate are a bit remarkable and indicate its subtle nature. Are there simple fundamental causes why the present version of QBC succeeds? In answer, one might say, as in QKD: Heisenberg uncertainty, quantum no-cloning and “causality”– that Bob cannot deduce Alice’s action without classical input from her. It is interesting that essentially the same properties of quantum information that guarantee security between collaborating parties in quantum key distribution  do the same even when the two parties are mutually distrustful.


text:
# High-Energy Gamma Rays from Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants: From EGRET to GLAST

## 1. Introduction - EGRET Pulsars in Supernova Remnants

At least three of the rotation-powered pulsars seen in high-energy gamma rays by EGRET (Crab, Vela, PSR B1951+32) are neutron stars in SNR. A fourth, PSR B1706$``$44, would be expected from its age to have a visible SNR, but the observational evidence is unclear. (Dodson, Gvamaradze, these proceedings.) Because EGRET and previous gamma-ray telescopes lacked the resolution to distinguish neutron star emission from nebular emission, the only certain detections are based on pulsed emission.

## 2. EGRET Search for PSR J2229+6114

The recent discovery by Halpern et al. (2001) of PSR J2229+6114, a young, high spindown rate radio and X-ray pulsar in an EGRET source error box strongly suggests an association with the EGRET source based on energetics (Halpern, these proceedings). We have applied three approaches to searching for pulsations in the EGRET data. Such a search is necessary, because the EGRET observations occurred years before the pulsar discovery, and pulsars in this age range are typically noisy and/or subject to glitches. The methods:

1. We applied the program described in Jones (1998) and Jones et al. (1997) to the data in VP34, the viewing period with the greatest detection significance. This program uses the ideas of Gregory & Loredo (1992), extended to take into account the angular distribution of the detected photons and the diffuse backgrounds observed by EGRET. It calculates a likelihood for each assumed pulsar period, using a 5-bin light curve, marginalizing over the arbitrary choice of zero phase.

2. We carried out a frequency scan on barycentered event files (100$``$300, 300$``$1000, 100$``$1000, $``$1000 MeV) for 10 viewing periods. H-test and Protheroe-test statistics were applied.

3. We made a pulse folding search on barycentered event files E$`>`$50 MeV using individual viewing periods, then attempted to link the best results into a coherent timing solution. The statistics used were the H-test and Rayleigh test.

The most promising solution is shown in Fig. 1, for VP34. The energy and angle cuts have been optimized to maximize the significance. The resemblance of this light curve to others seen in EGRET data (two peaks separated by 0.4$``$0.5 phase) is intriguing, but the other viewing periods, all of which had lower statistics but were closer in time to the observed radio and X-ray data, produced no consistent, confirming signal. By itself, even this optimized signal is of marginal significance ($``$1% probability of chance occurrence) based on the trials factor. We do not claim a detection.

## 3. Searching for Pulsars with GLAST

The limitation on searches of the EGRET data is statistical: the number of source photons in excess of the diffuse gamma radiation is too small. All three of the techniques described above have demonstrated the ability to find pulsations for sufficiently bright sources. The GLAST Large Area Telescope (LAT) will have a much greater effective area (factor of $``$6 at 1 GeV) and a narrower point-spread function (factor of $``$3 at 1 GeV) than EGRET. In addition, the field of view will be more than 4 times larger than EGRET’s, and the LAT will scan to avoid occultation by the earth, increasing by a large factor the total number of photons detected. The greater rates of photons from pulsar candidates and better discrimination of diffuse interstellar emission will enhance the sensitivity of pulsation searches. Analyses of LAT performance (e.g., Chandler et al. 2001; Carramiñana 2001) show that periodicities should be detectable if present in any of the known low-latitude EGRET sources.

## 4. Imaging SNR with GLAST

Observations with the LAT on GLAST should clarify the nature of the gamma-ray emission of EGRET sources positionally associated with SNR as well as fainter SNR/plerion/pulsar sources. The limits for resolving or closely localizing sources with the LAT depend on the spectral characteristics of the sources, the intensity of the interstellar emission from the Milky Way, and of course the observing strategy, so general statements about resolving power are difficult to make. The imaging capability of the LAT for SNR is illustrated in Fig. 2 using a model for $`\gamma `$-Cygni that is consistent with the EGRET observations (see Allen et al. 1999). The EGRET data suggest spatially extended high-energy emission, and the model assigns 40% of the flux of the EGRET source to emission from cosmic-ray interactions with interstellar gas at the edge of the SNR shell.

## 5. Multiwavelength Indicators for Gamma-Ray Neutron Stars in SNR

Successful multiwavelength identification campaigns toward unidentified EGRET sources coincident with SNRs often find point sources as more convincing candidates for the observed gamma-ray emission than other emission mechanisms in an SNR. For bright and steady hard spectrum gamma-ray sources such as $`\gamma `$-Cygni: RX J2020.4+4026/3EG J2020+4017 (Brazier et al. 1996), CTA1: RX J0007.0+7302 / 3EG J0010+7309 (Brazier et al. 1998), IC443: CXOU J061705.3+222127/3EG J0617+2238 (Olbert et al. 2001; Bocchino & Bykov 2001; Sturner et al. 2001), and AX J1420.1-6049/GEV J1417-6100 (Roberts et al. 2001; D’Amico et al. 2001) there is growing evidence for isolated neutron star/pulsar components. In cases of narrowly restricted source locations it becomes obvious that the high-energy emission does not correlate well with the radio/X-ray bright shell/rim features of the remnants. Additionally, these gamma-ray sources are often characterized by spectral cutoffs at GeV energies (Reimer & Bertsch 2001), which resemble the known high-energy cutoffs from pulsars like Geminga, Vela, and Crab. With the superior source location accuracy and the superior sensitivity of GLAST compared to EGRET, multiwavelength campaigns can be executed with complete identifications in the vicinities of high-energy gamma-ray sources.

## References

Allen, G. E., et al. 1999, Proc. 26th ICRC (Utah), 3, 515

Bocchino, F., & Bykov, A. M. 2001, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0106417)

Brazier, K. T. S., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1033

Brazier, K. T. S., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 819

Carramiñana, A., 2001, Unid. Gamma Sources, Tonanzintla (Kluwer:Dordrecht, 2001), ed. A. Carramiñana, O. Reimer, D.J. Thompson, in press

Chandler, A. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 59

D’Amico, N., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L45

Halpern, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L125

Jones, B. B. 1998, Ph. D., Stanford Univ., http://giants.stanford.edu/$``$bbjones

Jones, B. B., et al. 1997, Proc. 4th Compton Symposium (AIP: New York), 783

Gregory, P. C., & Loredo, T. J. 1992, ApJ, 398, 146

Olbert, C. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, L205

Reimer. O. & Bertsch, D. L. 2001, Proc. 27th ICRC, in press

Roberts, M. S. E., et al. 2001, ApJS, 133, 451

Sturner, S. J., et al. 2001, Gamma 2001 (AIP Conf. Proc. 587, New York),ed. S. Ritz, N. Gehrels, C. R. Shrader, p. 528


text:
# Acknowledgements

## Acknowledgements

We are thankful to E.Akhmedov, V.Berezinsky, S.Petcov, A.Smirnov and F.Vannucci for helpful discussions.


text:
# X-ray and optical periodicities in X-ray binaries. I. A0535+26

## 1 Introduction

The X-ray binary A0535+26 has been an object of interest to both observers and theorists for a quarter of a century, from the moment of its first documented X-ray outburst in 1975 (Rosenberg et al. Ros75 (1975)). As soon as an optical counterpart was identified almost simultaneously by several authors (Liller Lil75 (1975); Murdin Mur75 (1975)) with the 9th magnitude Be star HDE~245770, later named V725~Tau, there were several attempts to find the orbital period of the system, using both X-ray and optical (spectral and photometric) data.

Priedhorsky & Terrell (PT83 (1983)) have shown that all but the most powerful X-ray outbursts (1975 April and 1980 October) take place with a period $``$111 days. Now the general opinion is that the orbital period is 110–111d. The most reliable determination of the X-ray period and initial epoch is currently that of Motch et al. (Mo91 (1991)): $`\text{P}_{\mathrm{XR}}=111\stackrel{d}{.}38\pm 0\stackrel{d}{.}11`$ and $`T_0=\text{JD}2446734.3\pm 2\stackrel{d}{.}6`$.

This and other periodicities were claimed to have been found in optical (photometric and spectral) data. For instance, Hutchings et al. (Hu78 (1978)) found that the radial velocities of absorption lines of HDE~245770 are variable, and suggested several probable periods: 28.6, 48 and 94 days. Some years later and based on a very similar dataset, Hutchings (Hu84 (1984)) found a 112 day period. Guarnieri et al. (Gu82 (1982)) noted at first possible 32, 63 or 77 day periods in their photometric data, but later (Guarnieri et al. Gu85 (1985)) found modulation in the $`V`$ band photometry with the proposed orbital period of 110 days. Gnedin et al. (Gn88 (1988)) made a Fourier analysis of $`V`$ band photometry obtained during 1981–1985 and marked out periods of 1100, 103 and 28 days, but found no periodicity corresponding to the X-ray period.

Besides the determinations noted above, there are several more publications on this subject, listed by Giovannelli and Graziati (GG92 (1992)).

In a recent paper by Hao et al. (Hao96 (1996)) all the published data sets from 1981 to 1993 have been analysed together. Their analysis have shown only two significant periods – 830 and 507 days. However their light curve modeling does not agree with the observational data and their prognosis of the photometric behavior of HDE~245570 for 1994–1997 was not confirmed by later observations (see Fig. 1 in Hao et al. Hao96 (1996), Fig. 1 in Lyuty & Zaitseva LZ2000 (2000) and Fig. 2 in this work). It should be noted also that in Hao et al. (Hao96 (1996)) no correction has been made for different zero-points and colour systems of the data sampled by different groups.

As soon as our data set had grown substantially and surpassed that used in Gnedin et al. (Gn88 (1988)), as well as other published data sets, we attempted to search for periodic components in the light curves of A0535+26/V725~Tau. In Sect. 2 we describe our techniques of data analysis and obtain a value of the optical period, distinctly different from the orbital one, while in Sect. 3 we discuss possible reasons of the light modulation and suggest that it is caused by interplay of the orbital and precession motions. In Sect. 4 we summarize the results.

## 2 An analysis of optical data

All the photometric data discussed herein have been obtained in the period 1983–1998 with a photon-counting photometer at the 60 cm telescope of the GAISh Crimean laboratory (for details see Lyuty & Zaitseva LZ2000 (2000)). More than 350 individual $`UBV`$ measurements have been made; the photometric accuracy is $`0\stackrel{m}{.}005`$ in $`B`$, $`V`$ and $`0\stackrel{m}{.}008`$ in $`U`$. As the long-term behavior of V725~Tau has been discussed in separate papers (Clark et al. C99 (1999), Lyuty & Zaitseva LZ2000 (2000)), we restrict ourselves here only to the analysis of variability on the time scales close to the X-ray period.

We calculate the power spectrum and spectral window of the data set as

$$P(f)=\frac{1}{N^2}\left|\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(m_j\overline{m})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i2}\pi ft_j}\right|^2$$
(1)
and

$$W(f)=\frac{1}{N^2}\left|\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i2}\pi ft_j}\right|^2,W(0)=1,$$
(2)
respectively, where $`\mathrm{i}=\sqrt{1}`$, $`t_j`$ denotes the time of observation, and $`m_j`$ and $`\overline{m}`$, correspondingly, the individual and mean values of the brightness.

Fig. 1a shows the power spectrum of the $`V`$ band data (linear trend removed) for the period from 1983 to 1998. The largest peak in the spectrum corresponds to $`1400`$ days and is readily explainable: a wave with that characteristic time scale is easily seen in Fig. 2, superimposed on a smooth decay in brightness, in the optical and infrared light curves (see also Larionov L93 (1993) and Clark et al. C99 (1999)). In the region of the orbital period ($`0.01\mathrm{d}^1`$), only a faint peak corresponding to $`P=103^\mathrm{d}`$ is seen. At the frequency corresponding to a 111 day period, there is no peak at all.

In order to judge with sufficient confidence the reality of the orbital plus close and/or related periodicities, one should remove the longer-period component(s) of variability. In our case it is not sufficient to subtract the linear trend, and we need to take into account the slow light variations with a (quasi)period of $`1400`$ days. We have constructed an approximating data set using the method of a sliding mean with the window value $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, replacing raw data $`m_i`$ for each time $`t_i`$ by the weighted mean:

$$m_i^{}=2.5\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{p_j}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_j10^{0.4m_j}\right),$$
(3)
where $`k`$ is the number of data points within interval $`[t_i\mathrm{\Delta },t_i+\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, and the weight of $`j`$th point is determined as

$$p_j=\mathrm{exp}\left[(\delta t_j/\mathrm{\Delta })^2\right],$$
(4)
where $`\delta t_j`$ is the time span from the $`j`$th point to the center of the window. The optimal value of the smoothing interval was searched by trial and error within a range $`20^\mathrm{d}<\mathrm{\Delta }<100^\mathrm{d}`$. The criterion for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ selection was the signal-to-noise ratio of the power-spectrum peaks in the region of interest, i.e. around the orbital frequency. The raw and smoothed light curves, and also the residuals between them, are plotted in Fig. 2. The power spectrum for the residuals $`m_jm_j^{}`$ is shown in Fig. 3. We have found that, independent of the value of the smoothing interval adopted, the most prominent peak in the power spectrum corresponds to a period of $`102\stackrel{d}{.}83\pm 0\stackrel{d}{.}1`$, while the low-frequency components are most effectively suppressed and the highest signal-to-noise ratio is obtained when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=50^\mathrm{d}`$. We have obtained an analogous result for the $`B`$ band as well.

The amplitude of the sine-wave obtained is $`0\stackrel{m}{.}015`$ in $`V`$ and $`0\stackrel{m}{.}01`$ in $`B`$, while in $`U`$ the 103-day peak is not seen above the noise. The significance of the detection of the faint sine-wave superimposed on the large-amplitude slow variability can be tested by adding an artificial low-amplitude harmonic to the raw data. We added a sine-wave with $`P=76^\mathrm{d}`$ and amplitude $`0\stackrel{m}{.}015`$ to the raw $`V`$ data, then repeated the same cleaning routine as described above (Eqs. 3 and 4). Fig. 3 demonstrates that the low-frequency filtration method described above can be used to detect, at least for the data set discussed, periodic variability on a time scale of $`100^\mathrm{d}`$ with amplitude $`0\stackrel{m}{.}01`$.

In order to test whether the 103-day period is real or an artifact intrinsic to some part of the data set, we have split the initial data set into two parts corresponding to values above and below the linear trend and have repeated the same procedure. We have found that the 103-day harmonic is intrinsic to both parts of the initial dataset, although for the low-brightness part the significance of the $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ peak is slightly less. Fig. 4 gives the phase curves of residuals $`VV^{}`$ for the whole data set and for the “upper” and “lower” parts of it. It is easily seen that both the shape and initial phases are the same. We calculate the ephemeris of the small-scale optical variations as $`\text{JD}_{\mathrm{Min}}=2448002(\pm 3\stackrel{d}{.}0)+102\stackrel{d}{.}83(\pm 0\stackrel{d}{.}15)E`$, where $`E`$ is the epoch number.

The probability of chance occurrence of a peak with amplitude $`P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the power spectrum with a mean value $`P_{\mathrm{mean}}`$ can be estimated as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=100\%\{1[1\mathrm{exp}[(P_{\mathrm{max}}/P_{\mathrm{mean}})]]^{N_{\mathrm{ind}}}\}`$; for non-uniformly spaced data the number of independent frequencies $`N_{\mathrm{ind}}=6.362+1.193N+0.00098N^2`$, where $`N`$ is the number of observations (Horne and Baliunas HB1986 (1986)). In our case $`N=354`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{ind}}=539`$; after subtraction of the slow component as described above (Eqs. 3 and 4), $`\mathrm{\Phi }<0.1\%`$.

Nevertheless, there are some peaks in the frequency range $`0.0070.017`$ with power $`>10^5`$. In order to test their reality, we have followed the recipe given by Horne and Baliunas (HB1986 (1986)) for irregularly spaced data and subtracted a $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ period sine-wave from the initial light curve. After this we find that only a peak at a frequency corresponding to $`91\stackrel{d}{.}07`$ and its aliases remain in the power spectrum. This feature replaces the $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ periodicity from $`JD2449400`$ (1993 April) onwards. It is remarkable that this change of periods coincides with the time of the most prominent X-ray outburst over the past three decades.

Fig. 3c displays power spectrum after subtraction of a sine-wave of period $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ before 1993 April and $`91^\mathrm{d}`$ after that time. Comparing Fig. 3a and Fig. 3c, we conclude that only the $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ and $`91^\mathrm{d}`$ peaks are real, although the latter feature is present in only $`1/5`$ of the total data set, thus preventing us from making exact estimates of the ephemeris. A slight enhancement of the noise level around $`0.01`$ d-1 on Fig. 3c is most probably caused by the deviation of the real signal from a true sine-wave.

## 3 Discussion

We stress once again that the 111-day orbital periodicity is not revealed in the optical photometry. It is then natural to suppose that one of the constituents of the total radiation of the system, besides that of the optical star, is that of a precessing disc – either an accretion disc around the neutron star or a tilted/warped equatorial envelope around the optical star. The period of precession, whichever precessing body, would then be $`P_{\mathrm{prec}}=1/(1/P_{\mathrm{opt}}1/P_{\mathrm{x}\mathrm{ray}})=1360^\mathrm{d}\pm 30\mathrm{d}`$, and $`900^d`$ after 1993 April. In the following we consider these two scenarios separately.

### 3.1 Accretion disc

In the case of the neutron star (NS) accretion disc, the axis of the disc is inclined to the orbital plane of the system and, additionally, is counter-precessing with a $`1360^\mathrm{d}`$ period. In this case the disc cross-section, as seen from the optical companion, would be changing with a frequency equal to the sum of orbital and precession frequencies, which would lead to the 103-day modulation observed.

The existence of an accretion disc in this binary system at least during some X-ray outbursts is firmly established – it is confirmed by quasi-periodic oscillations of X-rays during X-ray outbursts (Finger et al. F96 (1996), F96 (1996)) and by neutron star spin-up episodes (Nagase et al. N84 (1984)). However, the question as to whether the disc exists permanently or is formed just before the outburst remains unresolved.

A similar model was proposed to describe the optical light curves of some other X-ray binaries: Cen~X-3, LMC~X-4 and others (see, e.g., Heemskerk & van Paradijs HvP89 (1989)) – however, unlike A0535+26, these systems show orbital variability besides precession. This can be explained by the fact that A0535+26 is a wide binary, and the effects caused by the ellipsoidal shape of the optical component and/or its X-ray heating are unobservable. Also, in the case of A0535+26 the large eccentricity of the orbit – $`e0.5`$ (Finger et al. F94 (1994), F96 (1996)) – plays a major role. As a result, both the effective cross-section of the disc to the stellar wind and its illumination in periastron and apastron would differ by $`9`$ times; when $`1360`$ day precession is added, this enables the 103-days modulation to be observed.

Meanwhile, the disc’s input to the total optical radiation of the system can be as small as a few per cent (Lyuty & Zaitseva LZ2000 (2000)), and it would be quite a difficult task to distinguish it based on the difference between its photometric and/or spectral parameters and those of a giant star and its envelope.

The disc is not expected to rotate as a solid body, and its structure is dependent on X-ray outbursts occurring at the surface of the neutron star and subsequent re-radiation of stored energy. Because of this, neither the amplitude of precession modulation nor the period and phase of precession should be stable.

Meanwhile, we see that during the first 10 years of our observations (up to 1993), the 103-day periodicity of the optical variations is retained, which means that the precession period is rather stable, changing from $`1360^\mathrm{d}`$ to $`900^\mathrm{d}`$ after the major X-ray outburst. Nevertheless, as expected, in the total radiation of the system the relative contribution of the component connected with the disc precession is not constant. Fig. 5 illustrates the phase curves in $`V`$ band after subtraction of the slow component, separately for the ascending and descending branches of the initial light curve shown in Fig. 2. It is evident that the 103-day modulation is practically absent when the light level is increasing, and, on the contrary, is quite distinct when the light fades.

One of the possible mechanisms of stimulation of the accretion disc precession is free precession of the neutron star. It was shown by Schwarzenberg-Czerny (Sch92 (1992)) that $`P_{\mathrm{pr}}/P_{\mathrm{spin}}10^6`$, where $`P_{\mathrm{pr}}`$ is the period of free precession of a neutron star and $`P_{\mathrm{spin}}`$ is the period of its axial rotation. In the case of A0535+26 $`P_{\mathrm{spin}}104^\mathrm{s}`$ and correspondingly $`P_{\mathrm{pr}}1200^\mathrm{d}`$. It is natural to suppose that the proximity of this period to the characteristic time of the large-scale photometric variability is not coincidental. What then can serve as a “transmission link” from the freely precessing neutron star and its accretion disc to the equatorial envelope of the optical component? Let us be reminded that the neutron star in A0535+26 system has a powerful magnetic field, $`10^{13}`$ G. Periodic changes in orientation of the magnetic field relative to the equatorial envelope would lead to periodic changes in the strength of their interaction, first of all near periastron; the shock wave arising in the envelope would lead to (quasi)periodic ejections of the envelope. Clark et al. (C99 (1999)) and Lyuty & Zaitseva (LZ2000 (2000)) argue that the long time scale variability of A0535+26 in the period we are analysing is explained by the successive expulsions of the Be star envelope that occur on a characteristic time-scale of $`1400`$ days. We have to note, however, that the detailed description of the interaction of the Be star envelope and NS magnetic field needs additional modelling work that is beyond the scope of this paper.

### 3.2 Be-star equatorial envelope

A quite different approach may be considered on the basis of recent analysis of spectral variability of another Be/X-ray binary, V635~Cas=4U0115+63, made by Negueruela and Okazaki (NO2000 (2001)) and Negueruela et al. (Neg2001 (2001)). These authors argue that in V635~Cas, just as in similar Be/X-ray systems, a major role is played by an equatorial decretion disc around the optical star. This disc is truncated as a result of tidal/resonant interaction with the neutron star companion. At a certain stage the disc becomes unstable, tilts and warps and starts to precess. Later on, the disc is disrupted due to interaction with the orbiting neutron star, and a giant X-ray outburst may occur. The above authors argue that this model does not imply any substantial change in the optical star’s mass loss rate.

Following that idea, we may suppose that the precessing body in the A0535+26 system is a tilted/warped disc around Be star. Then it is natural that the gravitational pull of the neutron star in the moments of closest approach of the NS to the disc causes its distortion, which is observed in the light curve as minor variations superposed on global changes. Due to precession, the times of closest approach do not coincide with the periastron passages, but rather precede them by $`8^\mathrm{d}`$ after each orbit. Within this approach we can find a natural explanation for the fact that during the ascending parts of the global light curve, no 103-day modulation is seen: it only means that the decretion disc is not large enough to become tilted and warped and therefore it does not precess.

To further develop this model, one may speculate that the changes of projection of the warped disc to the plane of sky, as seen from the optical companion, should cause substantial variations with the precessional period, superposed on the optical light curve. This is actually observed: we noted before the coincidence of the $`1400^\mathrm{d}`$ time-scale of global optical variations with almost the same period of precession – whichever the precessing body.

One might expect that the X-ray activity within the system may also in some way be connected with the phases of the $`103^\mathrm{d}`$ period. We tried to check whether such a correlation exists, and found that out of 18 documented outbursts with amplitude $`0.2`$ Crab (Giovannelli & Graziati, GG92 (1992) and Finger et al. F96 (1996)), 7 peaked in a narrow interval $`0.60.7`$ of the optical phase curve (Figs. 4 and 5), where phase 0.0 refers to optical minimum (see Table 1). This means that X-ray outbursts “prefer” to happen 10 to 20 days after the optical maxima. If we consider this in the context of the warped decretion disc model, this delay can be explained as the time needed for the matter captured from the Be-star disc – disturbed during the close passage of the neutron star – to travel to the vicinity of the NS companion, where it loses its angular momentum, falls onto the NS, and causes an X-ray flare. It can be noted that during 2001 two occasions of favourable X-ray and optical phases will be in June and October; unluckily, the former date corresponds to the seasonal gap of observations.

## 4 Conclusion

An analysis of the uniform photometric data set obtained in the period 1983–1998 has allowed a confident separation of the periodic constituent in the light curve of the high-mass X-ray binary, A0535+26/V725 Tau. The parameters of this periodic component and its link with the phase of activity of the optical component allow us to suggest precession of an accretion disc around the neutron star or a warped equatorial disc around a Be star as the most likely mechanisms. At this point, both models seem to be viable; meanwhile, the analysis of already existing spectral data could be helpful, in the sense that if the warped disc model does reflect reality, one might expect to see $`V/R`$ and $`EW`$ variations corresponding to the precessional motion.

Within both models, we do not expect that substantial X-ray outbursts to occur during ascending parts of the large-scale optical light curve. Moreover, X-ray outbursts tend to occur at specific phases of the $`102\stackrel{d}{.}8`$ optical light curve. Taken together, both effects can explain the “missing outburst” phenomenon.

Our results lead us to suppose that in other similar systems we can hope to distinguish the minor photometric variations close to, but not necessarily coincident with, the binary rotation period. In future papers of this series, we plan to apply the techniques described here to the analysis of the light curves of similar systems, such as X~Per and V635~Cas.

###### Acknowledgements.

V.Larionov acknowledges support from the Russian Federal Program “Integration” (project K0232). We thank Catherine Brocksopp and Alan Marscher for critically reading the manuscript and for helpful discussion.


text:
# The Limiting Stellar Initial Mass for Black Hole Formation in Close Binary Systems

## 1 Introduction

It has long been known that stellar-mass black holes could form from the collapse of massive stars (Oppenheimer & Snyder 1939) and it is believed that above some progenitor initial mass limit, stars collapse to form black holes. A growing set of evidence suggests that this mass limit in single stars ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}`$) lies somewhere below 25 M. Fryer (1999) obtained this result from core collapse simulations. Maeder (1992) and Kobulnicky & Skillman (1997) find it to be most consistent with nucleosynthesis constraints. And the explosion of a star of about 20 M as SN 1987A (Arnett et al. 1989) gives a lower limit to the initial stellar mass required for direct black hole formation (to be distinguished from black hole formation due to fall back; see below). Within the uncertainties of the above studies, it appears that the black hole mass limit of single stars is reasonably constrained.

In this paper, we deal with the black hole mass limit for primary stars of close binary systems ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}`$), i.e., for stars which evolve into the compact objects contained in high and low mass X-ray binaries or which might become $`\gamma `$-ray burst sources: collapsars and black hole binary mergers (see Fryer, Woosley, & Hartmann 1999 for a review). As the presence of a companion star only increases the mass loss of the primary star in a binary system before the first supernova, the black hole mass limit of binaries is likely to be larger than that of single stars (i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}>M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}`$).

There are two observational constraints from observed black hole systems on the black hole mass limit in binaries. Using population synthesis studies, Portegies Zwart, Verbunt, & Ergma (1997) find that the number of low mass black hole X-ray binaries in our Galaxy requires $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}<25\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Ergma & van den Heuvel (1998) argue (without detailed modelling) that the observed periods of less than $`10`$h found in most low mass black hole systems are incompatible with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}>25\mathrm{M}_{}`$. While the latter argument is based on considerations of angular momentum loss associated with the (uncertain!) Wolf-Rayet winds. In both investigations neither $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}`$ are distinguished, nor do they consider the dependence of $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}`$ on the type of binary evolution.

Wellstein & Langer (1999; WL99) showed that indeed $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}`$ may be very different from $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}`$, and is strongly dependent on the type of binary interaction. Only in the so called Case C systems — i.e., in initially wide systems where mass transfer starts only after the primary has evolved through the major part of core helium burning — may the black hole mass limits be comparable; i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BC}}M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}`$ (Brown, Lee, & Bethe 1999). However, due to the Wolf-Rayet winds, which reduce the total stellar mass and thus the helium core mass during core helium burning, the black hole mass limit for Case A and Case B binaries (mass transfer starts during or directly after core hydrogen burning), is clearly smaller; i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BA}}>M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BC}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BB}}>M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BC}}`$. And although WL99 found that $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BA}}M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BB}}`$, this result is expected to be different (i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BA}}>M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BB}}`$) if less efficient Wolf-Rayet wind mass loss were assumed (i.e., compare our Model 1s2 below with Model 2 of WL99).

The relevance of detailed binary evolution models for the significance of constraints on $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}`$ from observed X-ray binaries has been demonstrated by WL99. Ergma & van den Heuvel (1998) argued that the pulsar GX301-2, which has a 40…50 M supergiant companion, originated from a star of more than 50 M, implying that $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{B}>50M_{}`$ for this particular system. However, WL99 computed detailed Case A progenitor evolution models which satisfy all observational constraints for this system, but in which the pulsar progenitor has an initial mass of only 26 M. This solution implies $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^\mathrm{S}<M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{BA}}<26M_{}`$.

In the following we investigate in detail the black hole mass limit for primary stars in close binary systems, using a particular Case B evolutionary sequence with 60 M primary star. We study five cases where we only change the stellar wind mass loss rate in the Wolf-Rayet phase of the primary star which we vary over the anticipated regime of uncertainty, i.e., by a factor of 6. For high mass loss rates (e.g., Hamann, Koesterke & Wessolowski 1995, Langer 1989b, Braun 1997, Woosley, Langer, & Weaver 1995), the stellar mass at collapse can reduce down to $``$3 M with an iron core mass as low as 1.3 M (Woosley, Langer, & Weaver 1995). The lower Wolf-Rayet mass loss rates proposed by Hamann & Koesterke (1998) and Nugis & Lamers (2000) result in higher final masses (WL99).

For all five cases, we model the evolution of the primary star up to iron core collapse (Sect. 2), which predicts the final stellar mass and the detailed pre-supernova structure of these objects — e.g., their final iron core mass. We then use these pre-collapse structures to model their collapse through bounce and explosion (if applicable; Sect. 3). Finally, we follow the evolution of the supernova ejecta for about one year, which allows us to estimate the final remnant mass including fall back of previously ejected material onto the compact object. With these coupled simulations we obtain the dependence of the compact remnant mass in a given binary system on the assumed strength of the Wolf-Rayet wind. Implications of our results for determinations of the black hole mass limit and the progenitor evolution of X-ray binaries are discussed in Sect. 4.

## 2 Pre-Supernova Evolution

In this section, we describe the evolution of the primary star from the end of the Case B mass transfer until core collapse. The earlier evolutionary stages are described in WL99.

### 2.1 Assumptions and method

Based on evolutionary models of Wolf-Rayet stars, and by comparing observed number ratios of Wolf-Rayet to O stars and carbon to nitrogen rich Wolf-Rayet stars in our Galaxy, Langer (1989b) has proposed a mass-dependent mass loss rate for Wolf-Rayet stars. At the time, this mass loss rate was consistent with results derived from Wolf-Rayet wind model atmospheres for individual objects (e.g., Hamann et al. 1995). With this rate, Woosley et al. (1995) studied the evolution and pre-supernova structure of helium stars. They found fairly small final stellar masses, even for the initially most massive stars in their sample. The inclusion of “clumping” in Wolf-Rayet atmosphere models by Hamann & Koersterke (1998) recently suggests that the mass loss rates of these stars could be considerably smaller. Hamann & Koersterke proposed a clumping ratio of 2$`\mathrm{}`$3, i.e., a reduction of the mass loss rate by the same factors. This agrees with the recent, independant Wolf-Rayet mass loss rate determinations of Nugis & Lamers (2000).

Binary star models with reduced Wolf-Rayet mass loss rates have already been presented by WL99. Here we concentrate on their most massive Model 1 (see Table 1 of WL99), i.e., a binary system consisting of a 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a 34 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ companion with an initial orbital period of 20 days. Note that the primary’s evolution is rather independant of the secondary mass and of the orbital period, as long as the system remains a Case B system, and as long as a merging of both binary components is avoided. We also consider WL99’s Models 1, and 1<sup>′′</sup> which use 1/2, and 1/4 times their “standard” Wolf-Rayet mass loss rate — which is similar to that of Langer (1989b). Here, we denote these respectively as Models 1s1, 1s2, and 1s4. We computed additional models with 1/3 (Model 1s3) and 1/6 (Model 1s6) times their standard Wolf-Rayet mass loss rate. This may cover the range of uncertainty, and it allows us to explore in detail the implications for the pre-supernova structure and the supernova explosions.

The evolution of the binary system prior to and through the mass transfer, and through the Wolf-Rayet mass loss phase was computed with the stellar evolution code described by WL99 (see also Langer 1991b; Braun 1997; Langer 1998). Before ignition of central neon burning, at a central temperature of $`10^9`$$`\mathrm{K}`$, the calculation is stopped, and the further evolution is followed using the KEPLER code (Weaver, Zimmerman, & Woosely 1978), similar to the calculations of Woosley, Langer, & Weaver (1993), and that of rotating stars by Heger, Langer, & Woosley (2000). Since both codes use a very similar equation of state, this “link” was unproblematic and did not result in noticeable adjustments of the stellar structure. We followed the evolution of the primary star as a single star until “onset of core collapse”, which we define as the time when the infall velocity in the core exceeds 900 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Woosley & Weaver 1995). At this point, the one-dimensional stellar evolution calculation is stopped. The subsequent core collapse calculations and the start of the supernova explosion are discussed in §3.

### 2.2 The Wolf-Rayet phase

The massive primary star undergoes two major mass-loss phases. First, it loses mass during a mass-transfer phase due to Roche lobe overflow, which almost uncovers its helium core (see below). Then, Wolf-Rayet winds begin to dominate the mass-loss. Here we discuss how the evolution of the primary varies for different Wolf-Rayet mass-loss multipliers.

The 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ primary star loses most of its hydrogen envelope during the mass transfer phase which ends shortly before the onset of central helium burning, reducing the primary mass to 26.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Then the star experiences a Wolf-Rayet stage in which hydrogen is still present (the “WNL” phase). This stage lasts between 25 and 122 $`\mathrm{kyr}`$ (see Table 1) and ends when the hydrogen-rich layers have been lost completely. The luminosity of the star depends primarily on the size of the hydrogen-free core, which is roughly the same for all of our models during this phase. Since, in our simulations, the mass loss depends only on the luminosity and surface hydrogen abundance of the star (see equation 1 of WL99), the total mass lost during this phase scales almost directly with the Wolf-Rayet mass-loss multiplier. Hence, the lifetime of this phase roughly scales inversely with this multiplier. However, the models with lower mass loss rates eventually become slightly more luminous with time since the helium core evolves and grows slightly due to hydrogen shell burning. So the lifetime does not strictly scale with the inverse of the mass loss rate but is slightly shorter than the inverse scaling law imples (Table 1).

When the helium core is completely uncovered, the star passes through a “WNE” phase and the mass loss rate increases — this corresponds to the “kink” in the line for the total mass of the star in the lower panel of Fig. 1, at a central helium abundance of about 82 % in Model 1s1 and 45 % in Model 1s6. It ends when the star uncovers the layers that are enriched in products of central helium burning. This occurs when the mass drops below the maximum extent in mass of the convective core, or — in particular in the models with smaller mass loss rates — in the partially mixed layers above the convective core (see Fig. 1 of Langer 1991a). This marks the end of the WNE and the beginning of the WC Wolf-Rayet phase.

The total mass lost due to the Wolf-Rayet wind depends much weaker than linearly on the mass loss multiplier (e.g. Model 1s1 loses only 1.5 times as much mass as Model 1s6 through Wolf-Rayet winds; Table 1). The reason is that, unlike in the WNL phase, the helium core mass and its chemical composition change considerably during the WNE phase. Since the stellar luminosity depends on both quantities, this feeds back to the mass loss rate. Assuming the total pressure in the star is due to equal contributions from ideal gas and radiation pressure — which is the case in a Wolf-Rayet star of about 20$`M_{}`$ — one obtains from homology considerations for chemically homogeneous stars (Kippenhahn & Weigert 1990) with constant opacity

$$LM^\alpha \mu ^\beta ,$$
(1)
with $`\alpha =1.4`$ and $`\beta =2\mathrm{}3`$. Thus, for constant chemical composition the mass loss rate depends only on the stellar mass. In this case, the mass loss rate of our models were only a function of the stellar mass. However, the mean molecular weight, $`\mu `$, changes in the course of helium burning from $`\mu 1.33`$ in the beginig to $`\mu 1.8`$ at the end. According to the above relation, this might change the luminosity of a Wolf-Rayet model of fixed mass by a factor of $`2`$. Even though in more realistic models this effect is smaller (Langer 1989a), we see that their mass evolution does not follow a simple power law, and that the total amout of mass lost during the Wolf-Rayet stage is not a simple function of the mass loss multiplier. For example, models computed with a lower Wolf-Rayet mass-loss rate enter the WNE phase roughly with the same mass as those with higher mass loss rate, but they do so later in time, i.e., they have by then a chemically more evolved core (Fig. 1). Therefore, they have an increased luminosity at that time, which results in a higher mass loss rate than simply scaling it with the mass loss multiplier would predict.

Additional effects can influence the mass loss rate, e.g., the feature that the convective cores of chemically evolved stars recede later (Fig. 1). Thus, even if the luminosity is the only physical parameter on which the the WNE mass loss rate depends, it varies in non-trivial ways as function of time.

When the products of helium burning appear at the surface of the star, the star enters a “WC” phase. By then, the stellar mass has decreased significantly compared to earlier evolution stages and the star’s evolutionary time-scale becomes much longer than those in the WNL or WNE phases (see Table 1). Only for the *lowest* mass-loss rate multiplier (Model 1s6; biggest presupernova stellar masses) does the surface oxygen mass fraction become larger than the carbon mass fraction. The final surface helium mass fraction of this model is only 10 %, while it is 40 % in Model 1s1. The final masses are in the range 3.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$10.7 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Table 1).

### 2.3 From carbon burning to core collapse

An important consequence of the different evolution of the helium core mass (Fig. 1) is different core carbon abundances at central helium depletion (Table 1). This and the C/O-core mass determine the duration and extent of the carbon burning phases and of all later burning stages. The central carbon abundances at core helium exhaustion, $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{c}`$, is larger for larger mass loss from the helium core during core helium burning. That is, it is much larger in the primary components of close binary systems than in single stars of the same initial mass (WL99; Brown et al. 2001). And for the same reason, it is a monotonic function of the mass loss multiplier in our study. We obtain the largest value in Model 1s1 (Table 1).

After central helium exhaustion, Models 1s1$`\mathrm{}`$1s3 experience convective core carbon burning, while in Models 1s4 and 1s6 the central carbon abundance is too low and the central burning phase remains radiative.

Core carbon burning is followed by carbon shell burning. In Models 1s2$`\mathrm{}`$1s4 the convective carbon shell burns through its fuel and extinguishes before neon ignition (Figs. 24; Model 1s1 has two phases of carbon shell burning before core neon ignition). The upper edge of the burning shell then marks the edge of the “carbon-free” core which is bigger in more massive models in our simulations. Thus we find that lower mass loss rates produce bigger carbon-free cores. Correspondingly, the silicon and iron core masses increase for lower mass loss multipliers in our model sequence.

However, Model 1s6 shows that this trend is not universal (Fig. 5). In this model, even most of the neon and oxygen burning proceeds while the first carbon burning shell, which is located at only 1.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, is still active. Hence, the carbon-free core is limited to the region below this shell until this late time. For cores of this high mass, the remaining evolution time-scale is too short for the former carbon shell to become a fully integrated part of the Ne/O core and some traces of carbon remain even until core collapse. Oxygen burning remains restricted to the region below, limiting the size of the silicon core to this mass. This is in contrast to, e.g., Model 1s4 where a much larger carbon-free core is established already before neon ignition, resulting in bigger silicon and iron cores. Therefore Model 1s6 ends up with a smaller iron core than Models 1s4 and 1s3, despite the fact that it has by far the largest total mass (Table 1).

A similar non-monotonic behaviour can occur at the transitions from two to three shells, and so forth. In our case, the reason is the change in the mass loss rate, but in general they depend on the core mass, the carbon abundance in the CO-core (Boyes 2001), and the mass and composition of the overlaying helium shell. Clearly, further studies are required to understand this phenomenon in more detail (Boyes, Heger, & Woosley 2001).

Models 1s1 and 1s2 end their lives as rather small helium cores (Table 1). Their evolution is influenced by partial electron degeneracy and results in the formation of rather small iron cores (Table 2), i.e., of the order their Chandrasekhar mass, after one phase of silicon shell burning (Figs. 2 and 3). In Models 1s3 and 1s4 (Fig. 4) the silicon shell reaches out to higher masses, resulting in bigger iron cores. This is a consequence of the larger carbon-free core established before beginning of central neon/oxygen burning. In Model 1s6, a small carbon-free core of 1.9 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is maintained until very late, i.e., until the first oxygen shell burning is extinguished. (Fig. 4; note the logarithmic time axis). Only then does the carbon shell extinguish, so that only the region below this shell participates in the subsequent burning stages. This leads to a similar late time evolution and final iron core size less massive than Models 1s3 and 1s4. However, as we shall see in §3, the mass of the deleptonized core is not the only factor governing the remnant mass after collapse, and even though Model 1s6 has a less massive iron core, it produces a larger compact remnant.

There are only few calculations in the literature that allow a comparison with our study. Woosley, Langer, & Weaver (1995) modeled the evolution of helium stars using the Wolf-Rayet mass loss rates of Langer (1989). Their most massive model had an initial mass of 20 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, which is similar to the initial helium core mass of our models ($`23\mathrm{M}_{}`$). Their resulting final stellar mass (3.55 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$), CO core mass (2.53 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and NeO core mass ($`1.8\mathrm{M}_{}`$) lie between that of our Models 1s1 and 1s2, but the resulting iron core mass is bigger (1.49 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$), possibly due to interactions of oxygen and silicon burning shells that lead to a peculiar behavior of our Model 1s2 (see Fig. 3).

## 3 Core-Collapse, Supernovae, and Compact Remnants

### 3.1 Numerics

We follow the core collapse of the final Wolf-Rayet star models described above using the 2-dimensional, smooth particle hydrodynamics, core-collapse supernova code originally described in Herant et al. (1994). This code follows the core collapse continuously from collapse through bounce and ultimately to explosion. The code includes a variety of neutrino rates and cross-sections to model 3 neutrino populations ($`\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e`$, and $`\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau `$) and transports these neutrinos via a flux-limited diffusion algorithm. The equation of state is a patchwork of a series of codes valid over the range of densities and temperatures required in the course of the core-collapse simulation (see Herant et al. 1994 for details). In the regime of low density, the equation of state is identical to that of KEPLER. Hence, we do not encounter problems “matching” the output of KEPLER into the core-collapse code. To this code, Fryer et al. (1999) added spherically symmetric general relativity and a more sophisticated flux limiter.

In all our simulations, we model the inner $`4.3`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of the star (for Model 1s1 we model the entire 3.1 M star) with 13,000-16,000 particles in a 180 hemisphere. We assume rotational symmetry about the hemisphere causing each particle to effectively represent a ring about the axis of symmetry. The advantage of this 2-dimensional, hydrodynamics code is that it allows us to model from collapse through explosion with reasonable angular resolution ($`1^{}`$) without requiring us to reset the grid at any point in the simulation. In addition, we need only remove the inner 0.001 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ which minimizes the effects of the inner boundary.

This code has been used for a variety of core-collapse simulations (Fryer et al. 1999, Fryer 1999, Fryer & Heger 2000) which provide a basis with which to compare our models. By comparing the collapse results of the 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ cores in this paper with themselves, and with the core-collapse results of other massive progenitors (Fryer et al. 1999, Fryer 1999), we can determine trends caused by differences in the progenitors alone (and not the core-collapse code).

### 3.2 Core-Collapse and SN Explosions: Cause and Effect

Table 2 summarizes the results of our core-collapse simulations. Note that for decreasing Wolf-Rayet mass-loss rate, the explosion energy initially grows (Model 1s1 vs. Model 1s2). But as we continue to decrease the mass-loss rate, the explosion energy decreases down to Model 1s6 (which does not explode at all). This initial rise, and then decrease, in explosion energy mimics the trend in explosion energy of increasing progenitor mass without mass-loss (Fryer et al. 1999, Fryer 1999). The decrease in explosion energy with increasing progenitor mass fits easily into a simple picture of the neutrino-driven engine in which a convective region must overcome the ram pressure of infalling material in order to launch an explosion (see, for example, Burrows & Goshy 1993). The ram pressure at the accretion shock is given by

$$P_{\mathrm{shock}}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{shock}}\sqrt{2GM_{\mathrm{enclosed}}}/(8\pi r_{\mathrm{shock}}^{2.5}),$$
(2)
where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{shock}}`$ is the accretion onto the convective region, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`M_{\mathrm{enclosed}}`$ is the enclosed mass below the accretion shock and $`r_{\mathrm{shock}}`$ is the radius of the shock which caps the convective region.

More massive progenitors produce stars which have higher accretion rates onto the accretion region. Fryer (1999) found that these more massive stars could not explode until the accretion rate onto the convective region dropped significantly. Hence, more massive stars explode later. Their neutrino luminosity (and subsequent heating) at these later explosion times tend to be lower so that their explosions are weaker. Extremely low-mass progenitors (accretion induced collapse of white dwarfs, progenitors between 8-11 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) have very little infalling material, and the explosion occurs before significant neutrino-energy deposition. Hence, these low-mass progenitors also have explosion energies which are weaker than those of stars within the $`1320`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ regime.

The pressure of the accreting material depends both upon the accretion rate of the infalling material and the position of the shock (which marks the boundary between the convective region and the collapsing star). For a given accretion rate, the ram pressure of the infalling material decreases as the shock progresses further out from the star (see, for example, Burrows & Goshy 1993, Janka 2000). By combining the accretion rates from our simulations (Fig. 6) with the shock radii 120 ms after bounce (Fig. 7), we can estimate the pressure that the convective region must overcome to launch an explosion. Fig. 7 shows in color coding the radial velocity of Models 1s1, 1s2, 1s4, and 1s6 at 120 ms after bounce. The position of the accretion shock can be easily be determined as the interface of low velocity (white) at the bottom of rapid inward movement (red). For Models 1s1 and 1s2, the shock is at roughly 650 km. In contrast, in Models 1s4 and 1s6 the shock is below 500 km and 400 km, respectively. Using Eq. (2), the corresponding shock pressures for Models 1s1, 1s2, 1s4, and 1s6 are 4.6, 4.5, 13.2, and 18.4 $`\times 10^{25}`$ erg cm<sup>-3</sup>, respectively .

170 ms after bounce, we can already see the differences in the shock pressure manifesting themselves in the explosion evolution (Fig. 8). Models 1s1 and 1s2 have strong explosions with rapidly outward-moving shock radii at 1000 km, while Model 1s4 is exploding weakly (the shock is at 800 km), and Model 1s6 reaches its peak at 650 km. The trend of explosion energies matches the initial trend in the shock pressures just after bounce (Table 2). By calculating the pressure at the shock shortly after the shock stalls from the shock position and infall accretion rate, we can gain insight into the fate of the collapsed star (i.e., whether it will become a black hole or neutron star). The shock pressure is clearly a better diagnostic of resultant supernova explosion energy than the accretion rate alone, but, unfortunately, it can not be determined unless one models the collapse (at least through bounce) of the massive star. Fortunately, such calculations can be done in 1-dimension.

A few other characteristics of the collapse also affect the explosion. The neutrino luminosity from the proto-neutron star core determines how much energy is deposited in the convective region and, ultimately, the explosion energy (again, see Burrows & Goshy 1993, Janka 2000). In general, as the neutrino emission from the core increases, the chance that an explosion will occur also increases. Figure 9 shows the electron-neutrino luminosity for our four comparison models. Note that although the neutrino luminosities for Models 1s1, 1s2, and 1s6 are all nearly equal, Model 1s4 emits nearly twice as many electron neutrinos 100 ms after bounce. The large iron core of Model 1s4 compresses much less during collapse than the cores of the other stars, and a larger fraction of its energy is emitted via electron neutrinos instead of $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ neutrinos. Electron neutrinos deposit energy into the convective region much more efficiently than $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ and this helps to explain the fact that model 1s4 eventually explodes and Model 1s6 does not.

The efficiency of neutrino energy deposition can also differ slightly from model to model. The entropy profile left behind when the bounce shock stall differs from star to star (Fig. 10). It seeds convection, which enhances the efficiency of neutrino deposition. Note that the entropy profile set by the bounce shock is much higher in Models 1s1 and 1s2 than in Models 1s4 and 1s6, producing stronger initial convection.

### 3.3 Fallback and Remnant Masses

To calculate the remnant masses, we must follow the supernova explosion to late times ($`1`$ yr), and to do this, we map our 2-dimensional results back into 1-dimension. This simplification is necessary to make the calculation computationally tractable and since the shock is roughly symmetric, this mapping can be accomplished smoothly. In addition, the outer edges of our 2-dimensional simulation do not move much over the course of the $`0.5`$ s collapse simulation and adding the rest of the star (in the models 1s3, 1s4, and 1s6) is also straightforward. Using a 1-dimensional core-collapse code (Herant et al. 1994), we can then follow the explosion to later times.

Even in 1-dimension, we must make some approximations to speed up the code. First, we remove the proto-neutron star and place an inner boundary at its surface. In addition, as material falls back onto the proto-neutron star and piles up onto its surface, we accrete this material onto the neutron star. This is achieved numerically by removing a zone when its density rises above a critical density and adding its mass to the proto-neutron star. If the critical density is too low, material can artificially accrete too rapidly onto the neutron star and the value of our critical density ($`10^{11}`$ g cm<sup>-3</sup>) was chosen to avoid this artificial accretion. By running the explosion out to 1 yr after collapse, we calculate the final remnant mass (baryonic) and the final kinetic energy of the explosion (Table 2). Because of the energy required to unbind the envelope, the final kinetic energy is much less than the initial explosion energy. Depending on the modest variations in the Wolf-Rayet mass loss rate (a factor of 3), the death of a 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star in a close binary system can produce anything from a low mass nutron star to a 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ black hole.

Figure 11 shows the mass trajectories of model 1s4, which has the most supernova fallback after an initial successful explosion (remember that Model 1s6 did not successfully launch an outward moving shock). In this simulation, it took nearly a year for all of the fallback material to ultimately accrete onto the neutron star.

## 4 Summary

In this paper, we present models for life and death of a series of 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ stars in binaries, whose evolution differs only by the mass loss rate adopted in the Wolf-Rayet stage. The Wolf-Rayet mass loss rate is still very uncertain and has only recently been revised downward by a factor 2$`\mathrm{}`$3 (Hamann & Koesterke 1998). In addition to being uncertain, it is likely that the Wolf-Rayet mass-loss rate depends on metallicity. Aside from the mass-loss rate, the metallicity has very little effect on the stellar evolution models. Thus, the study presented here can also be regarded as a study of this binary at different metallicities – the uncertainty of the WR mass loss rate then translates into a variation of the the initial stellar metal abundance.

We obtain final pre-collapse stellar masses in the range from 3.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for the highest mass loss rate (Model 1s1) up to 10.7 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for the lowest mass loss rate (1s6), while the central carbon abundance at core helium exhaustion drops form 35 % to 22 %, respectively. The ensuing complex interaction of carbon core and shell burning phases with later burning stages causes a non-monotonic behavior of the pre-collapse structure of the star, i.e., the masses of the neon-oxygen core, the silicon core or the deleptonized core (Table 1; Sect. 2.3).

Following the subsequent collapse and supernova explosion of these stars, we find that these models produce a range of compact remnants from a 1.17 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ neutron star (1s2) to a 10.7 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ black hole (1s6). The remnant mass does not scale strictly with the iron core mass (it depends on the density and temperature structure of the collapsing core - see §3) and we can not use this core mass to estimate the supernova explosion energy or the compact remnant mass. Amazingly, the large differences in the remnant mass are caused by only a factor of 3 change in the Wolf-Rayet mass-loss rate, and a 40% difference in the amount of mass lost through Wolf-Rayet winds. In view of this extreme sensitivity of the remnant mass on the WR mass loss, the persisting uncertainty of the WR mass loss rate, and the uncertainties of our core collapse models, it is difficult to draw solid conclusion.

Nevertheless, taking our results at face value implies that to form a black hole of 10 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ or more from a 60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star in a Case B (or Case A) binary, one might need to use WR mass loss rates smaller than the currently favoured ones (unless the system is at lower metallicity). That is, it seems difficult (though not impossible) to form those X-ray binaries which contain the most massive black holes, like Cyg X1 or V404 Cyg, through Case A or B at solar metallicity, and the Case C scenario (Brown et al. 1999, 2001, Kalogera 2001, Fryer & Kalogera 2001) may provide a viable alternative. For most low mass black hole binaries, which may contain black holes with 3$`\mathrm{}`$7 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Fryer & Kalogera 2001), our results imply that a Case B progenitor evolution may be sufficient if we assumed that the mass loss rate were reduced by a factor of $``$4. Given the uncertainties in WR mass loss, stellar evolution, and core-collapse, Case B progenitors for most black hole binaries are not excluded.

Furthermore, only with our lowest mass loss rate were we able to produce a direct collapse black hole from this Case B progenitor. Fryer, Woosley, & Hartmann (1999) suggested that most collapsar $`\gamma `$-ray burst progenitors are produced in binares that undergo Case B mass transfer, but our results imply that such binaries may not produce collapsars (at least at solar metallicity). However, most $`\gamma `$-ray bursts occur at high redshifts and low metallicities. That is, if the Wolf-Rayet mass loss rates truly decrease with decreasing metallicity, this does not preclude Case B progenitors of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts.

All in all, our results should be understood as temporary, awaiting a better understanding of the Wolf-Rayet winds and the core collapse of massive stars. But to understand the origin of the black hole binaries in our nearby universe, we must continue to pursue Case AB, as well as Case C models. We should finally mention that we left out two potentially important stellar parameter which is essential for most current models of collapsing stars: rotation and magnetic fields. Rotation may add another dimension to the expected remnant mass as function of stellar parameters, which has to be left here for future investigations. Although Fryer & Heger (2000) found that the currently proposed dynamos would not develop strong enough magnetic fields to drive the explosion alone, magnetic fields may still effect the explosion and should be considered.

This research has been supported by NASA (NAG5-2843, MIT SC A292701, and NAG5-8128), the NSF (AST-97-31569), the US DOE ASCI Program (W-7405-ENG-48), a LANL Feynman Fellowship, the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (FLF-1065004), and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (La 587/15-2).