text:
# Could Edge-Lit Type Ia Supernovae be Standard Candles?

## 1 Introduction

Luminous type Ia supernovae (hereinafter SNe Ia) are amongst the brightest objects in the Universe. Observations indicate that their absolute magnitudes lie in a narrow range, $`M_\mathrm{B}=18.5\pm 0.5`$, or $`\pm 60`$per cent in luminosity (from Table 1 of Rowan-Robinson 2002). Subluminous objects such as SN1991bg (Filippenko et al. 1992) lie below this range but have quite different spectral features. Furthermore observations reveal a correlation between maximum absolute brightness and light curve shape that facilitates an effective reduction in the standard deviation of absolute luminosities of all SNe Ia to $`\pm 15`$per cent (Phillips 1993, Phillips et al. 1999). This small spread, coupled with the fact that they can be seen to great distances makes SNe Ia excellent standard candles for study of the cosmology of the Universe. Observations have determined the rate of expansion with unprecedented precision (Branch 1998) and have further determined that this rate is accelerating with time, a measurement that has led to the invocation of a cosmological constant contributing about $`70`$per cent of the critical density of the Universe to be added to matter’s contribution of $`30`$per cent (Perlmutter et al. 1999, Riess et al. 1998). Further credence is lent to this result by cold-dark-matter models of the angular variation of the cosmic microwave background (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and gravitational lensing measurements (Wittman et al. 2000). Taken together, these results strongly favour a universe dominated by a new form of energy, as yet unexplained.

Each of the steps leading to the above conclusions needs to be critically analysed. In this paper we look at the assertion that SNe Ia can be used as standard candles in the light of what we know from current state-of-the-art binary population synthesis calculations. These calculations point to a range of possibilities for the progenitors of SNe Ia, none of which can be eliminated with any certainty. Likely candidates are double-degenerate super-Chandrasekhar white dwarf mergers, single-star Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarf ignitors, and edge-lit detonations (ELDs) of carbon/oxygen white dwarfs that have accreted a critical mass of helium. The relative populations predicted for these types are model dependent, although our calculations (Hurley, Tout & Pols 2001) predict a dominant population of ELDs. Though only a few attempts have been made to calculate spectra of edge-lit detonations (Höflich and Khokhlov 1996, Nugent et al. 1997) these find that the synthetic light curves do not match the observations as well as those for the standard model of carbon ignitors and that the spectra are too blue. However, the possibility that the ELDs may be a significant contributor to SNe Ia cannot be ruled out on these grounds at present because a comprehensive set of explosion calculations are presently unavailable (Branch 2000) and alternatives may indeed be found to fit the data.

In this paper we point out that, if a significant fraction of SNe Ia were ELDs, there is a systematic effect that can be identified which could make the more distant SNe Ia fainter than the nearby. The evidence for an accelerating universe from SNe Ia, which requires they be standard candles, would then be undermined. The abundance of alpha rich isotopes such as 44Ca in the solar system suggests that perhaps 40 per cent of SNe Ia could be ELDs.

## 2 Binary Star Progenitors

The major energy source of SNe Ia is the decay of 56Ni to 56Fe and the total energy released in a SN Ia is consistent with the decay of approximately a solar mass of 56Ni. These facts strongly implicate the thermonuclear explosion of a white dwarf though the actual explosion mechanism is not fully understood (Hillebrandt & Niemeyer 2000). White dwarfs may be divided into three major types: (i) helium white dwarfs, composed almost entirely of helium, form as the degenerate cores of low-mass red giants ($`M2M_{}`$) which lose their hydrogen envelope before helium can ignite; (ii) carbon/oxygen white dwarfs, composed of about $`20`$per cent carbon and $`80`$per cent oxygen, form as the cores of asymptotic giant branch stars or naked helium burning stars that lose their envelopes before carbon ignition (with progenitors typically in the range $`16M_{}`$); and (iii) oxygen/neon white dwarfs, composed of heavier combinations of elements, form from giants that ignite carbon in their cores but still lose their envelopes before the degenerate centre collapses to a neutron star (with progenitors typically in the range $`68M_{}`$).

An overview of the evolution of close binary systems is given by Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002; and references therein) and we review here those aspects which are directly relevant to SNe Ia. In such systems, mass transfer can increase the mass of a white dwarf. Close to the Chandrasekhar mass ($`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}1.44M_{}`$) degeneracy pressure can no longer support the star which collapses releasing its gravitational energy. The ONe white dwarfs lose enough energy in neutrinos and collapse sufficiently, before oxygen ignites, to avoid explosion (accretion induced collapse, AIC). The CO white dwarfs, on the other hand, reach temperatures early enough during collapse for carbon fusion to set off a thermonuclear runaway under degenerate conditions and release enough energy to create a SN Ia. Accreting He white dwarfs reach sufficiently high temperatures to ignite helium well below $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ ($`M0.7M_{}`$, Woosley, Taam & Weaver 1986) but an explosion under these conditions is expected to be quite unlike a SN Ia.

The process is further complicated by the nature of the accreting material. If it is hydrogen-rich, accumulation of a layer of only $`10^4M_{}`$ or so leads to ignition of hydrogen burning sufficiently violent to eject most, if not all of or more than, the accreted layer in the well known novae outbursts of cataclysmic variables (Warner 1995). The white dwarf mass does not significantly increase and ignition of its interior is avoided. However if the accretion rate is high $`\dot{M}>10^7M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ hydrogen can burn as it is accreted, bypassing novae explosions (Paczyński & Żytkow 1978), and allowing the white dwarf mass to grow. Though, if it is not much larger than this, $`\dot{M}>3\times 10^7M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, hydrogen cannot burn fast enough so that accreted material builds up a giant-like envelope around the core and burning shell which rapidly leads to more drastic interaction with the companion and the end of the mass transfer episode. Rates in the narrow range for steady burning are found only when the companion is in the short-lived phase of thermal-timescale expansion as it evolves from the end of the main sequence to the base of the giant branch. Super-soft X-ray sources (Kahabka & van den Heuvel 1997) are probably in such a state but, without invoking a special feedback mechanism (Hachisu, Kato & Nomoto 1996), cannot be expected to remain in it for very long and white dwarf masses very rarely increase sufficiently to explode as SNe Ia. This however remains the currently favoured progenitor, though we note that the continuing absence of a detection of hydrogen that may have been stripped from the mass-losing companion, either at early stages (Cumming et al. 1996) or late (Eck et al. 1995), may change this popular opinion in the future.

At first sight, a more promising scenario might be mass transfer from one white dwarf to another. In a very close binary orbit gravitational radiation can drive two white dwarfs together until the less massive fills its Roche lobe. If both white dwarfs are CO and their combined mass exceeds $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ enough mass could be transferred to set off a SN Ia. However if the mass ratio $`M_{\mathrm{donor}}/M_{\mathrm{accretor}}`$ exceeds $`0.628`$ mass transfer is dynamically unstable because a white dwarf expands as it loses mass. Based on calculations at somewhat lower, steady accretion rates, Nomoto & Iben (1985) have claimed that the ensuing rapid accretion of material allows carbon to burn in mild shell flashes, converts the white dwarf to ONe and ultimately leads to AIC and not a SN Ia. For smaller mass ratios accretion proceeds on the gravitational radiation timescale and in some cases $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ can be reached.

If a CO white dwarf accretes from a He white dwarf the mass ratio is generally small enough for dynamically stable mass transfer so that a helium layer builds up on the surface of the CO white dwarf. As in the nova explosions of hydrogen, the base of this helium layer eventually reaches a temperature at which helium can ignite in a degenerate flash. Unlike the novae this requires about $`0.15M_{}`$ of helium (Woosley & Weaver 1994). It can be envisaged that ignition of such a massive helium layer can detonate the CO core either by compressing it or by an inwardly propagating heating front (Branch & Nomoto 1986; Livne & Glasner 1990). Typical total masses of these edge-lit detonations (hereinafter ELDs), though below $`M_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, are still of the order of a solar mass so enough energy exists to explode the star and enough 56Ni can be formed to make a SN Ia.

Our population synthesis predicts, in general, more ELDs than merging CO white dwarfs by typically a factor of six (twenty-eight if only dynamically stable mass transfer is counted). Note that Kawai, Saio & Nomoto (1987) investigated helium accreting spherically on to a CO core and claimed that helium can burn non-degenerately if accreted steadily at rates above about $`3\times 10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and so avoid setting off an ELD. Because gravitational radiation drives mass transfer from a helium white dwarf donor at a rate considerably in excess of this, progenitors involving two white dwarfs have been ruled out in the past. However, if accretion is through a disc the CO core is able to cool as it accretes and a degenerate layer of helium can still build up.

Spectral analysis of SNe Ia has also been inconclusive. The spectra of the very luminous SN Ia 1991T are consistent with 56Ni production both at its centre and in a shell at the outside (Liu, Jeffery & Schultz 1997, Fisher et al. 1999). Though Fisher et al. (1999) favour a super-Chandrasekhar mass model, this is consistent with the two sites of thermonuclear runaway, the helium envelope and the CO core, present in an ELD. A potential problem with any claim that the majority of SNe Ia are ELDs is the lack of helium found in their spectra (Mazzali & Lucy 1998). However there remains sufficient uncertainty in the explosion models, such as exactly how much helium survives the explosion (typically less than $`0.08M_{}`$ in the calculations of Livne & Arnett, 1995), and the conversion to observed spectra, in particular the assumption that the helium shell remains spherically symmetric around the exploding CO core, that they cannot be ruled out with certainty. This problem is no more severe than is the lack of evidence for hydrogen for the currently favoured single degenerate models. Indeed ELDs have received almost no attention in recent years and it may be worthwhile to revisit them in the light of improved modelling applied to the standard model.

## 3 Population Synthesis

We might hope to gain some insight into the relative sizes of the progenitor populations from binary population synthesis calculations. For example we list results from calculations of this type with the algorithms described by Hurley, Tout & Pols (2002) in Table 1. The parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ that measures the efficiency of the common envelope ejection is one of the most critical and least constrained. In order to find enough merging CO white dwarfs to approach the measured rate of $`4\pm 2`$ SNe Ia per $`1,000`$yr per galaxy like our own (Cappellaro et al. 1997) requires $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}3`$. In this case only about $`20`$per cent of merging white dwarfs avoid dynamically unstable mass transfer and these may be too rare to account for the SNe Ia rate observed locally. However the almost unlimited freedom to vary such physical parameters as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ together with all initial distributions of binary parameters (binary fraction, mass ratio, period etc.) convinces us that we cannot trust such absolute numbers from population synthesis.

Given an initial state for a binary system, its masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ and its period111In practice a binary star may have an initial eccentricity but, in general, tides circularise the orbit before significant interaction takes place. Because angular momentum is conserved during circularisation it is actually the distribution of semi-latera recta that is appropriate (Hurley, Tout & Pols 2002). $`P`$, and a model for all the physical processes of stellar evolution and binary interaction, we can determine whether or not a particular system would end its life as a SN Ia. These physical processes include mass transfer both by Roche-lobe overflow or in a stellar wind, common-envelope evolution, magnetic and gravitational-radiation braking and all the associated effects on the evolution of the individual components that comprise the system. Unfortunately many of them are not sufficiently well understood for a precise quantification. Particularly troublesome for SNe Ia is common-envelope evolution because it is necessary to bring white dwarfs close enough to interact.

When a red giant or AGB star grows to fill its last stable potential surface or Roche lobe it begins to transfer mass to its companion. But, as it loses mass, the convective envelope of a giant expands. If it is still the more massive component of the binary, and mass transfer is conservative, the orbit and Roche lobe shrink. Consequently the process of mass transfer leads, on a dynamical timescale, to the giant overfilling its Roche lobe yet more. The overflow rate rapidly rises and the companion, typically a lower-mass main-sequence star, cannot accrete the material. Its own Roche lobe is quickly filled and a common envelope engulfs the whole system. The two cores, the relatively dense companion and the core of the giant are then assumed to spiral together by some, as yet undetermined, frictional mechanism. Some fraction of the orbital energy released is available to drive off the envelope. If all of it is ejected while the cores are still well separated we are left with a closer binary system comprising the unscathed companion and a white dwarf which may evolve to a cataclysmic variable. Alternatively, if some of the envelope still remains when the companion reaches the denser depths of the common envelope, they can merge leaving a single, rapidly rotating giant. Magnetic braking quickly spins down these merged giants.

Our ignorance of this process is encapsulated in a constant $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ which measures the fraction of the released orbital energy that goes into driving off the envelope. Very few agree on the precise definition of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ and its numerical value is uncertain to within a factor of ten. Because additional energy is always available from the thermal reservoir provided by the nuclear burning luminosity it may well exceed unity. Furthermore it is almost certainly not constant from one case to another (Regős & Tout 1995).

Any white dwarf accreting matter from its companion must have passed through at least one phase of common-envelope evolution because the white dwarf must itself have been the core of a giant that could only have evolved in a much wider system. Many double degenerate systems have passed through two phases. We divide the exploding white dwarfs into three types, (i) exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs, (ii) ELDs and (iii) exploding He white dwarfs. Each type separates into groups of low and high intial-period systems. The high-period systems experience two common-envelope phases. The first, when the primary fills its Roche lobe as a giant, leaves the binary wide enough for the secondary also to evolve to a giant before it too fills its Roche lobe. The low-period systems experience only the second phase. Mass transfer from the primary begins while it is crossing the Hertzsprung gap, or perhaps while it is still on the main sequence. Mass transfer then proceeds only on a thermal timescale. After this Algol phase of evolution we are left with a white dwarf companion to a more massive secondary in a much wider system. The secondary then evolves to fill its Roche lobe only as a giant. Most of the progenitors fall into one of these two categories but some follow a considerably more convoluted evolution. Although we are fully aware of the limitations of population synthesis we believe our model to be better than any used by others because of its fuller treatment of tidal interaction and more careful modelling of Hertzsprung gap evolution and stellar-wind mass transfer.

A lack of understanding of common-envelope evolution alone ought to be enough to make us very wary of the results of population synthesis. But, like others before us, we go further and calculate the SNe Ia rate for the various progenitors in a typical galaxy like our own. To do this we convolve a grid of models (about $`5,000,000`$ are needed to sufficiently resolve the $`M_1M_2P`$ space) with initial mass functions for each of the components, an initial period distribution, a binary fraction, a star formation history and a galactic model. Although each of these might be reasonably guessed on its own, together they give us enough freedom to achieve almost any result we want even when we require the model to fit observational constraints on all types of binary star, Algols, cataclysmic variables, X-ray binaries, symbiotics etc. Thus we stress that the results of binary population synthesis should not be glibly trusted.

## 4 The Supernova Rate

The observed rate of SNe Ia is $`4\pm 2`$ per $`1,000`$yr per galaxy like our own (Cappellaro et al. 1997). Table 1 gives the rate for various possible progenitors for two of our population syntheses that differ only in the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$. We have chosen the primary mass $`M_1`$ from the mass function of Kroupa, Tout and Gilmore (1993), the secondary mass $`M_2`$ so as to give a uniform distribution of mass ratio $`q=M_2/M_1`$ and the semi-latera recta $`l`$ from a flat distribution in $`\mathrm{log}l`$ with $`3<l/R_{}<3\times 10^6`$. The binary fraction and galactic model are condensed into the statement that one binary system with $`M_10.8M_{}`$ forms per year per galaxy, as is appropriate for our own (Hurley, Tout & Pols 2002). The three major groups of progenitors can be further subdivided each into two distinct channels. The exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs can be split into those that have dynamically unstable (coalescence) and those that have dynamically stable (accretion) mass transfer. The ELDs can be split into those CO white dwarfs accreting from a He white dwarf and those accreting from a naked helium-burning star. The exploding He white dwarfs, which we recall are not likely SNe Ia, can again be divided into those accreting from a white dwarf and those accreting from a naked helium star.

It is immediately apparent that by varying $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ alone we can fit the observed rate with whichever subset of the progenitors we please. Because of the two common-envelope phases involved the only other systems to be so strongly affected by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ are the non-interacting double degenerate systems but their numbers are not yet sufficient to constrain $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$ independently (Maxted & Marsh 1999). The well-studied cataclysmic variables usually only experience a single common-envelope phase in their evolution and so their numbers, which are uncertain anyway, depend rather more weakly on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}`$. We reiterate that, even without varying the initial mass and period distributions, which would affect other types of binary, we are able to fit the SNe Ia with whichever subset of the progenitors we please. The problem is that there are too few observables to constrain the free parameters of the model.

## 5 A Systematic Effect

The Phillips relation between peak luminosity and light curve decay speed can be understood (Mazzali et al. 2001) because both the peak luminosity and the light curve speed depend on the amount of 56Ni created in the thermonuclear runaway. The more 56Ni produced, the brighter the peak while it is the line opacity of the iron peak elements that determines the speed of the light curve, the more iron the slower the light curve. Pinto & Eastman (2001) explain the correlation in terms of more 56Ni leading to a hotter, brighter supernova but one with a greater dispersion in the velocity of expanding 56Ni layers, which delays the photons because they must escape a wider range of Doppler-shifted transitions. What is important to our argument is that the key parameter, controlling both peak luminosity and light curve speed, is the nickel mass. Thus if all the 56Ni is produced in a single explosion we expect the correlation irrespective of the nature of the progenitor. However in ELDs 56Ni is formed at two sites, the He envelope and then the CO core. Since the latter is still the most productive site it is still responsible for the peak but both sites provide opacity that slows the light curve decay.

Höflich, Wheeler & Thielemann (1998) have pointed out that the precise composition of the CO core, particularly its carbon content, controls the peak luminosity. The central composition depends on the initial, main-sequence mass of the asymptotic giant branch star that formed the CO white dwarf as its core (e.g. Umeda et al. 1999). It is established during the core helium burning phase before the star has expanded in radius on the AGB. If this mass were independent of the final ELD mass we could not hope to calibrate them locally. However, because more massive stars typically produce more massive remnants we expect some correlation between the mass of a CO white dwarf and that of its progenitor and so also between the mass of an ELD and its composition. The subtleties of binary star evolution mean that this is not a tight relation because the total mass of the CO core depends on when the AGB star interacts with its companion and so on the binary separation.

Fig. 1 is a plot of ELD mass against progenitor mass when $`Z=0.02`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3.0`$. There is indeed a correlation with some scatter. Various less occupied regions come about because there are many routes by which stars can reach the final ELD. Apart from the difference in donor, the split between long initial period systems with two CE phases and short-period single-CE systems is most significant. Though the details are interesting they are not pertinent to this paper and we concentrate only on the highly occupied regions. Let us now suppose that the progenitor mass predominantly determines the peak luminosity while the total ELD mass predominately determines the light curve speed. The correlation between the two leads to the empirical relation used to calibrate the peak luminosities, and the scatter in this relation is due to the variations in formation pathway. If $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=1`$ the region containing the most common ELDs is squeezed to the upper left of this distribution and the gap just below $`M_{\mathrm{pro}}=10^{0.2}`$ is filled in but the correlation still exists. In practice we expect both the peak luminosity and light curve shape to depend on some combination of both masses but our arguments are unchanged. There is still a one parameter family of SNe Ia. Now our population synthesis reveals that the peak rate of ELDs occurs about $`10^9`$yr after their progenitors formed (Fig. 2), just the time taken for intermediate mass stars to evolve off the main sequence. A similar conclusion can be reached by examination of Fig. 2 of Yungelson & Livio (2000). Therefore local SNe Ia (even those in old galaxies with currently low star formation rates) have typically population I progenitors with a metallicity of $`Z=0.02`$. At a redshift of $`z1`$ the Universe was only one third of its current age and the local metallicity was lower. Precisely how much lower is quite uncertain but our point is most clearly made by comparing a population II synthesis with $`Z=0.001`$ with that at $`Z=0.02`$. Fig. 3 compares the correlations between ELD and progenitor masses. There is a systematic shift in the correlation but the spread is little changed. As a result ELDs from population II progenitors could appear to have a very similar distribution of peak luminosities and light curve shapes to population I but at the same time have a systematic shift in the relation used to calibrate their peak luminosities. Indeed a similar total ELD mass at $`Z=0.001`$ is now mapped to a progenitor some 30 per cent less massive than at $`Z=0.02`$. Equivalently a certain speed of light curve decay at $`Z=0.001`$ could correspond to a significantly fainter peak luminosity than at $`Z=0.02`$. Though $`Z=0.001`$ is most likely an underestimate of the metallicity at a redshift of $`z=1`$, the effect is still apparent at $`Z=0.01`$, which is almost certainly an overestimate, (see Fig. 3).

The analysis by Kawai et al. (1987) of helium accreting spherically on to a CO white dwarf showed that, at accretion rates above $`3\times 10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, the helium burns non-degenerately as it accretes. Models we have made with the Eggleton stellar evolution code (Pols et al. 1995) confirm this and find degenerate ignition to be possible, even for spherical accretion, if accretion rates are less than $`10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Because of their larger size naked helium stars can feed CO white dwarfs at less than this rate. In Figs 1 and 3 these ELDs lie preferentially on the narrower correlation, at higher progenitor mass, to the right of the main cluster. This region does not appear to suffer the same systematic shift with metallicity. However, even at $`Z=0.01`$, the C/O ratio is significantly higher than at $`Z=0.02`$. For instance models made with the Eggleton code (Pols et al. 1998) show that a $`2.5M_{}`$ progenitor with $`Z=0.01`$ produces a CO white dwarf with central carbon abundance $`X_{\mathrm{C12}}=0.15`$ compared with $`0.12`$ for a star of the same mass but $`Z=0.02`$. A similar abundance is shared by CO white dwarfs from $`2.0M_{}`$ progenitors when $`Z=0.02`$. These conclusions are based only on our simple arguments that should be tested with detailed explosion models before any firm deductions can be drawn either way. They are however sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the fact that SNe Ia are standard candles independent of redshift, at least until we can be sure of a sample that is not contaminated with ELDs.

## 6 Nucleosynthesis

We might hope that if we include nucleosynthesis in population synthesis we can tap into many more observable quantities from stellar abundances of elements to meteoritic and terrestrial isotopic ratios. Unfortunately this is not without the expense of introducing new parameters to our model but we can reduce the ratio of parameters to observables. Of particular interest to us for supernovae are the iron group elements and heavier isotopes that are not synthesized in earlier phases of stellar evolution such as s-processing in AGB stars. The greatest uncertainty is introduced by our poor understanding of the mechanism by which SNe II explode. It is not certain how much of their iron core is trapped in or falls back on to the newly formed neutron star and how much is expelled to the ISM. The iron group production by the various core collapse supernovae, SNIb/c and SNII, is difficult to quantify because it critically depends on the poorly understood mechanism that drives the explosion. We can make an estimate based on the work of Woosley & Weaver (1995). Their Table 5 shows a yield that varies from $`0.04M_{}`$, for a $`12M_{}`$ to $`0.2M_{}`$ for a $`22M_{}`$ star but for most masses the yield is below $`0.1M_{}`$. Above $`25M_{}`$ their yields vary greatly with their, imposed, piston velocity. If black-hole remnants are common the yields are very small. In any case these very massive progenitors ought to be much rarer. We use an average yield of about $`0.08M_{}`$ of Fe (mostly as 56Ni) expelled to the ISM per SN II as a reasonable but rather uncertain estimate. Because 56Ni decay is the major source of energy in the SNe Ia their iron production is much better determined. Observations (Contardo, Leibundgut & Vacca 2000) indicate a range in 56Ni masses from $`0.11M_{}`$ for SN1991bg to $`1.14M_{}`$ for SN1991T with an average of $`0.58M_{}`$ for nine SNe Ia. For our purposes we would like to know the yield for each of our exploding white dwarfs and so we appeal theoretical models. Exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs give about $`0.63M_{}`$ each (Thielemann, Nomoto & Yokoi 1986). The ELD production depends on both CO core mass and He envelope mass (at least one extra parameter for the model) but the results of Livne and Arnett (1995) can be fitted quite well by

$$M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.75M_{}3.0(M_{\mathrm{CO}}1.0M_{})^2/M_{},$$
(1)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Ni}}`$ is the total mass of 56Ni, that will decay to 56Fe, produced by an ELD with CO core mass $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$. The mass of iron liberated by exploding He white dwarfs would again depend very much on the mass and accretion rate. An appropriate model (Woosley, Taam & Weaver 1986) gives $`0.45M_{}`$ per explosion. We have included these yields in our population synthesis calculations and Table 1 lists the yields per $`1,000`$yr per galaxy for the model with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3`$. If an average SN II contributes about $`0.08M_{}`$ and their rate is about thrice that of SNe Ia (Cappellaro et al. 1997) then the iron contribution of SNe Ia is about two and a half times that of SNe II whatever the true progenitor.

### 6.1 Explosive Helium Burning

What might distinguish ELDs from exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs? In the latter the thermonuclear runaway is confined to the CO rich mixture where it produces the 56Ni and the Si peculiar to SNe Ia spectra. In the ELDs it occurs both in the CO core and in the He-rich envelope. In this envelope a small but very significant fraction of nuclei do not reach the end of the $`\alpha `$-burning chain but freezeout as the envelope expands. Of particular interest are the heavier isotopes such as 44Ti and 48Cr which are not readily produced elsewhere. We concentrate on 44Ti that decays, via 44Sc, to 44Ca in the ISM. The mass ratio of 44Ca/56Fe in the Solar System is $`1.2\times 10^3`$. An average SN II yields at most a ratio of about $`6\times 10^4`$ (Timmes et al. 1996) and an exploding Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf only $`3\times 10^5`$ (Livne & Arnett 1995). As Timmes et al. point out these two alone cannot account for the Solar-System abundance and we must turn to explosive He burning.

The model for the exploding He white dwarf that gave $`0.45M_{}`$ of iron (Woosley, Taam and Weaver 1986) yields $`8.9\times 10^3M_{}`$ of 44Ti so that only one such explosion per eighteen SNe II or six SNe Ia would be enough to account for the Solar-System 44Ca. We note however that our calculations with the Eggleton code show that it is very easy to raise the degeneracy of a He white dwarf by accretion before the triple-$`\alpha `$ reaction begins. The white dwarf becomes a naked helium burning star and subsequently a CO white dwarf without any explosive helium burning. In addition there are no obvious observed candidates for such explosions, which ought to be almost as bright as SNe Ia and we might reasonably discount them altogether.

The contribution from ELDs, not surprisingly, depends, like the Fe yield, on both the CO core mass and the He envelope mass. A fit to the models of Livne and Arnett (1995) is

$$M_{\mathrm{Ti}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.0033M_{}+0.143(M_{\mathrm{CO}}0.8M_{})^2/M_{}\hfill & M_{\mathrm{CO}}<0.8M_{}\hfill \\ 0.0033M_{}\hfill & M_{\mathrm{CO}}0.8M_{}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Ti}}`$ is the total mass of 44Ti, that will decay to 44Ca produced by an ELD with CO core mass $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}`$. Again for the model with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CE}}=3`$, the mass of 44Ti returned to the ISM by each of the various progenitor types is recorded in Table 1 and the final column gives the Solar-System ratio if only that progenitor type is combined with thrice as many SNe II. ELDs give a ratio that is four times as large as is measured and so are unlikely to be the dominate type of SNe Ia. Exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs give a ratio over six times too small. If we exclude the CO white dwarfs accreting from He white dwarfs on the grounds that they can burn helium non-degenerately then the combination of the ELDs accreting from naked helium stars, all the exploding Chandrasekhar-mass CO white dwarfs and the SNe II, with no exploding He white dwarfs, give a ratio of $`2.0\times 10^3`$ within a factor of two of the measured value. This is therefore our favoured model based on these calculations. The progenitors of $`40`$per cent of its SNe Ia are ELDs which are unlikely to be standard candles.

## 7 Conclusions

Though they are now quite unfashionable we have investigated whether or not edge-lit SNe Ia could behave as standard candles. We have so identified a systematic effect that could undermine the cosmological interpretation of SN Ia measurements at redshift $`z1`$ because it ensures that both nearby and distant SNe Ia appear to belong to a one parameter family that should obey a correlation between peak luminosity and light curve shape but at the same time hides a second parameter, metallicity. For this to be important a significant number of SNe Ia would need to be helium edge-lit detonations of CO white dwarfs. Unfortunately we find the results of binary population synthesis (such as Hurley et al. 2001) too unreliable to produce absolute numbers. There are just too many free parameters in the included physics and the initial distributions of binary properties. On the other hand the relative numbers used in identifying the systematic effects of metallicity on ELDs do not rely heavily on any of these many assumptions. If we include nucleosynthesis in population synthesis we find that 40 per cent of SNe Ia would need to be ELDs if they are the major source of 44Ca in the solar system.

Any measurements of the metallicity of supernova progenitors can be used to test for such effects. Since we expect the majority of SNe Ia to result from relatively recent star formation (our Fig. 2 or Fig. 2 of Yungelson & Livio 2000) measurement of the metallicity of intermediate and massive stars ($`M2M_{}`$) in the host galaxy is also appropriate. Branch, Romanishin & Baron (1995) found that the distribution of peak SNe Ia luminosities in redder galaxies has a higher dispersion, before correcting for light curve shape, than that of those in bluer galaxies. This is consistent with SNe Ia in an older red galaxy coming from a wider range of progenitor metallicities but is otherwise inconclusive. Further investigations of how SNe Ia might vary with galaxy type are underway (e.g. Schmidt, private communication) and we eagerly await the results.

We conclude that we find no evidence that the majority of SNe Ia should not be standard candles obeying a one parameter Phillips relation. However if any can be identified as ELDs they should be used neither to establish the Phillips relation nor in the distant samples. In particular any object that shows similarities to SN1991T should be excluded.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Zhanwen Han, Andrew King, Robert Kirshner, Paolo Mazzali, Philipp Podsiadlowski, James Pringle and Brian Schmidt for stimulating conversations and helpful comments. ER and CAT thank the Australian National University and its Astrophysical Theory Centre for hospitality and generous support. CAT is very grateful for an advanced fellowship from PPARC and to Churchill College for a Lectureship in Mathematics. DW is grateful to the UK PPARC for a visiting fellowship at the IOA, Cambridge. We also thank the various referees who have taken the time to read this work in detail and provided a wide range of criticisms that have, we hope, improved our presentation.


format: text

text:
# An algebraic approach to representations of the permutation group.

## 1 Abstract

The group algebra of the permutation group is spanned by a set of elements called projectors.The coordinates of permutations expanded in projectors are matrix elements of irreducible representations.The projectors for the permutation group are products of a Young symmetriser and an antisymmetriser. They form non-orthogonal bases of right and left modules. The non-orthogonality is compensated by a constant matrix. It turns out that this reduces the matrix entries to $`\{1,0,+1\}`$ . An algorithm to compute the projectors is given.

## 2 Introduction

The group of permutations of n objects is called the symmetric group and is denoted $`S_n`$. A permutation group is a subgroup of $`S_n`$. Since any symmetric group is a subgroup of a symmetric group with a higher number of symbols we can state: ’A symmetric group is a permutation group’. The converse is not true, since a permutation group is the direct product of symmetric groups relative to disjoint subsets of symbols. In the following the names permutation group and subgroup of a permutation group are used for $`S_n`$ and its subgroups

The permutation group is a classical subject, the amount of work devoted to the permutation group can be infered from the list of references (several hunderts ) in the review article of James and Kerber in the collection Encyclopedia of Mathematics 1). The origin of the present paper is the chapter entitled ’Symmetric groups’ in Littlewood’s book 2). It was realized that algebra elements introduced there can be promoted to a basic concept of representation theory. These elements are called projectors below since the relations they satisfy generalise the idempotency of projectors. The projectors for the permutation group, defined as the product of a symmetriser and an antisymmetriser, yield a non-orthogonal matrix representation. The homomorphy of the matrix representation can also be obtained if a constant matrix is intersped in the matrix product. It is known at least since Wigner 3) that the representation matrices of a finite group can be taken unitary. Unitarity requires complex numbers for the matrix entries. In the case of the permutation group, a property called ambivalence (an element and its inverse are in the same conjugation class) entails that the representation matrices can be chosen real orthogonal4). Orthogonality still involves square roots and hence irrational numbers. Dropping orthogonality, the matrix entries can be integers. When taking the non-orthogonality into account by a constant matrix, the entries are reduced to $`\{1,0,+1\}`$. This set is the group $`Z_3`$ under addition modulo 3. Whether this fact is of significance or not is an open question.

The projector formalism is described in Section 3. In Section 4 it is shown that the product relations defining projectors are satisfied by the products of a Young symmetriser and a Young antisymmetriser. The proof that matrix entries can be reduced to $`\{1,0,+1\}`$ is given in Section 6. Units and characters are examined in Section 7. Conclusions are in Section 8. An algorithm for determining the coordinates of projectors is given in Appendix A.

## 3  Projectors

Let A be the algebra spanned by $`n^2`$ elements $`p_{ij}`$ called projectors satisfying the relations:

$$p_{ij}p_{kl}=g_{jk}p_{il}$$
(1)
where $`g_{jk}k`$ is a scalar, k denotes a field.

Let $`X,YA`$ be defined by coordinates $`X=x^{ij}p_{ij}`$ and $`Y=y^{ij}p_{ij}`$, where the summation convention is used. The coordinates of $`Z=XY`$ are given by:

$$z^{il}=x^{ij}g_{jk}y^{kl}.$$

The algebra A is seen to be a matrix algebra where the product $``$ is defined by a constant matrix $`g`$.

$$xy=xgy.$$

Note that by multiplying to the right or left by the matrix $`g`$ a conventional matrix algebra is obtained. In matrix form $`(zg)=(xg)(yg)`$.

The direct sum of several such algebras is spanned by projectors $`p_{\lambda ij}`$ where $`\lambda `$ labels the subalgebras. The defining relations satisfied by the projectors are:

$$p_{\lambda ij}p_{\mu kl}=\delta _{\lambda \mu }g_{\lambda jk}p_{\lambda il}.$$
(2)
It follows from these relations that
i) the projectors $`p_{\lambda ij}`$ with $`\lambda `$ and $`i`$ fixed span a right ideal,
ii) the projectors with $`\lambda `$ and $`j`$ fixed span a left ideal,
iii) projectors with $`\lambda `$ fixed span a subalgebra.

Assume that $`\lambda `$ ranges over all irreducible representations of a finite group: the number of projectors is equal to the number of group elements, i.e. the order of the group. This follows from the theorem: ’ A regular representation contains each irreducible representation with a multiplicity equal to its dimension.’ If $`m_\lambda `$ is the dimension of the irreducible representation and $`n`$ the order of the group, we have

$$n=\underset{\lambda }{}m_\lambda ^2.$$

The right-hand side is the number of projectors. Note that the representation obtained by the direct sum of irreducible representations has dimension

$$\underset{\lambda }{}m_\lambda <n,$$

and thus is not the regular representation.

Since a finite group can be reconstructed from the set of its irreducible representations, the equality of the number of projectors and group elements entails that the projectors form a basis of the group algebra.

Elements of the group algebra $`kS_n`$ satisfying these relations are defined in the next section.

## 4 Projectors for the permutation group

The representation theory of the permutation group can be sketched as follows: Irreducible representations of $`S_n`$ are characterised by partitions of $`n`$. A partition defines a Young frame. Young frames filled with $`n`$ symbols are Young tableaus. A lexical order of the symbols is adopted. A Young frame with the symbols in rows and columns in lexical order is a standart Young tableau. The number of standard Young tableaus for a given partition is the dimension of the irreducible representation. A Young tableau is defined by a partition and the sequence of symbols obtained by reading the tableau from left to right, top to bottom. The sequences are ordered by the first differing symbol in the sequences. This yields an ordering of Young tableaus.

Let $`i`$ label Young tableaus and let $`P_i`$ be the row symmetriser of the tableau $`T_i`$. i.e. the sum of all permutations permuting symbols in rows of $`T_i`$. Let $`N_i`$ be the column antisymmetriser i.e. the sum of signed permutations permuting the symbols in columns of $`T_i`$ with sign + for even, - for odd permutations. Let $`\sigma _{ij}`$ be the permutation which permutes the sequence of tableau $`T_i`$ into the sequence of tableau $`T_j`$. We have $`N_i\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _{ij}N_j`$ and $`P_i\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _{ij}P_j.`$ i.e. $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is an intertwiner.
Define $`p_{ij}kS_n`$ by:

$$p_{ij}=P_i\sigma _{ij}N_j.$$
(3)
Proposition: The elements $`p_{ij}`$ satify the projector relations (1).

Proof: The set of permutations permuting the symbols in columns of a Young tableau form a subgroup of $`S_n`$ as do the permutations permuting the symbols in rows. Denote these subgroups also by $`N_j`$ and $`P_j`$ for tableau $`T_j`$. For a permutation $`v_jN_j`$ we have $`N_jv_j=\pi (v_j)N_j`$ where $`\pi (v_j)`$ is the parity of $`v_j`$. For a permutation $`h_kP_k`$ we have $`h_kP_k=P_k`$.
If an odd permutation is contained in $`N_j`$ and in $`P_k`$ we have $`N_jP_k=N_jP_k`$ and the product is null. This is the case if two symbols are in the same column in $`T_j`$ and the same row in $`T_k`$. The transposition of the two symbols is an odd permutation contained in $`N_j`$ and $`P_k`$. If no permutation except the identity is contained in $`N_j`$ and $`P_k`$ a permutation $`v_jN_j`$ can be found wich puts a symbol of $`T_j`$ in the same row as in $`T_k`$. A permutation $`h_kP_k`$ then exists which puts the symbols in the same position as in $`T_k`$, hence $`\sigma _{jk}=v_jh_k`$.
It follows that:

$`p_{ij}p_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`P_i\sigma _{ij}N_jP_k\sigma _{kl}N_l`$
$`=`$ $`\pi (v_j)(P_iN_i)^2\sigma _{il}.`$
From Littlewood 2) we have the result $`(P_iN_i)^2=(n!/m)P_iN_i`$ where $`m`$ is the number of standart Young tableaus. Relation (1) follows with

$$g_{jk}=\frac{n!}{m}\pi (v_j).$$

If the Young tableaus are ordered according to the ordering defined above then $`N_iP_j=0`$ if $`T_i<T_j`$ and the $`g`$ matrix is lower triangular. The proof of the proposition ’ If $`T_i<T_j`$ the first differing symbols are in the same column in $`T_i`$ and the same row in $`T_j`$’ is given by Littlewood 2). As shown above this entails that $`N_iP_j=0`$.

Let $`\lambda ,\mu `$ label partitions and let $`N_i^\lambda `$, $`P_i^\mu `$ denote the corresponding antisymmetriser and symmetriser. According to another result of Littlewood2) $`(P_i^\lambda N_i^\lambda )(P_j^\mu N_j^\mu )=0`$ if $`\lambda \mu `$. Hence the general relation (2) is satisfied by the projectors.
Remark: Another set of projectors is provided by $`p_{ij}^{}=N_i\sigma _{ij}P_j`$ . The sets $`\{p_{ij}\}`$ and $`\{p_{ij}^{}\}`$ are related by the involution $`ss^1`$ of $`S_n`$.

## 5 Matrix representations of $`S_n`$

Denote by $`s_a,a=1,\mathrm{},n!`$ the permutations of $`S_n`$. Expanding $`s_a`$ in the projector basis we have

$$s_a=x_a^{\lambda ij}p_{\lambda ij}.$$
(4)
where $`x_a^{\lambda ij}`$ are coordinates and the summation is over $`\lambda ij`$. From the product relations (2) it follows that the coordinates with $`\lambda `$ fixed provide an irreducible matrix representation of $`S_n`$. If $`s_c=s_as_b`$ then

$$x_c^{\lambda il}=x_a^{\lambda ij}g_{\lambda jk}x_b^{\lambda kl}$$

where the summation is over $`j`$ and $`k`$.

The relation (3) defines the projectors as linear combinations of permutations Hence:

$$p_{\lambda ij}=y_{\lambda ij}^as_a$$
(5)
where the summation is over $`a`$.
Note that the coordinates $`y_{\lambda ij}^a`$ have values $`\{1,0,+1\}`$.
Proof: The subgroups $`N_i`$ and $`P_j`$ have no permutation in common exept the Identity $`e`$. If $`c^{},c^{\prime \prime }N_i`$ and $`r^{},r^{\prime \prime }P_i`$ are such that $`c^{}r^{}=c^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime \prime }`$ then since $`r^{\prime \prime 1}r^{}N_i`$ and $`c^{\prime \prime }c^1P_i`$ we have $`r^{}=r^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`c^{}=c^{\prime \prime }`$.

The linear system (4) is the inverse of (5) ; it follows that the matrices of coordinates are inverses $`(x)=(y)^1`$. The matrix of coordinates $`(y)`$ is given by the definition of projectors. The problem of determining the irreducile representations of $`S_n`$ is then solved in principle.
Example: The group $`S_3`$
Define the permutations by the sequence obtained applying the permutation to $`[123]`$ :

$`s_1=[123],s_2=[132],s_3=[213],s_4=[231],s_5=[312],s_6=[321]`$
The partitions are labeled :1=(3), 2=(2,1), 3=(111).
The definition of projectors yields the linear system:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p_{111}\\ p_{211}\\ p_{212}\\ p_{221}\\ p_{222}\\ p_{311}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}s_1\\ s_2\\ s_3\\ s_4\\ s_5\\ s_6\end{array}\right)$$

The projector relations (2) are satisfied with a $`g`$ matrix $`g=diag(6,3,3,3,3,6)`$. The linear system can be inverted ; permutations are related to projectors by:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}s_1\\ s_2\\ s_3\\ s_4\\ s_5\\ s_6\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_{111}/6\\ p_{211}/3\\ p_{212}/3\\ p_{221}/3\\ p_{222}/3\\ p_{131}/6\end{array}\right)$$

As pointed out the entries of the representation matrices are the coordinates of the permutations. Moreover the normalisation factors of the projectors and the entries of the $`g`$ matrix cancel so that the two dimensional representation can be read off the matrix above:

$$s_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),s_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),s_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$s_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),s_5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),s_6=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$

## 6 Reduced entries

An algorithm to compute the coordinates of projectors expanded in permutations is described in Appendix A.
We have seen that the matrix of coordinates of permutations expanded in projectors can be obtained by inversion of the matrix of projector coordinates. There is however a shortcut which avoids the inversion of an $`n!`$ dimensional matrix. The coordinates $`(x)`$ and $`(y)`$ are related by:

$$y_{\lambda ij}^{b^1}=\frac{m_\lambda }{n!}\underset{rs}{}g_{\lambda jr}x_b^{\lambda rs}g_{\lambda sr}.$$
(6)
Here $`b`$ and $`b^1`$ are a permutation and its inverse. A proof of relation (6) is given in Appendix B. We now prove the claim made in the Introduction: Representation matrices exist with entries restricted to $`\{1,0,+1\}.`$ In relation (6) $`\lambda `$ is fixed. Set $`f=\frac{n!}{m_\lambda }`$. Writing the quantities with indices i,j,r,s as matrices (6) reads :

$$\stackrel{~}{y}(b^1)=f^1gx(b)g$$

The integer factor $`f`$ was incorporated in the $`g`$ matrix in Section (4) hence $`g^{}=f^1g`$ is a matrix with entries $`\{1,0,+1\}.`$ If projectors are renormalised as $`p_{ij}^{}=f^1p_{ij}`$ the relations $`p_{ij}^{}p_{kl}^{}=g_{jk}^{}p_{il}^{}`$ are satisfied and the coordinates $`x^{ij}=fx^{ij}`$ are the matrix elements of a representation. Relation (6) is now:

$$\stackrel{~}{y}(b^1)=g^{}x^{}(b)g^{}$$

If $`x^{}(b)`$ defines a representation with matrix $`g^{}`$ then $`g^{}x^{}(b)g^{}`$ defines a representation with matrix $`g^1`$.
Proof: $`(g^{}x^{}(b)g^{})g^1(g^{}x^{}(c)g^{})=g^{}(x(b)g^{}x^{}(c))g^{}=(g^{}x^{}(bc)g^{}).`$ Note that the transposed matrix $`\stackrel{~}{y}(b^1)`$ on the left-hand side of (6) is a matrix with entries $`\{1,0,+1\}`$ so that the claim is proved. The matrix $`g^1`$ is the inverse of a lower triangular matrix with reduced entries. It follows that the entries of the matrix $`g_n^1`$ are integers but not that they are reduced to $`\{1,0,+1\}`$.

## 7  Units and conjugation classes

Let $`C_\rho `$ be the sum of the permutations in a conjugation class. Recall that the number of conjugation classes of a finite dimensional group is equal to the number of irreducible representations. $`C_\rho `$ commutes with all elements of the group algebra.
Define:

$$U_\lambda =\underset{ij}{}g_{\lambda ij}^1p_{\lambda ij}.$$

From the product relations (3) it follows that $`U_\lambda p_{\mu kl}=\delta _{\lambda \mu }p_{\lambda kl}`$ and
$`p_{\mu kl}U_\lambda =\delta _{\mu \lambda }p_{\lambda kl}.`$ Further $`(U_\lambda )^2=U_\lambda `$. $`U_\lambda `$ is idempotent, leaves elements of the subalgebra $`\lambda `$ invariant and annihilates all others, i.e. $`U_\lambda `$ is a unit of the subalgebra $`\lambda `$. $`U_\lambda `$ commutes with all elements of the algebra, hence $`U_\lambda `$ is a sum of entire conjugation classes:

$$U_\lambda =\underset{\rho }{}\chi _\lambda ^\rho C_\rho .$$
(7)
The coefficients are group characters of $`S_n`$. A permutation cannot be in several classes and the elements of $`g_\lambda ^1`$ are integers. It follows that the characters defined above are integers.
Example: The group $`S_3`$.

Permutations in cycle notation are denoted by$`(\mathrm{})`$ and in sequence notation by $`[\mathrm{}]`$. The conjugation classes are:

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1)(2)(3),`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`(12)+(23)+(13),`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`(123)+(132).`$
The units are given by:

$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`[123]+[132]+[312]+[213]+[231]+[321],`$
$`U_2`$ $`=`$ $`2[123][312][231],`$
$`U_3`$ $`=`$ $`[123][132]+[312][213]+[231][321].`$
The linear system (7) is then:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill U_1\\ \hfill U_2\\ \hfill U_3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 2& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill C_1\\ \hfill C_2\\ \hfill C_3\end{array}\right).$$

## 8 Conclusion

The approach is resticted to finite groups. With respect to the usual representation theory the approach described above could be called natural. Orthonormalisation requires irrational numbers as matrix entries. In the $`g`$ matrix scheme entries are integers restricted to $`\{1,0,+1\}`$. .For example the set of matrices with reduced entries given in section 5 is closed under matrix multiplication. The $`g`$ matrix defines a vector space isomorphism between right and left modules and denotes an intrinsic property of the $`kS_n`$ algebra. The algorithm described in Appendix B has been implemented in a computer program.For $`n<4`$ the $`g`$ matrices are diagonal. The first non-diagonal $`g`$ matrix occurs for $`n=5`$ and partition (3,2). The first matrix $`g^1`$ with entries not in $`\{1,0,+1\}`$ occurs for$`n=7`$ and partition $`(3,2,2)`$. The representations matrices are always matrices with reduced entries.

The reduced entries feature has not found applications to physics up to now. The theory of coherent states in quantum mechanics shows that orthonormalisation is not an unavoidable feature.

Appendix A According to definition (3) $`p_{ij}`$ is a sum of terms of the form $`\pi (v_i)h_j\sigma _{ji}v_i`$ where $`h_j`$ is a row permutation of $`T_j`$, $`v_i`$ a column permutation of $`T_i`$ and $`\pi (v_i)=+1`$ for even, $`1`$ for odd permutations. If a permutation $`s`$ can be factorised as $`s=h_j\sigma _{ji}v_i`$ the coordinate of $`p_{ji}`$ along $`s`$ is given by $`y_{ji}^s=\pi (v_i)`$.
Define the action of a permutation on a Young tableau as a right action: $`T_iT_is=T_s`$ The conjugates of the permutations $`v_i`$ by $`s`$ : $`sv_is^1=v_s`$ form a subgroup ; the subgroup of column permutations of $`T_s`$. Note that the parity of $`v_i`$ and $`v_s`$ are the same. We have

$$v_i^1s=\sigma _{ij}h_j=sv_s^1.$$

If this permutation acts on $`T_i`$ we obtain $`T_sv_s^1=T_jh_j`$. A column permutation of $`T_s`$ exists which puts the symbols in the same rows as in $`T_j`$. This yields the following algorithm to compute the coordinates of a projector.

Determine the non-standart Young tableau $`T_s=T_is`$. Set to 0 a parameter $`k`$. Scan the columns of the non standard Young tableau $`T_s`$ and take the sequence of symbols in a column. Locate the same symbols in $`T_j`$ ordered according to the rows they occupy. This is not possible if two such symbols are in the same row and in that case the algorithm ends with a zero coordinate. Otherwise the two sequences of symbols define a permutation. Determine the cycle structure of the permutation. For a cycle of length $`l`$ add $`l1`$ to the parameter $`k`$. The coordinate is given by: $`y_{ij}^s=12(kmod2)`$
Note that the matrix elements of $`g`$ are obtained by setting $`s=e`$. Appendix B Since the (x) and (y) matrices are inverses we have

$$\underset{b}{}y_{\lambda ij}^bx_b^{\mu kl}=\delta _\lambda ^\mu \delta _i^k\delta _j^l,$$

$$\underset{\lambda ij}{}x_a^{\lambda ij}y_{\lambda ij}^b=\delta _b^a.$$

where $`a,b`$ are permutations. Recall the representation relation

$$x_c^{\lambda il}=\underset{jk}{}x_a^{\lambda ij}g_{\lambda jk}x_b^{\lambda kl},$$

where $`c=ab`$. Now
i) multiply by $`y_{\lambda ij}^a`$ and sum over a,
ii)multiply by $`y_{\mu ks}^c`$ and sum over $`\mu ks`$,
the result is :

$$y_{\lambda ij}^{cb^1}=\underset{rs}{}x_b^{\lambda rs}g_{\lambda jr}y_{\lambda is}^c.$$
(8)
If $`c=b`$ the relation is:

$$y_{\lambda ij}^e=\underset{rs}{}x_b^{\lambda rs}g_{\lambda jr}y_{\lambda is}^b.$$

Summing over $`b`$ gives :

$$n!y_{\lambda ij}^e=m_\lambda g_{\lambda ji}.$$

If in (8) $`c=e`$ we have :

$$y_{\lambda ij}^{b^1}=\underset{rs}{}g_{\lambda jr}x_b^{\lambda rs}y_{\lambda is}^e.$$

From the last two relations, relation (6) follows.