text:
# Concluding Remarks: From Current CMBology to its Polarization and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Frontiers circa TAW8

## 1. Concordance? and its Consequences

### 1.1. The Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning?

In April 2001, just predating TAW8111This paper blends an introductory primary CMB talk with my conference summary. Only a few CMB references are given, organized by date (April’99, April’00, April’01). The perpetrators of the advances mentioned in this summary, and associated references, can be found elsewhere in these proceedings., the Boomerang and DASI teams independently unveiled remarkably similar power spectra of the primary anisotropies of the CMB, those which can be calculated using linear perturbation theory (Fig. 1). The analysis of cosmological parameters was in accord with indications from Large Scale Structure (LSS), Supernova (SN1), and a variety of other observations, pointing towards everyone’s neo-standard model at this meeting, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM. Typical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM parameters are taken to be: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$; Hubble parameter $`h0.7`$ from the Hubble key project; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$, including $`0.04`$ in baryons, the rest in cold dark matter; $`n_s`$=1 as the slope of the initial density power spectrum, the scale-invariant Harrison-Zeldovich-Peebles value; overall mass density power normalized to have $`\sigma _80.9`$, with $`\sigma _8`$ the rms (linear) density fluctuation level on a cluster-scale ($`8\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). The baryon density choice $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.02`$ is the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis result calibrated with the deuterium abundance estimated from absorption lines in QSO spectra.

From the early 80s onward, CMB observations were used with LSS information, as embodied in angular and redshift galaxy surveys, cluster and other rare event abundances, cluster clustering, and velocity flows to constrain the cosmological parameters defining the space. Even in the days of CMB upper limits predating the COBE/FIRS/SP91/Tenerife and subsequent detections, the CMB was a powerful constrainer. When the COBE detection was combined with LSS, a great collapse occurred in parameter space, which was further constricted by detections on intermediate angular scales throughout the 90s, and which Boomerang, DASI and Maxima have now turned into bulls-eye determinations on some key parameters (Fig. 2), focussing even more than in the April’00 release.

It appears from Fig. 1 that multiple peaks and dips in the CMB have been found – a dominant first peak, a less prominent second one, and a hint of a third one, with interleaving dips (April’01). These are even in roughly the right location of a long-standing prediction of adiabatic inflation-based models with little mean curvature. The physics of the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ peak structure is based on acoustic oscillations and velocity flows as the photon-baryon fluid viscously passed from tight coupling to free-streaming at photon decoupling (redshift $`z_{dec}1100`$, about 0.4 Myr after the “Big Bang”), generating the “damping tail” evident in the “best-fit” theoretical model shown in Fig. 1.

The maps from which the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ bandpowers are derived are largely noise-free images of soundwave patterns seen through the photon decoupling ”surface” of width $`10\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ that defines the thick-to-thin transition. This isquite a bit smaller than the comoving ”sound crossing distance” at decoupling, $`100\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (i.e., $`100\mathrm{kpc}`$ physical), below which density oscillations and velocity flows can be observed. After, photons freely-streamed along geodesics to us, mapping (through the angular diameter distance relation) the post-decoupling spatial structures in the temperature to the angular patterns we observe now. The free-streaming along our (linearly perturbed) past light cone leaves the pattern largely unaffected, except that temporal evolution in the gravitational potential wells as the photons propagate through them leaves a further $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ imprint, called the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.

Of course there are a number of other signals that are also present in the maps, so how can we be confident that Fig. 1 really offers a glimpse of fluctuation power at $`z_{dec}`$? Known contaminating signals include the Galactic foregrounds of bremsstrahlung, synchrotron and dust emission, extragalactic radio and infrared sources. As well, secondary anisotropies associated with post-decoupling nonlinear effects are also present, These include weak-lensing by intervening mass, Thompson-scattering by the nonlinear flowing gas once it became ”reionized” at $`z1020`$, the thermal and kinematic SZ effects, and the red-shifted emission from dusty galaxies. All secondary and foreground sources leave non-Gaussian imprints on the CMB sky, and all but the kinematic SZ effect have different spectral signatures to aid in signal separation. For some experiments (DASI, CBI), it has been crucial to remove sources, for others like Boomerang, relatively contamination-free channels and regions can be found. We have been lucky that many of these signals are subdominant at the angular scales we are probing in Fig. 1. As precision improves, signal separation will loom large.

Because of the CMB+LSS success, we did not see at TAW8 as many of the usual comparison cosmologies as we used to at such meetings, the open oCDM, the hot/cold hybrid HCDM, $`\tau `$CDM, the tilted tCDM, the cluster-normalized old-standard sCDM. Nor were cosmic defect models in evidence. Though many of the $`x`$CDM’s may have fallen away, we now see $`Q`$CDM appearing on the stage, with $`Q`$ an ultra-low mass scalar field, often called quintessence, that dominates at late times. Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ replaces $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and an effective $`Q`$-dynamics is cast (though none too well) in terms of a mean pressure-to-density ratio $`w_Q=\overline{p}_Q/\overline{\rho }_Q`$, an effective equation of state (EOS). Well not so effective, since $`Q`$ is a spatially-dependent field, or may be. In spite of a huge number of quintessential papers, $`Q`$ would better stand for question mark. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`w_Q=1`$, but $`w_Q<1/3`$ would get our patch of the Universe into acceleration, apparently with no new comoving space to be revealed.

If there really is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM/$`Q`$CDM concordance, then apart from the wide grins of the “often in error, never in doubt” cosmologists, hubrous abounding, we may also hear theorists’ lament: Where are the anomalies for wild and fun theorizing? Between our state now, with its large-ish error bars and the never-ending worry about the systematic rather than the statistical, and with the exquisite data from a vast array of experiments coming down the pipe, there is still much room for a cosmic surprise. Perhaps the greatest of all will be if the models of the 80’s do in fact describe how all of the structure formed in the Universe, albeit with a mysterious dark energy accelerating us. Even if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, theorists are still at play, though not so much at TAW8 which was concretely directed to the empirical. Just look to the dark energy, the struggles to tie the latest inflation our observable patch of the Universe now seems to be caught in with the early inflation needed to “smooth the universe” and solve causality problems, and, incidentally, to generate quantum noise from which all observed cosmic structure originated. Look to the dialogues between those of the M-theory brane worlds and the physical cosmologists, reigniting the early universe connection that we were in danger of losing – what with the (clustering) dark matter being supposed cold for so long and with inflation being generic but tunable to meet all demands (though not without highly baroque additions).

### 1.2. Broad Truths from the CMB+LSS

Most amazing about Fig. 1, COBE’s FIRAS experiment, the accumulating LSS information, now coming in a torrent with 2dF, Sloan and higher redshift surveys, etc., is that the paradigm appears to hold: a hot Big Bang, with an almost perfect $`T_\gamma =2.725\pm 0.001`$K blackbody spectrum that must have come to us from beyond the most distance SZ cluster, $`z\mathrm{}>1`$. That $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ is significantly positive at $`\mathrm{}1000`$ argues against a large $`\mathrm{exp}[2\tau _C]`$ damping multiplier, where $`\tau _C0.1(\omega _b/0.02)(\omega _m/0.15)^{1/2}((1+z_{reh})/15)^{3/2}`$ is the Thompson optical depth to the epoch $`z_{reh}`$ of reheating. Thus, though much pregalactic energy injection at $`z200`$ is still possible, it does not look like it. The FIRAS limit of $`4\overline{y}<10^4`$ on fractional energy input into the CMB from the lack of a Compton cooling spectral $`y`$-distortion further implies no large entropy injection could have occurred at lower $`z`$ into the gas, strongly limiting the role explosions can have had in LSS development. The beautful direct connection of the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ fluctuations to the density amplitudes now – on the same spatial scales – strongly support the gravitational instability picture of structure formation. That it forms hierarchically, from small to big, is of course obvious from LSS observations at various redshifts, but $`n_s1`$ from the CMB adds further positive support.

The primary CMB fluctuations are quite Gaussian, according to COBE, Maxima, and now Boomerang analyses. A non-Gaussian component, possibly subdominant, of the primordial fluctuations can still work, but it is encouraging for inflationists where Gaussian statistics are the natural (but not only) outcome. Cosmic defect and cosmic string models of structure formation are more challenged by the peaks and dips of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$, which are very difficult to get, than by the Gaussianity.

We know the gravitational instability of a hierarchical Gaussian random density field leads naturally to the cosmic web interconnections and the prevalence of superclustering that we seem to find observationally at low and high redshifts — a framework for thinking about the cluster/group system that was a main theme of TAW8. The web consists of massive clusters with overdensities $`\delta \mathrm{}>100`$, filaments with $`\delta 510`$, which bridge massive clusters, groups which bead the bridges, membranes with $`\delta 2`$ which join the filaments, and the voids with $`\delta <0`$ dominating the space but not the mass. This picture is of course borne out by all the large simulations reported at TAW8, sizes ranging from $`128^3`$ for a “Schrodinger equation” cosmological calculation to $`256^3`$ and even $`512^3`$ for hydro and $`N`$-body, and to $`1000^3`$ for $`N`$-body. Just a decade ago, a $`128^3`$ $`N`$-body was a tour de force. We also heard much about semi-analytic methods in many different guises that fit into this web picture, the halo model and the peak-patch model with clustering included in both, and of course many variants of Press-Schechter-ism.

## 2. Using the Cluster/Group System and LSS to Probe a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ U

Determining the dark energy EOS is the new mantra for the empirical component of our subject, and because it turns out that CMB cannot determine it by itself (unavoidable near-degeneracies exist among cosmological parameters, $`w_Q`$ in particular), it will keep all cosmic probers in business, probably for a very long time, all in the cause of “breaking degeneracies”, an oft-repeated phrase at TAW8. No longer will the target be whether it is curvature energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that makes up the deficit between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and unity, rather it is the much subtler and harder EOS (and more refined) dynamics that we must use our probes to determine. High redshift supernovae, to be sure, will be used in large surveys, but also: weak lensing of large scale structure and cluster abundances as a function of redshift, informed by Sunyaev-Zeldovich, optical, X-ray and lensing surveys, possibly group and galaxy evolution, i.e., the themes and ambitious plans expressed at TAW8. And though we know the sad history of how the classic grand cosmological tests of the deceleration parameter ran afoul of whether it is the “messy astrophysics of complex evolving objects” or “cosmology”, we have little choice but to understand our systems well enough so they too can become parameter-estimation tools. How else but through astronomy can we learn about perhaps the greatest mystery in all of physics?

Clusters are Not Simple: When the differences we were going for were vast (cluster abundances as a function of redshift for $`\tau `$CDM or sCDM cf. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, given normalization to clusters now), one could be slightly cavalier about the complexity of clusters – the deepest potential wells in the known universe, nice equilibrium systems. That is, theoretical naivete could be forgiven. Even the use of the Press-Schechter mass functions, $`\beta `$-models, isothermality, spherical profiles, single-phase assumptions, ignoring the known complications of magnetic fields, cooling flows, metal/energy injections, and the emerging complications revealed by the new Chandra and XMM data, could be forgiven as long as great accuracy was not claimed.

I believe success in the dark energy EOS enterprise using clusters is possible, for many reasons in evidence at TAW8: the X/optical/lensing/SZ cluster information here now and planned; the overwhelming avalanche of high quality survey data to come, terapixels-worth; the ambitious theoretical work using hydrodynamics, N-body, analytic and semi-analytic tools being undertaken to understand the data and also forecast and prepare for future experiments; the computing horsepower that promises Monte Carlo simulation to take theory fully forward into the observational space – with theorists becoming fully integrating into the experimental/observational teams; and especially with the energetic young researchers avidly embracing the complexity.

On the other hand, clusters in the X-ray at higher resolution do not look simple, red galaxy numbers per cluster mass must fluctuate, merging at $`z1`$ will be ubiquitous, so equilibrium may not prevail, especially in the most interesting objects that catch our various “eyes”.

Some Clusters May Not Be Too Complex: Armed with all of the probes and surveys at our disposal, we should be able to select physically-understood cluster subsamples for which we can be reasonably sure that the cosmic parameters we deliver will be with calculable systematic errors and no bias in value, not just with the small statistical errors that naive theory forecasts. Of course this is preaching to the converted. Given the range of talks at TAW8, almost all terrain we need to cover was covered at some level:

* Metals in the intracluster/intragroup medium, and in the higher $`z`$ intergalactic medium ($`\mathrm{}<20\%`$ apparently affected at $`z3`$), relating to, but far from solving, the major issue of energy injection into these media.
* Filaments may be more SZ-observable if the energy injection is strong. Related questions of the effects feedback has on group and cluster gas probes as a function of redshift remain unanswered.
* Great plans for SZ-interferometer surveys: AMiBA is developing MMIC HEMTs at 90 Ghz, novel correlators, platform, etc. with survey plans to probe deep, medium and shallow, with coverage 3, 70 and 175 sq deg. The CARMA integration of the BIMA and the OVRO mm arrays, both of which have had a spectacular history already in SZ science, the CBI, targeting $`z<0.1`$ clusters, the SZA at 30 GHz, AMI at 15 GHz and MINT at 140 GHz will all considerably enhance the SZ effort.
* Great plans for bolometer-based surveys: the CSO with BOLOCAM on Mauna Kea soon to observe, ACBAR at the South Pole already observing, SuZIE of course, the LMT (large mm telescope) in Mexico, eventually Planck. There is much excitement about bolometer arrays on ground-based $`6m`$ telescopes, e.g., the ACT proposal for 3 32x32 pixel bolometer arrays delivering $`1.7^{}`$ resolution.
* Progress in analysis pipelines for of all of the different types of data that is coming, though much remains to do. For SZ, component signal separation and source identifications are crucial. It is ironic that the primary CMB, so long our target, is a nuisance confusion to be filtered out. For optical spectra, Principal Component Analysis was effectively used. Only 3 eigenmodes describing old, field and post-Star-Formation spectra were needed, and helped clarify cluster gradients and the Butcher/Oemler effect.
* The intense work in the optical on clusters and groups, both for specific objects and in heroic surveys. The now venerable CNOC1,2. The 100 sq deg “Red Sequence Cluster Survey”, with its 22 patches of 5 sq deg, can deliver optically-identified clusters in abundance: 200 at $`z>1`$, 500 at $`z>0.7`$, 2700 at $`z>0.4`$. More ambitious areas are planned: RCS2’s 1000 sq deg; VISTA’s 10000 sq deg; Megacam on CFHT 9 sq deg/night, applied to the CFH Legacy Survey. By contrast, SDSS though wide is relatively shallow, with the clusters dying off above $`z0.5`$. The 130 sq deg Las Campanas survey used a 1 m telescope to get clusters in the $`0.35<z<0.9`$, with extensive follow-up, with application to the key LSS cluster clustering $`r_0d_c`$ figure.
* Groups of $`10^{1314}M_{}`$ and poor clusters are such a mix, making detection ambiguous, prone to superposition. Still, they are the rms objects in the universe, so we must understand them, and there is some progress there on selected populations.
* The new substantive X-ray luminosity functions at different redshifts, BCS, ROSSI, REPLEX, EMSS, SHARC, NEP, MACS – do I have them all? – giving a consistent picture it seems. Would that the relation of $`L_X`$ to mass was simple, $`n(T_X)`$ much preferred, of course, but the clusters that can be used are still small in number. Still, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM concordance model seems to work yet again.
* The X-ray studies of individual clusters revealing finer detail (subarcserc resolution for Chandra) and complexity in the intracluster medium (temperature inhomogeneity, “cold fronts” et al., and, as in all such meetings, cooling flows). Can we cosmic hydro simulators handle this richness of detail?
* The beautiful lensing mass maps of individual clusters, and a supercluster example, and the amazing strongly-lensed clusters with powerful and multiple arcs at high $`z`$; and galaxy-galaxy lensing too.
* The weak-lensing probe of LSS a tool to get beyond galaxy biasing to the mass density power spectrum, and through that and higher order non-Gaussian statistics, to cosmic parameters, including $`w_Q`$.
* The heavy use of new instruments (Subaru figured prominently here, as of course did Chandra and XMM), the use of venerable telescopes, sometimes newly instrumented (optical surveys at CFHT, CTIO, etc.), and an imaginative panoramic optical imager, an array of small telescopes for weak lensing and other mappings.

## 3. The Primary CMB Snapshot and the Race to Polarization

### 3.1. The Recent Primary CMB Experiments

Fig. 1 gives the current snapshot of our knowledge of the power spectrum $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)|(\mathrm{\Delta }T)_\mathrm{}m|^2/(2\pi )`$ as a function of multipole $`\mathrm{}`$ in a spherical harmonic expansion $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T)_\mathrm{}m`$ of primary total temperature anisotropies. All published CMB experimental results as of Fall 2001, including their quoted calibration and beam errors, are compressed into 22 bandpowers:

* BOOMERanG-98, a long duration balloon (LDB) experiment took a 1.2m telescope aloft from McMurdo Bay in Antarctica in late Dec 1998 with 16 bolometers cooled to 300 mK at frequencies 90, 150, 220 and the dust-dominated 400 GHz. It circled the Pole for 10.6 days, mapping 1800 sq degs with a best resolution of $`10.7^{}`$ (Gaussian $`\mathrm{}_s750`$). For April’01 (the results shown here), 800 sq deg and four of five 150 GHz bolometers were used, about eight times more data than was used for April’00. We are now analyzing $`1300`$ sq degs with $`3.5^{}`$ pixels. A 10% calibration and a 13% beam uncertainty must be included.
* MAXIMA-I, a short duration (overnight) balloon, used bolometers cooled to 100 mK to map 124 sq deg to $`10^{}`$. There was a 4% calibration and a 5% beam uncertainty.
* DASI, the South-Pole-based 13 element (0.2m antennae) Degree Angular Scale Interferometer with 30 GHz HEMTs, mapped 288 sq deg in 32 fields of 3.4 deg diameter over the $`\mathrm{}`$-range 100-900. There was a 4% calibration uncertainty, but none in the beam.
* CBI, the Chile-based 13 element (0.9m dish) Cosmic Background Imager interferometer with 30 GHz HEMTs, has mapped three 10 sq deg mosaic regions and three 0.44 sq deg deep fields in 2000-01, probing from $`\mathrm{}300`$ up to $`4000`$, i.e., well beyond the Boomerang range into the “damping tail”. There was a 3% calibration uncertainty, but again none in the beam. CBI2 denotes the Nov’00 CBI bandpowers that used two of the deep fields and only 5% of the total data in the analysis. The CBI team is collaborating with our group at CITA in a much more extensive analysis of the year-2000 CBI mosaic and deep field data, which will significantly sharpen the focus in the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}>1000`$ regime ($``$ Jan’02 release).
* Boom-97, the North American test flight.
* TOCO, a Chile-based telescope which used SIS as well as HEMT receivers.
* COBE-DMR, with resolution $`\mathrm{}_s17`$.
* April’99: 19 other earlier CMB experiments” that had bandpowers (or upper limits) we were using by April 99. “prior CMB” or “pre” adds TOCO and Boom-97 to the mix, i.e., all CMB data before the April’00 Boomerang release.

The band positions and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$=50 widths were chosen to be those of the April’01 Boomerang release (Netterfield et al., 2001), except a narrower first bin ($`3<\mathrm{}<25`$) was added to encompass the COBE DMR results and the $`\mathrm{}>1025`$ region beyond the Boomerang range, but encompassing CBI2, is much wider ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$=500).

### 3.2. More on the Cast of Cosmic Parameters

It has long been recognized that the measurement of the predicted $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures such as peaks and dips and damping tails could determine cosmic parameters. The “minimal” set $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot},\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{hdm}h^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{wdm}h^2,n_s,\sigma _8,\tau _C\}`$ defined an operative parameter space including hot, warm or cold dark matter, as well as baryonic, from 1982 onwards. (We now prefer to use $`\omega _j\mathrm{\Omega }_jh^2`$ because it is related to the physical density rather than a ratio to the critical density.) A target (scalar) spectral index $`n_s`$ was the Harrison-Zeldovich-Peebles 1, but even in 1982, nearly scale invariant emerged, with the tilt $`n_s1`$ near to unity. Cosmologists treated it as a free parameter. We parameterized the power amplitude in initial mass density fluctuations by a “galaxy biasing factor” that was almost exactly $`\sigma _8^1`$; $`\sigma _8`$ became the more widely adopted normalizer in 1985. Whether there was early reheating, embodied in $`\tau _C`$, has always been a question.

The ancient $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, never as abhorent to cosmologists as it was to particle physicists, was resurrected in the mid-80s under the “what you see is what you get” mantra that Jim Peebles chanted for us based on the annoying ubiquity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<1`$. For me it came into sharp focus in 1986, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was one of the ways within the inflation paradigm to help explain the large scale power first seen in cluster clustering, then in velocity flows, then in galaxy clustering. In response, we were actively considering $`x`$CDM models that were: open (oCDM); hot/cold hybrids; high in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (BCDM); radically “broken scale invariance” cases, with hills and/or valleys in $`n_s(k)`$; tilted ($`n_s0.6`$); high in the density of relativistic decay products of decaying keV-level neutrinos ($`\tau `$CDM); isocurvature, from quantum noise in scalar fields other than the inflaton; adiabatic/isocurvature hybrids. Even the venerable isocurvature baryon-dominated model of the 70s, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}<1`$ and $`n_s`$ far from scale invariance, was resurrected, again by Peebles.

In the mid-80s, it was also recognized that tensor modes in the temperature fluctuations driven by gravitational wave zero-point fluctuations are a natural consequence of inflation, expanding the parameter space to include a relative tensor-to-scalar power $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{ts}`$, and a tilt $`n_t`$ independent of $`n_s`$.

In the late-90s, in response to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mystery, the EOS parameter $`w_Q`$ was added, and sometimes so was $`\dot{w}_Q`$, a measure of its time variation.

### 3.3. Zeroing in on the Cosmological Parameters

Fig. 2 shows what happens to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ and $`n_s`$ in the parameter space described below as results from the Sec. 3.1. CMB experiments are added to LSS information on $`\sigma _8`$ (as estimated from cluster abundances) and a density power spectrum shape/tilt parameter $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }+(n_s1)/2]`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }_mh`$ (as estimated from large galaxy clustering surveys). The distributions in both these LSS parameters were taken to be quite broad, reflecting our desire to be uncontroversial among LSS practitioners. To this “LSS prior” probability, a “weakH prior” was imposed, requiring that the Hubble parameter and age of the universe satisfy $`0.45<h<0.9`$ and $`t_0>10`$ Gyr. Given the emerging CMB localization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}`$ near unity, and the “inflationist’s theoretical prior” of penalizing the baroqueness which large mean curvature models with non-negligible $`|1\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}|`$ suffer from, a “flatU prior” is adopted in 3 of the 4 panels (although it only makes a notable difference in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ panel). The innermost (filled) $`2\sigma `$ contour of Fig. 2 adds a “SN1a prior” to weakH+LSS, using the likelihood function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ space derived from the high redshift Supernova 1a data.

With just the COBE-DMR+LSS data, the 2-$`\sigma `$ contours already localize in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ thanks to LSS. Fig. 2 shows there is also some localization of $`n_s`$ around unity, and this is true even without the LSS prior. Although the April’99 data collectively shows evidence for a peak, it is not well enough localized for a useful curvature constraint. The picture begins to improve later in 1999, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ localizing near zero when TOCO is added to the April’99 data. In April’00, results from the first CMB LDB flight, Boomerang, were announced, followed by those from Maxima, then the first CBI results in Nov’00. In April’01, Boomerang and DASI announced compatible power spectra, and Maxima improved its power spectrum with finer pixelization. Fig. 2 looks nearly identical if only Boomerang+DMR are used for the CMB experiments, and DASI+DMR also looks very similar, except $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$ is not quite as localized. $`\omega _b`$, $`\omega _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ really focus in with Boomerang.

The data therefore favour the simplest (least baroque) inflation theories: nearly flat, nearly scale invariant primordial fluctuations nothing on gravitational waves yet. The baryon density is nearly the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis value. CMB+LSS implies there is substantial dark matter and dark energy. As well, there are derived quantities we can get: Hubble constant ($`56\pm 9`$) and age ($`15\pm 2`$ Gyr) are consistent ($`62\pm 6`$, $`14\pm 1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$). It is interesting to note that LSS data and CMB data are independently pointing to some of the same values. For example, the 2dF survey finds $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh=0.20\pm .03`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.15\pm .07`$ cf. our $`0.21\pm .05,0.14\pm .03`$. If a light massive neutrino is added (H$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models), CMB does not discriminate, and CMB+LSS just shifts things to slightly lower but still nonzero $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, to actually find evidence for or against at this stage, one needs LSS+CMB+SN1 to discriminate.

For the Quintessence EOS, we have found $`w_Q<0.3`$ at $`2\sigma `$ for the CMB with the LSS+flatU+weakH priors. It is only when the SN1 prior is included that the $`w_Q`$ constraint, $`<0.7`$, becomes rather restrictive.

We are only at the beginning of the high precision CMB era. The bolometer-based ACBAR and the Arkeops and Tophat LDBs already have data, as does the HEMT-based interferometer VSA (Very Small Array) in Tenerife. CBI and DASI continue to accumulate data. And NASA launched the all-sky HEMT-based MAP satellite on June 30, 2001, with $`12^{}`$ resolution. It is now mapping the sky at L2, the second Lagrangian point of the earth moon system some 1.5 million km away. Further downstream, in 2007, ESA will launch the bolometer+HEMT-based Planck satellite, with $`5^{}`$ resolution.

How many independent cosmic parameter combinations can be measured with the CMB now? Four linear combos were forecasted to be determined to $`\pm 0.1`$ for Boomerang, and this is the result obtained in the analysis of the real data. Adding the LSS-prior brought a 5th into this precision level. Our future involves the precision that all-sky mapping can give: for prior-less CMB-only, 6/9 to $`\pm `$ .1 , 3/9 to $`\pm `$ .01 for MAP, 7/9 to $`\pm `$ .1, 5/9 to $`\pm `$ .01 for Planck. ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hdm}h^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{ts}`$ are now added to our basic mix of 7).

### 3.4. Running or Planned Polarization Experiments

Given the total $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ of Fig. 1, we can forecast what the polarization signal and its cross-correlation with the total anisotropy will be, and which $`\mathrm{}`$ range gives the maximum signal: $`5\mu `$K over $`\mathrm{}4001600`$ is a target for the $`E`$-mode that scalar fluctuations give. We cannot yet forecast the strength of the $`B`$-mode signal induced by gravity waves, since there is as yet no evidence for or against them in the data. However, the amplitude would be very small indeed even at $`\mathrm{}100`$ where it is biggest: for now, detection is what theorists’ dream of, because it would tell us so much about inflation, but we have great faith in the ingenuity of the experimentalists.

A great race is on to first detect the $`E`$-mode: bets on which team? The experiments discussed at TAW8, and listed in the abstract, range from many degrees to subarcminute scales. The PIQUE 95% CL upper limit of 14 $`\mu `$K at $`\mathrm{}210`$ and the similar ATCA limit (but at $`\mathrm{}4500`$) are still well above the forecast, but we are getting there.

The target $`\mathrm{}`$ range and amplitude of the forecasts has, of course, not escaped the notice of experimental designers;, e.g., AMiBA, CBI with HEMTs, ACBAR, Boomerang-2K2, and eventually QUEST and Planck, of course, with polarization-sensitive bolometers, can all probe this range. Not surprisingly, the forecasts show a solid detection is likely for many of the proposed experiments, often with enough well-determined broad-band powers to use the results for cosmology. Since polarization is such a necessary outcome of the adiabatic paradigm, the implications will be enormous (and exciting) if it fails to be there.

What about the competition from foreground and secondary polarization? For the SZ secondary, the contribution is small, but for Galactic foregrounds it could be large – not enough is known about them at the CMB observing frequencies. If we can unravel the signals that make it up the detections, the primary polarization will come into its own to augment total anisotropy in cosmic parameter estimation. It can break parameter degeneracies, e.g., those associated with allowing $`n_s(k)`$ structure, by using the shift in the polarization $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ peaks and dips relative to those for the total anisotropy.

The quest for the polarization signal is sufficiently exciting that the adventure travel offered, to the Atacama desert where the CBI is (and ALMA will be), to the South Pole for a winter-over, to Hawaii or California, is a bonus.

#### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank my fellow CITAzen CMBologists and other Boomerang and CBI team members for an amazing trek over the past few years as the ups and downs of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}`$ have been progressively revealed.

Thanks from all of us to Lin-Wen, Jackie, Jean et al., for a great job of organizing us and to Fred and Pauchy for bringing us here. The hospitality, the city/mountain split venue, the cuisine, and the science, were all tremendous. Congratulations on the wonderful growth of effort in Taiwan associated with CosPA. We look forward to AMiBA science, and the many opportunites for the further meetings it will precipitate in our fast advancing subject.

## References

prior-CMB: Miller, A.D. et al., 1999, ApJ Lett 524, L1 \[TOCO\]; Mauskopf, P. et al., 2000, ApJ Lett 536, L59 \[Boom-97\]; Bond, J.R., Jaffe, A.H., & Knox, L. 2000, ApJ, 533, 19 \[April’99 refs.\]

April’00: de Bernardis, P. et al., 2000, Nature 404, 995 \[Boom’00\]; Lange, A. et al., 2001, PRD, 63, 042001 \[LSS-prior\]; Hanany, S. et al., 2000, ApJ Lett 545, 5 \[Maxima’00\]; Jaffe, A. et al., 2001, PRL 86, 3475, astro-ph/0007333; Bond, J.R. et al., 2000, Proc. Neutrino 2000, astro-ph/0011377 \[$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hdm}/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$\], Proc. CAPP 2000, astro-ph/0011379 \[$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$-$`w_Q`$\]

Nov’00: Padin, S. et al., 2001, ApJ Lett 549, 1 \[CBI2\]

April’01: Netterfield, B. et al., 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0104460 \[Boom’01\]; de Bernardis, P. et al., 2001, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0105296 \[Boom-pks\]; $`\{`$Leitch, E.M. et al., Halverson, N.W. et al., Pryke, C. et al., $`\}`$ 2001, astro-ph/$`\{`$ 0104488, 0104489, 0104490$`\}`$ \[DASI\]; $`\{`$Lee, A.T. et al., Stompor, R. et al., $`\}`$ 2001, astro-ph/$`\{`$0104459, 0105062$`\}`$ \[Maxima’01\]


format: text

text:
# Probing supernova physics with neutrino oscillations

## I Introduction

The historical observation of neutrinos from the supernova (SN) 1987A at the Kamiokande  and IMB  detectors had a great impact and confirmed the basic picture of stellar collapse and SN explosion . However, the number of observed events was too small to draw definite conclusions about the explosion mechanism or detailed properties of SN neutrinos. Hopefully, the next SN in our galaxy will be detected by several massive neutrino detectors, currently operating or planned. Such observations of neutrinos from a galactic SN should provide us a far more detailed information on properties of SN neutrinos, as well as the newly formed neutron star, thus bringing substantial progress to our understanding of stellar collapse.

The discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations at Super-Kamiokande (SK)  implies that neutrinos have masses and different neutrino flavors mix, and it is supported by the results from the first long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment, K2K . Moreover, a clear evidence for solar neutrino oscillations into mu/tau neutrinos has been obtained by combining the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) charged current (CC) measurement  with elastic scattering measurement at SK  and the most recent in situ CC and neutral current (NC) measurements at SNO .

Neutrino oscillations add a new “complication” to the diagnostics of SN neutrinos, since it is no longer true that a neutrino $`\nu _\alpha `$ leaving the neutrinosphere with definite flavor $`\alpha `$ will be detected on Earth as the same neutrino species. Then, the task of extracting information such as the original of neutrino spectra in the SN core from terrestrial observations, requires solving an “inverse problem”.

In this letter, we point out that rather than a “complication” the neutrino oscillation provides a new powerful tool for probing otherwise inaccessible features of SN neutrino spectra. This holds if the mixing angle responsible for the solar neutrino oscillation is large  as clearly indicated by the current solar neutrino data.

We show that a high statistics observation of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ through the CC reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$ will enable us to extract not only the original temperature of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ but also that of $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$ at the neutrinosphere, as well as their time integrated luminosities. In order to determine these parameters we employ a $`\chi ^2`$ method to “separate” two different neutrino spectra at the neutrinosphere with different temperatures and luminosities. Hereafter we use a collective notation $`\nu _x`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_x`$) for $`\nu _{\mu (\tau )}`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$) because they cannot be distinguished by their physical properties inside the SN.

We focus on $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ observation for the following reasons: (i) this is expected to be the channel with highest statistics in a large water Cerenkov detectors such as SK, Hyper-Kamiokande (HK) or UNO detectors, which are under consideration . Neutrinos from a galactic SN at 10 kpc would produce 7000-10000 events at SK and 2-3 $`\times 10^5`$ events at HK . (ii) the large solar neutrino mixing angle necessarily implies that the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum observed at the Earth is a strong mixture of two originally different SN neutrino spectra of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. This fact has been used to derive various constraints on neutrino mixing parameters . Complementary information may be obtained also through direct detection of $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ through the NC reaction either at SNO or KamLAND .

In addition to generic features of SN neutrino spectra obtained in SN simulations  we will take into account some new features indicated by recent studies. Most importantly, they include a new parameter which characterize the departure from the equipartition of integrated luminosities to electron and other flavor neutrinos, the quantity of greatest uncertainty in SN simulations. (See below.)

## II Supernova neutrinos; basic properties

We now briefly summarize the features of neutrino spectra relevant for our work. In a SN explosion driven by gravitational collapse, about 99 % of the total binding energy of the neutron star, $`E_b3\times 10^{53}`$ erg, is released in the form of neutrinos during the first $`10`$ seconds after the onset of core collapse. It is well known that the time-dependent energy spectrum of each neutrino species can be approximated by a “pinched” Fermi-Dirac (FD) distribution . In this work, we assume that the time-integrated spectra can also be well approximated by the pinched FD distributions with an effective degeneracy parameter $`\eta `$

$$f(E)\frac{E^2}{e^{E/T\eta }+1},$$
(1)
where $`E`$ denotes the neutrino energy, and $`T`$ the effective temperature. We have checked the validity of this approximation by using results of 20 $`M_{}`$ simulation by Mayle and Wilson ; we take in our analysis $`\eta =2.6`$ and $`\eta =0`$ for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$, respectively, which reproduce well the time-integrated spectra.

Because of the hierarchy in strength of interactions with the surrounding matter neutrino temperatures obey $`T_{\nu _e}<T_{\overline{\nu }_e}<T_{\nu _x}T_{\overline{\nu }_x}`$ as confirmed by various SN simulations. Typical values of the average energies of the time-integrated neutrino spectra obtained are $`E_{\nu _e}12`$ MeV, $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}15`$ MeV and $`E_{\nu _x}E_{\overline{\nu }_x}24`$ MeV. We introduce, for later use, a new parameter $`\tau _E`$ which is defined as the ratio of the average energies of the time-integrated neutrino spectra,

$$\tau _E\frac{E_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }}{E_{\overline{\nu }_e}}.$$
(2)
SN simulations indicate $`\tau _E1.252.0`$.

Recent studies and SN simulations indicate various new features which were not taken into account in previous studies. There are three effects at least. The first is the possibility of a gross violation of equality in integrated luminosities of $`\nu _e/\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _x/\overline{\nu }_x`$ by up to $`50`$ % . The second is a violation of equality of physical properties of $`\nu _x`$ to $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ due to the effects of weak magnetism . The third is possible difference in integrated luminosity between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _e`$ .

The actual situation regarding violation of equipartition can be less dramatic since the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}`$ annihilation process enhances the $`\nu _x`$/$`\overline{\nu }_x`$ luminosity, as recently shown by Buras et al. . However, we prefer to introduce a free fit parameter $`\xi `$ defined as a ratio of integrated luminosities of $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$;

$$\xi \frac{E_{\overline{\nu }_x}^{tot}}{E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{tot}},$$
(3)
where $`E_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }^{tot}L_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }𝑑t`$ and $`\xi =1`$ in the equipartition limit. It quantifies the departure from equipartition of integrated luminosities to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. On the other hand, we ignore the latter two effects in this paper. We feel that taking into account the uncertainly in $`\xi `$ gives us a reasonable framework at least as a first approximation; the other effects are not very sizable, $`<10`$ %, and may cancel with each other, e.g., effects of  and  on temperatures of $`\nu _x`$ to $`\overline{\nu }_x`$. Therefore, we treat $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{tot}`$, $`T_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$, $`E_{\nu _x}^{tot}=E_{\overline{\nu }_x}^{tot}`$, and $`T_{\nu _x}=T_{\overline{\nu }_x}`$ as free fit parameters.

## III Analysis method

Taking the best-fit values of mixing parameters from the latest analysis of the solar neutrino data , we compute the conversion probability for $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_x`$ oscillations in the SN envelope, following the prescription in Ref. , assuming an approximate power-law density profile, $`\rho (r)r^3`$. For simplicity, we neglect possible Earth matter effects  which will depend on the location of the detectors. In the context of three-neutrino flavor mixing, our treatment applies to the normal mass ordering ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2>0`$) and the inverted mass ordering ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2<0`$) with non-adiabatic high-density resonance , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ denotes the atmospheric neutrino mass squared difference. Further implications of our proposal for the case of generic three flavor mixing will be given in Ref. .

We take, for definiteness, the SK and the HK detectors and assume their fiducial volumes as 32 kton and 1 Mton, respectively. We assume $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s will come from a galactic SN located at 10 kpc from the Earth. We only consider $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ CC reaction on proton and neglect contribution from $`\nu _\alpha e`$ elastic scattering and CC reactions on oxygen in our analysis. It should give a good approximation because these processes have very small cross sections. The effect of weak magnetism is taken into account . Without knowing the detection efficiency and energy resolution expected at HK, we assume that they are the same as those in SK and set the threshold energy to 5 MeV .

Lacking real galactic SN neutrino data at hand, we generate an artificial data set by adopting the model spectra as described before. We first define arbitrarily a set of initial values for the four relevant astrophysical SN parameters $`\alpha ^0\{E_b^0,E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0,\tau _E^0,\xi ^0\}`$ as “true values” given by nature. The data thus generated, $`N_i^{\mathrm{obs}}N_i(\alpha ^0)`$, are taken as the “observed” values. To quantify how well a single FD distribution can be discriminated from a superposition of two FD distributions we employ a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization fit in the space of four astrophysical parameters $`\alpha \{E_b,E_{\overline{\nu }_e},\tau _E,\xi \}`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ function is defined as

$$\chi ^22\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{bin}}{}}\left\{N_i(\alpha )N_i(\alpha ^0)+N_i(\alpha ^0)\mathrm{ln}[N_i(\alpha ^0)/N_i(\alpha )]\right\},$$
(4)
where $`N_{bin}=20`$. For simplicity, we present below the results obtained when event-by-event fluctuations of the artificial data set are neglected. However, we have explicitly verified that our results agree well with the ones obtained by generating 10,000 sets of Gaussian fluctuated data.

Current solar neutrino data strongly favor the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution. Therefore, we focus on the LMA solution. It also gives a conservative estimate of the oscillation effect compared to the LOW and the VAC solutions because the effect is larger for larger mixing angles.

## IV Results and discussions

We show in Fig. 1 the $`3\sigma `$ C.L. allowed parameter region obtained in the $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}\tau _E`$ and $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}E_b`$ planes for SK and HK detectors by assuming the LMA solution, taking the best-fit value for mixing angle, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta =`$ 0.42 . We also present results for the no-oscillation case for comparison. We set the initial astrophysical parameters as $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0=15`$ MeV, $`\tau _E^0`$ = 1.4, $`E_b^0=3\times 10^{53}`$ erg, and $`\xi ^0`$ = 0.5.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that we can extract the both $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ temperatures in the presence of large mixing oscillations. The accuracies we can achieve with the LMA best-fit parameters are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _E/\tau _E`$ 9 (1.5) %, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\overline{\nu }_e}/E_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ 4 (1) In contrast, in the absence of oscillation there is no sensitivity in $`E_b`$ due to the inability of determining $`\nu _x`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ luminosities. The improvement in the accuracy of the determination of these quantities for the oscillation case is remarkable, especially with HK.

Let us now examine how accurately we can determine the equipartition-violation parameter $`\xi `$ and its correlation with $`\tau _E`$ and $`E_b`$. This is shown in Fig. 2. We note that the accuracy of $`\tau _E`$ determination is remarkably good in spite of the rather poor accuracy in the knowledge of $`\xi `$. It should be noticed that Fig. 2 demonstrates that HK can do a much better job for $`\xi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi /\xi `$ 10 %. We emphasize that without having sensitivity to $`\xi `$ we can not determine $`E_b`$ in a good accuracy, as they are strongly correlated (See the right panel of Fig. 2.) We finally note that HK’s enormous sensitivity $`10`$ % may mean one could potentially examine the problem by treating accreting and thermal phase separately under the present approximations.

The negative correlation between $`\xi `$ and $`\tau _E`$ can be understood due to the fact that the effect of lowering $`\xi `$, which implies a decrease of the relative contribution of $`\overline{\nu }_x`$, can be compensated by increasing $`\tau _E`$ to keep the higher energy tail of the observed spectrum similar. On the other hand, the strong positive correlation between $`\xi `$ and $`E_b`$ just reflects the relationship $`E_b=2(1+2\xi )E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{tot}`$, which is valid under our approximation $`E_{\nu _e}^{tot}=E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{tot}`$. The correlation is robust and exists with and without oscillations as indicated in Fig. 2.

We have also examined the case of a smaller value of the initial $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ energy, $`\tau _E^0`$ = 1.25 to verify the robustness of our results. We found that although the sensitivity to $`E_b`$ determination worsens by a factor of $``$ 2, we still have a reasonable sensitivity to $`\tau _E`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _E/\tau _E`$ 14 % (2.5 % for HK), excluding the case of $`\tau _E`$ = 1 at 3 $`\sigma `$. See Ref.  for details.

We have verified that our results do not change very much even if we relax our assumptions by taking into account deviations from power-law density profile of progenitor star, or from the precise best-fit values of solar neutrino mixing parameters we have adopted. The inclusion of possible Earth matter effects for a given experiment will imply some regeneration effect. Although this will somewhat weaken our results, the effect is rather small in practice. Additional details related to the robustness of our method can be found in Ref. .

In summary, we have suggested a simple but powerful way of extracting separately the temperatures of both $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$ as well as their integrated luminosities by analyzing $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events that would be recorded by massive water Cherenkov detectors in the event of a galactic supernova explosion. In particular, an extraordinary power of megaton-class detectors (Hyper-Kamiokande or UNO) are noticed with regard to the determination of the integrated luminosities of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$ as independent fit parameters. We stress that the large mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _{\mu (\tau )}`$, which is clearly indicated by the current solar neutrino data, is essential in determining temperature as well as luminosity of $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu (\tau )}`$, and this must have more profound implications which await further investigation.

Note added:

When the first version of this paper was ready for submission to the electronic archive we became aware of the paper by Barger et al.  who pursued the similar strategy as ours. However, they do not treat the violation of equipartition of energies as a fit parameter.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank T. Totani and J. Beacom for useful correspondences. This work was supported by the European Commission under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148, by the European Science Foundation *Neutrino Astrophysics Network*, by Spanish MCyT grant PB98-0693; by the Brazilian FAPESP Foundation, and by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology grant No. 12047222. R.T. was supported by Generalitat Valenciana and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# Distant Cluster Hunting: A Comparison Between the Optical and X-ray Luminosity Functions from an Optical/X-ray Joint Survey

## 1 Introduction

X-ray and optical techniques for detecting clusters of galaxies each have their merits. Optical techniques have been in use for over four decades, and images of the optical sky are relatively inexpensive to obtain. New optical methods such as the matched-filter method (Postman et al. 1996, P96 hereafter) have allowed for automatic, uniform detection of optical overdensities of galaxies with magnitude distributions consistent with those of a typical cluster of galaxies. In the matched-filter method, fitting galaxy luminosity functions in addition to seeking overdensities of galaxies minimizes the projection effects that plagued earlier cluster cataloguing efforts. X-ray selection has the advantage of directly revealing the hot intracluster medium confined by the deep gravitational potential of the cluster. Since this emission is proportional to the gas density squared, and the X-ray sky is sparsely populated compared to the optical, X-ray detections have higher contrast and less contamination from physically unrelated systems. Early X-ray selection methods optimal for point sources (Gioia et al. 1990b) were biased somewhat towards selecting clusters with high central surface brightneses, but there are now several algorithms optimized for detecting extended sources, including wavelets and Voronoi-Tesselation Percolation methods (Rosati et al. 1995; Scharf et al. 1997).

However, X-ray and optical studies of cluster evolution have progressed along separate paths. A decade ago, optical and X-ray surveys disagreed in their assessment of the amount of evolution clusters have experienced. Optical surveys indicated very little evolution since $`z0.51`$ (Gunn, Hoessel & Oke 1986) while X-ray studies suggested modest (Gioia et al. 1990a) to strong evolution (Edge et al. 1990, later retracted in Ebeling et al. 1997). The most recent X-ray samples of clusters over a range of redshifts out to $`z0.81.2`$ suggest that the X-ray luminosity function for moderate luminosity clusters has in fact not evolved significantly since $`z0.8`$ (Borgani et al. 1999; Nichol et al. 1999; Rosati et al. 1998; Jones et al. 1998), while the most luminous (and presumably most massive) systems, such as those contained in the EMSS, may have evolved somewhat (Gioia et al. 1990a; Henry et al. 1992; Nichol et al. 1997, Vikhlinin et al. 1998, 2000; Rosati et al. 2000; Gioia et al. 2001), but the community is not unanimous on this result (e.g. Jones et al. 1998). In contrast, recent optical surveys for distant clusters continue to find very little evidence for evolution (Couch et al. 1991; P96).

In an effort to establish the common ground between X-ray and optical studies of clusters and cluster evolution, we have undertaken a joint X-ray/optical survey to detect and study clusters of galaxies, called the ROSAT Optical X-ray Survey, or ROXS. In contrast to other ROSAT PSPC serendipitous surveys (e.g. Rosati et al. 1995, Jones et al. 1998, Romer et al. 2000, Vikhlinin et al. 1998), the ROXS team optically imaged the entire central 30’ by 30’ of each field in our survey. The X-ray selection and optical selection of cluster candidates were then determined independently. In this current work, we report results on the relation between the X-ray luminosity ($`L_x`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, a measure of the cluster’s optical luminosity. The ROXS has already been used to find a potential intergalactic X-ray filament (Scharf et al. 2000.) Paper II (Donahue et al., 2001) contains the catalogues, data reduction and observational details. For this paper we scale $`H_0=75h_{75}`$ km/s/Mpc. We assume $`q_0=0.5`$ to ease comparison with earlier results.

## 2 Optical Observations and Analysis

We obtained the optical images with the prime focus camera T2KB at the Kitt Peak National Observatory 4-meter telescope March, 1996 and May, 1997. The 23 ROXS target fields were selected from a sample of archival ROSAT PSPC observations with exposure times of more than 8,000 seconds and Galactic latitude of $`>20`$ degrees. Four 900-second, 16’ by 16’ exposures were obtained through the I-band filter, to tile the central 30’ by 30’ of each ROSAT field. Our 5$`\sigma `$ detection limit of $`I_{AB}=24`$ was sufficient to detect cluster galaxies 2 magnitudes fainter than the typical unevolved first-ranked elliptical at $`z=1`$ (Postman et al. 1998). We constructed galaxy catalogs which were in turn used to build the optical cluster catalog. The matched filter method (P96), tuned to redshifts in the range $`0.2<z<1.2`$, was used to generate cluster catalogs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.1`$ intervals. Each cluster candidate is assigned a central position, radius (corresponding to the area of detection $`=\pi r^2`$), an estimated redshift, and a a detection confidence (in units of $`\sigma `$). The algorithm also estimates an effective optical luminosity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, which is the equivalent number of $`L^{}`$ galaxies in the cluster such that the optical cluster luminosity in units of solar luminosities is $`L_{cl}/L_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}L^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}10^{0.4(M_{}M_{})}`$, where $`M^{}=21.90+5\mathrm{log}h_{75}`$ in the I band (P96) and $`M_{}`$ is the absolute magnitude of the Sun. A K-correction is applied assuming a standard elliptical spectrum. For reference, a richness class 1 cluster at $`z0.7`$ has $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}=3065`$ in the I-band (P96). Additional details regarding field selection, data reduction, and catalog construction for the galaxies and optical cluster candidates can be found in Paper II.

We defined 155 optical cluster candidates in 23 30’ by 30’ fields, of which 142 satisfy a $`\sigma >3`$ criterion. We computed a $`4\sigma `$ X-ray flux detection threshold within an aperture of $`r=1^{}`$ centered on each optical candidate. We also computed the X-ray and optical selection functions for the survey (P96, Paper II).

## 3 X-ray Cluster Selection and Cross-Identification

A wavelet-based technique, described by Rosati et al. (1995), was used to create a catalog of X-ray clusters of galaxy candidates for each field observed at Kitt Peak. Several of these fields overlapped with the orginal RDCS (Rosati et al. 1995) sample, and thus the X-ray cluster candidates in many of the fields already have been confirmed and have spectroscopic redshifts. The flux limits are approximately the same as those of the RDCS ($`F_x>10^{14}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$). Fifty-seven X-ray candidate clusters and their associated X-ray parameters were found.

In order to define the optical/X-ray cross identifications we compared locations and contours of X-ray sources to contour maps of optical significance overlaid on the I-band image. Of the 57 X-ray candidates, 43 were located within our optical field of view and unobscured by scattered light or bright stars. Of the 43, 31 were visually identified with potential cluster candidates with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}=25100`$, of which 26 are very secure, with centroid separations of $`1^{}`$. Of the other 5, 3 are low-significance optical clusters ($`\sigma <3`$) which were interesting because of their potentially high redshift, and two others are more distant affiliations of sprawling optical systems with a compact X-ray candidate. The remaining 12 X-ray cluster candidates can be divided into 4 bona-fide optically faint candidates, 6 candidates with very uncertain X-ray fluxes ($`F_x/\sigma _{Fx}<3`$), one double source (likely to be two blended point sources), and one blend with the original ROSAT target. None of the optically-blank X-ray sources have yet been classified or confirmed at other wavelengths. Since the spurious fraction typical of the X-ray surveys is $`10\%`$ (Rosati et al. 1998; Vikhlinin et al 1998), $`6`$ of these sources are likely to be spurious or collections of point sources. Some of these candidates may be bonafide, albeit optically faint, high-redshift clusters. Near IR imaging might reveal such clusters. Ten X-ray candidates have confirmed spectroscopic redshifts; eight of these have estimated redshifts from the optical data that lie within $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0.1`$ of the spectroscopic redshift (Paper II). Of the 142 optically selected candidates with $`\sigma >3`$, 27 have X-ray counterparts (one has two counterparts). Up to 29 additional optical candidates have possible X-ray point-source counterparts within $`1^{}2^{}`$ which we do not use in our correlation analysis.

## 4 X-ray Luminosity ($`L_x`$) and Optical Luminosity ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$) Relationship

For a cluster in which mass traces optical light ($`M/L_{opt}`$ is constant) and the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium ($`TM^{2/3}`$), and $`L_xT^3`$ (empirical relation see e.g. David et al. 1993), we expect the X-ray luminosity to be related to the optical luminosity as $`L_xL_{opt}^2`$. The empirical relationship between a cluster’s X-ray luminosity and optical luminosity is not so well defined, in large part due to the difficulties inherent in measuring a cluster’s optical luminosity and in getting a homogeneous set of total optical luminosities for a large number of clusters. Edge & Stewart (1991) found that the bolometric X-ray luminosity of a local sample of X-ray selected clusters correlated only very roughly with Abell Number and somewhat better with Bahcall galaxy density (number of bright galaxies within $`0.5h^1`$ Mpc; 1977; 1981) for the smaller subsample (18) that had Bahcall galaxy densities. Arnaud et al.(1992) made a heroic effort to compute cluster optical luminosities at low redshift from a heterogeneous literature. The more systematic matched filter algorithm (P96) produces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, which is proportional to the estimated optical luminosity inside $`1.5h_{75}^1`$ Mpc.

We plot the the relationship between bolometric $`L_x`$ (in units of $`10^{44}h_{75}^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ for our sample of clusters of galaxies in Figure 1, including the $`4\sigma `$ upper limits for clusters for which there was no X-ray counterpart. We tested the relationship between $`L_x`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ and estimated $`z`$, including the upper limits for $`L_x`$, with a statistical procedure by Akritas & Siebert (1996) and Kembhavi, Feigelson, & Singh (1986) to test for partial correlation in the presence of censored data. Our aim was to see if $`L_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ were indeed correlated beyond the effect of $`z`$ estimates on flux-limited surveys. We found that while the correlation between $`L_x`$ and $`z`$ is fairly strong, with a Kendall $`\tau `$-coefficient of 0.6, the correlation between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ and $`z`$ is not nearly as strong, $`\tau =0.037`$, and the partial correlation of all 3 quantities is significant at the 95% level (Partial $`\tau =0.057\pm 0.019`$). The correlation between $`L_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ is $`\tau =0.0677\pm 0.019`$ (the same $`\sigma _\tau `$ for all $`\tau `$, Kembhavi et al. 1986), and thus $`L_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ are correlated at the $`3\sigma `$ level.

We roughly fit a correlation of $`\mathrm{log}L_{44}=(3.6\pm 0.7)+(1.6\pm 0.4)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}2\mathrm{log}h_{75}`$, where $`L_{44}=L_{x,bol}/10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, to the cross-identified X-ray/optical clusters using a method of bivariated correlated errors and scatter (Akritas & Bershady 1996) with bootstrap estimate of the variance, including intrinsic scatter. This fit is by no means a unique fit to the data, but it suits our purposes for the next discussion. The fit and scatter are also consistent with the upper limits, which are well mixed with the detections. The intrinsic scatter in the relation and the fit is significant.

## 5 The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ Function - X-ray Luminosity Function Comparison

We can compute the observed “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$-Function” for these data from the estimates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, the selection function (a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ and redshift), and the effective sky coverage of the survey (4.84 square degrees). The maximum search volume as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ is estimated for each cluster. (For details, see Paper II.) For a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, the $`N(>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl})`$ is the sum over all $`1/V_{max}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl})`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We plot the differential function in Figure 2, binned such that each bin but the highest contains 9 clusters. This function is consistent with that derived from the much larger sample in the Deeprange survey (Postman et al, in preparation.)

We obtain a raw estimate of $`N`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}60}`$ of $`1.3\times 10^5h_{75}^3`$ Mpc-3, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}80}`$ of $`4\times 10^6h_{75}^3`$ Mpc-3. The estimated value is consistent with the value for the Postman et al. (1996) survey at the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, ($`4_2^{+3}\times 10^6h_{75}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$). The best fit differential $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function ($`H_0=75`$, $`q_0=0.5`$) is of the form:

$$\frac{dn}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}}=n_0(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}}{40})^\alpha $$
(1)
where $`\alpha =5.3\pm 0.5`$ and $`n_0=6_1^{+3}\times 10^6h_{75}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl})^1`$. The uncertainties here do not take into account the uncertainties on the survey volume, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, or spurious fraction. Each ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, $`z`$) data point is weighted equally in the fit and the influence of the spurious fraction is minimized by fitting only those 134 cluster candidates with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}20`$ and $`\sigma 3`$.

Are the optical cluster candidates without X-ray counterparts spurious, real but X-ray faint clusters, or the high $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$-tail of the more numerous low-mass, low-$`L_x`$ X-ray clusters? We know already from spectroscopic followup of similar matched filter surveys that these clusters cannot all be spurious (Holden, et al. 1999; Adami et al 2000; Postman, Lubin & Oke 1998). We compare the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function to the X-ray luminosity function (XLF) for $`0.12.4`$ keV of the X-ray clusters of galaxies from the Brightest Cluster Survey (Ebeling et al. 1997) in order to answer this question.

A chain-rule conversion of the XLF to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function using the $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ relation fit in §3 produces a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function significantly flatter than the observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function (Figure 2). If we simultaneously fit both the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ distribution function and the $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ relation, we obtain a steeper relation where $`\mathrm{log}(L_{bol,44}h_{75}^2)=(6.9\pm 1.1)+(3.6\pm 0.8)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$, where the best-fit values of the slope and normalization are highly correlated. This relation, when used to convert the XLF to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function, results in a steeper $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function. We have also investigated the effect of a Gaussian distribution in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ with respect to $`L_x`$ for the inferred $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function. The qualitative effect of scatter is to change the normalization but not the slope of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function.

The optical matched filter method detected many more cluster candidates than did the X-ray method, at threshholds optimal for maximizing the number of cross-correlated sources (Paper II). Our analysis demonstrates that at least one of the following three assumptions is false: (a) $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}^2`$, (b) that we have accurately estimated the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ distribution function from the present dataset, and/or (c) that the X-ray luminosity function is accurately known. Of these three, (c) is most likely to be true, as several groups have obtained compatible results. The assumption (b) can be confirmed by an independent matched-filter survey (Deeprange, Postman et al. 1998). So (a) is the most likely weak link.

Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that all of the optical cluster candidates with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}>30`$ are true clusters, as long as the true $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ relation is rather steep ($`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}^{3.8\pm 0.8}`$). We do not need to assume that the optical candidates not detected in X-rays are X-ray faint yet massive clusters to explain our results here. However, if the $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ relation is indeed steeper than $`\beta =2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ is directly proportional to $`L_{opt}`$, this result implies that the mass to light ratio of clusters continues to increase with the mass of the cluster, at least into the moderate mass range explored in our sample. We note that our survey is too small to include the most massive clusters, and our estimates of $`L_x`$ and $`L_{opt}`$ are confined to the central few arcminutes of each candidate. If $`L_xM^2`$ at these mass scales, $`M/L_{opt}M^{12/\beta }`$ for the range of cluster masses in our survey ($`10^{14}10^{15}h_{75}^1M_{}`$). This weak dependence of $`M/L`$ on mass is not ruled out by existing data (e.g. Hradecky et al. 2000.)

Followup with weak lensing measurements, near-IR, and X-ray observations are essential. If the clusters are low-mass, the clusters with high $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ but low $`L_x`$ will have commensurately low X-ray temperatures. ROXS identifies optically rich examples of cluster candidates without extended X-ray counterparts for the assessment of the possible existence of optically bright but X-ray faint clusters of galaxies.

## 6 Summary

We have directly compared the results of cluster hunting with two competing methods: optical selection in the I-band, using the matched filter technique, and X-ray selection of extended sources. We have found that both methods reliably detect most of the richest, and presumably most massive systems, but the optical matched filter technique, because of the scatter and the steepness of the relation between X-ray and optical luminosities, produces more cluster candidates at our sensitivities. We present the first $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function for optically-selected clusters of galaxies. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ function is consistent with the X-ray luminosity function for clusters of galaxies if the intrinsic, global $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}L_x`$ relation is consistent with that of the cross-identified candidates. In particular, we can explain our observations without appealing to an X-ray faint population of massive clusters of galaxies.

Predictions for an observational test using deep XMM-Newton/EPIC exposures based on our result are: (1) X-ray observations of the undetected, high-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}`$ systems should detect X-rays from most of the systems with observations of only moderately increased sensitivity over the ROSAT observations, and the detected ICM will not be hot ($`T_x4`$ keV). (2) If $`L_x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cl}^{34}`$, the median predicted bolometric X-ray luminosity for the entire undetected sample is $`10^{43}h_{75}^2`$ erg s-1, so that deep XMM-Newton EPIC exposures should detect most of this population. On the other hand, significant numbers of non-detections with XMM will suggest that many of these clusters are spurious or are significantly less massive than their estimated richnesses may suggest or that there is an X-ray faint population at these mass scales. (3) The X-ray candidates which are not detected by the matched filter algorithm in the optical images will be revealed to be either false clusters of galaxies (constellations of AGN), moderately distant groups, or distant clusters of galaxies ($`z>11.2`$).


text:
# Asymptotic freedom with discrete spin variables?

## Abstract:

We study the critical behaviour of the 2d dodecahedron spin model and investigate the conjecture that the discrete model describes the same continuum theory as the O(3) non-linear sigma model. In particular, we found that the anisotropy of the magnetization $`A(z)`$ measured in a fixed physical volume decreases with increasing correlation length, at least up to $`\xi 1000`$.

conference: International Europhysics Conference on HEP

One of the most studied quantum field theories is the 2d non-linear sigma model. The lattice regularized version for the O(3) case is given by the action

$$𝒜(𝐒)=\frac{1}{g}\underset{x,\mu }{}𝐒(x)𝐒(x+\widehat{\mu })$$
(1)
where $`𝐒(x)`$ is a unit O(3) vector, $`𝐒^2(x)=1`$. The model is widely believed to be asymptotically free (AF) and to have a dynamically generated mass gap.

Here we discuss the analogous model when the spin variables are allowed to take only discrete values pointing towards the vertices of a Platonic regular solid, e.g. icosahedron (I) or dodecahedron (D). Accordingly, the symmetry of the discrete model is reduced to a discrete subgroup $`𝒟`$ of O(3) (in the actual case, to the icosahedral group with 60 elements). At small $`g`$ (low temperature) the discrete symmetry is spontaneously broken while at large $`g`$ the system is in the symmetric phase under $`𝒟`$. Numerical evidence shows that there is a second order phase transition at some $`g=g_c>0`$.

A few years ago Patrascioiu and Seiler  observed that within their statistical errors the physical results for the dodecahedron model for $`gg_c`$ are consistent with those of the O(3) model and conjectured that the two models are equivalent in the continuum limit. The authors saw this observation as an argument supporting their unorthodox view that the O(3) model is not AF.

The numerical evidence of  inspired us to study this question. In  we pointed out that the equivalence is not in contradiction with the O(3) model being AF. Of course, for the discrete model this is not a statement about the bare coupling (which goes to a non-zero constant in the continuum limit) but about some physical running coupling, say the Lüscher-Weisz-Wolff coupling $`\overline{g}(L)`$ . In  we measured the renormalized zero-momentum 4-point coupling $`g_R`$ and have found that the I and D models approach the O(3) model with increasing $`\xi `$. In that work we went up to correlation length111Here and below by $`\xi `$ we denote the infinite volume correlation length. When not measured directly it is calculated from the FSS function of . $`\xi 300`$ and reached precision of O(0.1%).

In  we also compared the finite size scaling (FSS) function of the LWW coupling in the discrete models to that of the O(3) model, with a similar conclusion.

Recently Caracciolo et al.  argued that the operator which has to be added to the O(3) action to break the original O(3) symmetry down to $`𝒟`$ is a relevant operator and concluded that the equivalence cannot hold. They suggested that the numerical evidence is misleading and the discrete model should belong to a different universality class, although they expected this to show up only at $`\xi 200`$. At this conference they have presented measurements of the FSS function and concluded that the discrete model starts to depart from the O(3), although at much larger correlation length, $`\xi 10^5`$ . We shall reflect on their arguments in the concluding section.

For the discrete models we have measured $`g_R(z)`$, the renormalized coupling at a fixed finite physical volume, $`z=L/\xi (L)`$, where $`\xi (L)`$ is the “second-moment correlation length”. Fig. 2 shows the deviation of $`g_R(z)`$ from O(3) at $`z=2.32`$ as a function of $`1/\xi (L)`$, both for the I and D case .

The FSS function $`\xi (2L)/\xi (L)`$ for the icosahedron and dodecahedron models  is shown in fig.2. Larger symbols refer to larger correlation length, the largest one being $`\xi 300`$. The O(3) curve is taken from . The comparison shows that the icosahedron and dodecahedron models approach the O(3) result with increasing correlation length. (The results for tetrahedron, octahedron and cube – not shown here – depart from it.)

The restoration of the O(3) symmetry can be tested, however, in a more direct way by measuring the direction of average magnetization in a fixed physical volume and checking whether its distribution becomes uniform in the continuum limit or still prefers the original discrete directions. To do this we introduce the quantity

$$I_n(𝐒)=c\left\{\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐑}{}(\mathrm{𝐑𝐒})^n\frac{1}{N^{}}\underset{𝐑^{}}{}(𝐑^{}𝐒)^n\right\},$$
(2)
where $`𝐒`$ is an arbitrary O(3) vector, $`𝐑`$ runs over the set of vectors of the actual discrete model, $`\{𝐑_i,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ while $`𝐑^{}`$ runs over the analogous set of the dual regular solid (i.e. the unit vectors pointing towards the face centers of the original regular solid). For example, in the case of the dodecahedron $`N=20`$ and the dual model is the icosahedron with $`N^{}=12`$. The value of $`n`$ is chosen to be the smallest integer for which $`I_n(𝐒)`$ is not identically zero. For the dodecahedron this is $`n=6`$. Obviously, the integral of $`I_n(𝐒)`$ over $`𝐒`$ is zero, and $`I_n(𝐒)`$ preserves the discrete symmetry $`𝒟`$. We fix the normalization by the condition $`I_n(𝐑)=1`$ (where $`𝐑`$ is one of the discrete directions). Up to the normalization constant our $`I_n(𝐒)`$ coincides with the one introduced by Caracciolo et al. .222Although this is not directly seen since they used a concrete representation for the discrete spin vectors.

Consider now a fixed physical volume given by $`z=L/\xi (L)`$ and define the anisotropy

$$A(z)=\frac{I_6(𝐌)}{𝐌^2^3},\mathrm{where}𝐌=\underset{x}{}𝐑(x).$$
(3)
This quantity is a direct measure of the possible restoration of the O(3) symmetry in the continuum limit. Fig. 3 shows the anisotropy $`A(z)`$ for the dodecahedron at $`z=1.888,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.668}`$ and $`1.525`$ against $`1/\xi `$. As the plot shows, $`A(z)`$ decreases with increasing $`\xi `$, at least up to our last value, $`\xi 1000`$. This means that the dodecahedron model approaches the O(3) model. If the decrease persists and $`lim_\xi \mathrm{}A(z;\xi )=0`$ then they are equivalent in the continuum limit.

Similarly to Caracciolo et al.  we also considered the mixed model

$$𝒜(𝐒)=\frac{1}{g}\underset{x,\mu }{}𝐒(x)𝐒(x+\widehat{\mu })h\underset{x}{}I_n(𝐒(x)),$$
(4)
which interpolates between the O(3) model ($`h=0`$) and the discrete model ($`h=\mathrm{}`$). Here one expects a critical line $`g_c(h)`$ connecting $`g_c(0)=0`$ with the critical point $`g_c(\mathrm{})`$ of the discrete model. For $`g<g_c(h)`$ the discrete symmetry $`𝒟`$ is spontaneously broken, while for $`g>g_c(h)`$ the system is in its symmetric phase. Since (by the standard wisdom) the correlation length at $`g>0`$, $`h=0`$ is finite, one expects that for $`hm^2(g)`$ (where $`m(g)=1/\xi (g)`$ is the inverse of the O(3) correlation length) no phase transition can occur. This is because the effect of the corresponding term on the independently fluctuating regions of size $`\xi (g)`$ is negligible. (The situation here is in sharp contrast to the O(2) case where in the massless phase an arbitrarily small external field can have a drastic effect on the system in an infinite volume.)

One can study the RG flow in the $`(g,h)`$ plane. The scenario advocated by Caracciolo et al.  means that the RG flow along the critical line $`g_c(h)`$ is upwards, towards the $`h=\mathrm{}`$ point, while if the two models are in the same universality class the flow should be directed downwards, towards $`g=h=0`$. A decisive answer would be provided by measuring the flow in the vicinity of the critical line. For example, consider a point $`(g,h)`$ corresponding to a fixed physical volume, $`z=L/\xi (L)`$ and with anisotropy $`A(z)`$. To determine the direction of the flow one has to find a point $`(g^{},h^{})`$ and size $`L^{}`$ such that $`\xi ^{}(L^{})=s\xi (L)`$, $`L^{}=sL`$ (i.e. $`z^{}=z`$) and $`A^{}(z)=A(z)`$, with a scale factor $`s<1`$. At present we have data only for a few points, with $`s=1/2`$, at $`z1.9`$. The matching pairs $`(g,h)(g^{},h^{})`$ are shown in fig. 4 where the values of $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are also indicated. Accordingly, our largest correlation length was $`\xi (L)60`$ which corresponds to $`\xi 130`$. (The dashed line representing $`g_c(h)`$ is drawn in an ad hoc way, the value $`\beta _c(\mathrm{})=1/g_c(\mathrm{})2.15`$ is taken from .) The pattern in fig. 4 suggests a downwards flow, but one would need points at larger correlation length to get a convincing answer.

Now we would like to discuss the scenario suggested by Caracciolo et al.. They expand the correlation functions (defined in a finite $`L\times L`$ volume) in double power series in $`g`$ and $`h`$. Although the coefficients of this expansion diverge as $`L\mathrm{}`$ the functions appearing in the corresponding RG equation stay finite in this limit. The assumption they implicitly make is that the RG equation obtained remains valid if both $`g`$ and $`h`$ are small enough independently. Below we shall argue that the RG flow obtained by PT is valid only in a small wedge around the $`h=0`$ axis, for $`h1/R^2`$ where $`R=\mathrm{min}\{\xi (g),L\}`$. In the extreme case of $`g=0`$, $`L=\mathrm{finite}`$ (and for simplicity with the usual magnetic field coupled to $`S_z(x)`$) one has $`S_z=1/\mathrm{tanh}(hL^2)1/(hL^2)`$. For fixed $`L`$ this has a power series expansion in $`h`$ with infrared divergent coefficients. This expansion becomes, however, invalid for $`hL^21`$ where the true answer is $`S_z11/(hL^2)`$. A similar behaviour is expected for finite $`g`$, with $`L`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{min}\{\xi (g),L\}`$. The reason for the existence of these two regimes is obvious: the system behaves differently depending on whether the external field is strong enough to keep the (independently fluctuating) regions of size $`R`$ in the preferred direction or not.

The argument given above is also valid for an $`hI_n(𝐒)`$ term in the action. There is, however, an important difference: in the latter case the remnant discrete symmetry is spontaneously broken at $`h>h_c(g)`$. This breaking is associated with tunneling between different minima of $`hI_n(𝐒)`$, i.e. the dodecahedron directions. It is quite obvious that this tunneling cannot be described by PT: one can replace $`I_n(𝐒)`$ by a function which has one single minimum in one of the preferred discrete directions and has the same perturbative expansion around this minimum as $`I_n(𝐒)`$. PT will not notice any difference between the two cases while in the second case no discrete symmetry is left hence no phase transition will occur by increasing $`h`$. Although these are only speculative arguments, we think they could be made more rigorous.

As mentioned above, in  the authors also found that the FSS function for the dodecahedron starts to show a deviation from the O(3) model at huge correlation length, $`\xi 10^5`$. Our criticism is the same as given by Patrascioiu and Seiler : 1) for $`\xi 10^5`$ and $`L=150`$ the physical size of the system is practically zero and this small distances are dominated still by cutoff effects, 2) at such huge estimated $`\xi `$ one cannot be sure that the system is in the symmetric phase.

Summarizing, we think that the spontaneous breaking of the discrete symmetry is a non-perturbative critical phenomenon, even in the vicinity of the $`g=h=0`$ point. Concerning the numerical evidence – in particular the anisotropy measurements up to $`\xi 1000`$ and the fact that in this range of $`\xi `$ Caracciolo et al. do not see either a deviation in the FSS behaviour – indicate that the dodecahedron (and the icosahedron) models describe the same continuum theory as the O(3) model. The question, however, deserves further numerical study.

The authors thank János Balog, Sergio Caracciolo, Martin Lüscher, Andrea Montanari, Andrea Pelissetto and Peter Weisz for useful discussions and correspondence. This work is supported in part by Schweizerische Nationalfonds and by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/Lattice QCD, BBW Nr. 990143.