text:
# Restrictions to the galaxy evolutionary models from the Hawaiian Deep Fields SSA13 and SSA22

## 1 Introduction

Achieving a good galactic evolutionary model is one of the challenges of present astronomy. The high quality of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) data allows astronomers to study the evolution of galaxy morphology over a significant fraction of the age of the Universe, restricting the two main present theoretical frameworks of galaxy evolution: the monolithic collapse and the hierarchical clustering models.

The simplest models of galaxy evolution predict that massive elliptical galaxies formed at high redshift in a rapid collapse with a single burst of star formation (Eggen et al 1962; Larson 1975). Against this scenario, the hierarchical clustering models predict that the most massive objects form at late times via the merging of smaller subunits (White & Rees 1978; Kauffmann et al 1993). Each model has very different observational implications (e.g. Brinchmann et al 1998; Schade et al 1999; Fried et al 2001). Observational evidence has been found for both scenarios (see Schade et al 1999 and references therein), so that the dominant mechanism of galaxy evolution remains an open question.

Many attempts have been made to classify galaxies on HST deep images. Two families of methods are currently used: visual and automated classifications. Among visual classifications we mention analysis done by van der Bergh et al (1996, 2000) in the range 21$`<`$I814$`<`$25 at the Hubble Deep Field (HDF). They found that up to 30$`\%`$ of the galaxies were ellipticals, the remainder divided into 31$`\%`$ spirals and 39$`\%`$ unclassified. Possible differences in the morphologies of galaxies at high redshifts point to different the environmental conditions of these galaxies relative to the local ones. In particular, the merger rate could be very different. Le Fevre et al (1999) have found that the rate of mergers and interaction grows strongly with the redshift. Quantitative classification systems based on the study of the central concentration and asymmetry of the galaxian light (Abraham et al 1996) also obtained a high fraction of irregular and peculiar galaxies at high redshifts, finding only a 20$`\%`$ of elliptical fraction.

Most sophisticated classification systems based on the decomposition of the surface brightness profiles of galaxies into their structural components (bulge and disc mainly) have been applied during the last few years. This technique is used extensively for local galaxies (see Prieto et al 2001 and references therein) but the lower resolution at high redshift makes its application there more difficult . This quantitative classification method has the advantage that it gives information about each component of galaxies. This means that we can follow the evolution of different components (bulge and disc in spirals) as a function of redshift. Usually, it is assumed that the same type of profiles which fit the light distribution of local galaxies also describe the light distribution of galaxies at higher redshift. Typically, Sérsic r1/n profiles are fitted to the surface brightness profiles of bulges and elliptical galaxies, and exponential profiles to the discs of Spiral galaxies (Marleau & Simard 1998, Schade et al 1996, 1999).

Using this decomposition technique on the HDF, Marleau & Simard (1998) found a substantially different result from those obtained by visual classifications. They found that only 8% (versus 30% for visual classifications) of the galaxy population down to $`I_{814}(AB)=26`$ are spheroidal systems. Although quantitative methods have clear advantages over visual methods, they are not free from significant bias which affect the reliability of the physical properties obtained. In order to understand the big discrepancy pointing out in the previous analysis, it is crucial to remove the bias which are present in quantitative analysis methods.

In this paper, we examine the structural properties of the galaxies in two Hawaiian Deep Fields (SSA13 and SSA22) imaged by HST. Each of these fields is composed by 3 HST/WFPC2 fields. All the galaxies studied in these fields have spectroscopic redshifts, avoiding a strong source of uncertainty at the distance determination. Previous classification schemes of high redshift galaxies from HST images are compared with our results. In particular, we focus our attention on evaluating the number of spheroidal systems in field galaxies and on constraining the two main theoretical frameworks of galaxy evolution.

The structure of this paper is as follow: section 2 describes the characteristics of the observed fields. The structural decomposition method is presented in section 3. In section 4 we discuss the completeness of the sample and we summarize our conclusions and discuss their implications for galaxy evolution in sections 5 and 6.

## 2 The sample of galaxies

The sample consists on all objects with K$`<`$20, I$`<`$22.5 (Kron-Cousins) and B$`<`$24.5 in two areas surrounding the Hawaii deep survey fields SSA 13 and SSA 22 (Cowie et al 1994; Songaila et al 1994). Hereafter, the I magnitude will be given in the same system as in Cowie et al (1996). Nearly all objects included in those fields have measured spectra with the LRIS spectrograph on Keck (Cowie et al 1996) 111See the discussion about the different magnitudes and transformations in Cowie et al (1995). The fields were imaged during 2000 s with the WFPC2 at HST in the I814 bandpass. The total analyzed sky area was 28 arcmin2. The analyzed objects lie in the redshift interval $`[0.1,1.3]`$, mainly concentrated around $`z=0.5`$ (see Cowie et al 1996).

We used the SExtractor galaxy photometry package (Bertin & Arnouts 1996, version 2.1.4) for the extraction of the objects from the public released HST images. This package is optimized to detect and measure sources from astronomical images. The detection was run using the same parameters as in Marleau & Simard (1998). In particular, we used a detection threshold of 1.5 $`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the sky background of the images. Another important parameter is the deblending parameter. SExtractor deblends objects using multiple flux thresholding. The SExtractor deblending parameter sets the minimum fraction of the total flux a branch must contain to be considered a separate object. We have use the same value that Marleau & Simard (1998), which is 0.001.

In order to obtain a bulge+disc decomposition of the objects, we fit ellipses to their isoluminosity contours down to 1.5 $`\sigma `$ using the task ELLIPSE from IRAF. The surface brightness and ellipticity profiles obtained are used to recover the structural parameters of the galaxies.

## 3 The galaxy classification procedure

The classification technique is based on the decomposition of the surface brightness profiles of the galaxies in bulge and disc components. The fitting algorithm is discussed extensively in Trujillo et al (2001b). Here we explain the main points of the routine.

The final surface brightness distributions resulting from the convolution between the PSF and our 2D (i.e. elliptical) model surface brightness distributions are dependent on the intrinsic ellipticity of the original source - as is the case with real data. A key problem remains, which is what value of the ellipticity is choosen to represent the ellipticity of the model. The ellipticity of the isophotes are reduced by seeing. This reduction depends on the radial distance of the isophote to the center of the model, the size of the seeing, and the values of the model parameters. Consequently, to evaluate the intrinsic ellipticity of a model it is often insufficient to simply measure the ellipticity at one given radial distance (e.g. 2 effective radii). To illustrate this, the observed ellipticity at 2 re on galaxies which have an effective radius of similar size to the FWHM (these galaxies are common at high redshift) is 30% less than the true ellipticity for galaxies with an exponential profile (n=1), and 45% less for galaxies with a de Vaucouleurs profile (n=4). The use of models with underestimated ellipticity affects the evaluation of the other model parameters, biasing the results. One result of this bias is the estimation of smaller values of index n. This bias increases as the value of n increases (Trujillo et al. 2001a,c).

Consequently, the determination of the intrinsic ellipticity of the source and the fitting process to determine the structural parameters should be done in tandem (i.e. using an iterative and self-consistent routine) and not as two separate tasks. To do this we simultaneously fit both the observed surface brightness and ellipticity profiles using convolved profiles for each (see how the algorithm works in Figure 6 from Trujillo et al. 2001b).

Our 2D fitted galaxy model has two components: a bulge and a disc. The 2D bulge component is a pure Sérsic (1968) profile of the form222The surface brightness distribution are explicitily written on elliptical coordinates ($`\xi ,\theta `$) (Trujillo et al. 2001a).:

$$I(\xi )=I_e10^{b_n[(\xi /r_e)^{1/n}1]}$$
(1)
where $`I_e`$ is the effective intensity, $`r_e`$ is the bulge effective radius and $`b_n=0.868n0.142`$ (Caon et al 1993). The disc component is an exponential profile given by:

$$I(\xi )=I_oe^{\xi /h}$$
(2)
where $`I_o`$ is the central intensity and $`h`$ is the exponential disc scale-length. The set of free parameters is completed with the ellipticities of the bulge $`ϵ_b`$ and the disc $`ϵ_d`$. The bulge and disc profiles were convolved with the instrumental PSF of the HST obtained from stellar profiles located on the images. Special attention was paid to this convolution. The real PSFs were fitted by Moffat functions and the convolutions were developed analytically on real space. Also, to avoid the problem of the undersampling of the PSF we average different stellar profiles obtaining a composed median PSF. To this median profile we fit our analytical PSF. We have estimated a $``$5% uncertainty in the estimation of the FWHM due to changes from one WFPC2 position to another. This uncertainty implies an error on the parameters estimation less than 10%.

A Levenberg-Marquardt non–linear fitting algorithm (Press et al 1992) was used to determine the free parameters set which minimizes $`\chi ^2`$. Extensive Monte-Carlo simulations were done in order to check the reliability of the recovered parameters (see Section 4). The surface brightness profiles and ellipticity profiles of each galaxy were fitted at the same time. Each galaxy was fitted by a single Sérsic profile and a Sérsic + exponential profile.

Following previous studies (e.g. Marleau & Simard 1998), galaxy classification was based on the bulge to total luminosity ratio, $`B/T`$. We consider as “ellipticals” those objects with $`B/T>0.6`$, in which case a better fit can be obtained with only one component. The parameters of these objects were taken from the pure Sérsic fitting. Galaxies with $`B/T`$ between 0.5–0.6 were classified as S0. Finally, objects with $`B/T<0.5`$ were classified as “spirals”. We consider as “spheroidal” galaxies those with $`B/T>`$0.5 as Marleau & Simard (1998). The discrimination between the different types of galaxies was made following the values of $`B/T`$ given by Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1986). Quantitative selected ellipticals can be contaminated by galaxies such as compact narrow emission–line objects. These galaxies exhibit high bulge fractions even though they are not real ellipticals. These objects can be $``$15% of the elliptical sample (Im et al. 2001) and their presence must be taken into account at estimating the uncertainty on the ellipticals comoving density parameters333As a matter of caution we also must regard that these “interlopers” are basically placed at high redshift (z$`>`$0.8) or they are faint galaxies $`M_B<`$-18 (see Im et al. 2001 their Figure 17). For that reason, most of these galaxies are expected to be out of our studied sample..

Galaxies selected using only the $`B/T>`$0.5 criteria may not all be E/S0s, but could include later galaxy types. To quantify this bias we use the analysis performed by Im et al. (2001) for a local galaxy sample (Frei et al. 1999). Galaxies with $`T`$0 (i.e. E/S0s) represent 76% of the local sample selected using $`B/T>`$0.5. So, a contamination of $``$ 25% can be expected in the objects that we are labeling as E/S0s at high redshift. However, the contamination for objects with $`T`$0 in the objects named “spirals” (i.e. $`B/T<`$0.5) is just 8%. Some methods have been identified to remove the bias in the E/S0s selected sample with the use of red colors selected galaxies or the use of low asymmetry objects. However, the first option clearly biases the sample to objects that have a quiet evolution (and what we want is precisely study this hypothesis) and the second has been shown to be inappropriate in objects at high redshift (i.e. low S/N as our objects have) by Conselice, Bershady & Jangren (2000). Despite the known morphological type biases, due to the above reasons we have chosen to maintain the B/T selection criteria as the sole morphological selection criteria.

For the ellipticals, we have also imposed a restriction based on absolute magnitude. By doing this, we have classified a galaxy as “dwarf” when $`M_B17.0`$. The absolute magnitudes were obtained after applying the K-correction prescription of Poggianti (1997) assuming (hereafter) a cosmology with H0=75 km s-1 Mpc-1, q0=0.5, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.

Once the automated classification is done, a visual inspection was also made for each object. Some objects are not fitted well by either a pure Sérsic profile or a bulge+disc profile. They were classified as “irregular” galaxies. Those with evidence of mergers (close companions and irregular shapes) were catalogued as “mergers”. We also had 4 objects whose best fit is achieved by a pure Sérsic profile with $`n0.5`$. It is important to note that the luminosity density of a Sérsic profile with n$`<`$ 0.5 has a depression in its central part representing an unlikely physical situation (Trujillo et al 2001a). Marleau & Simard (1998) also obtained some objects of this class on the HDF images. The visual morphological shape of these objects is peculiar appearing elongated. Marleau & Simard (1998) claimed that this kind of objects could be remnants of mergers or close tidal disruptions. We have included them into the merger category.

## 4 The completeness of the sample

Since selection effects can mimic evolutionary changes in high redshift objects, it is necessary to achieve a complete unbiased sample of objects. The determination of the completeness of the sample is done in two steps. First, we determine the faintest apparent magnitude down to which the recovered parameters are reliable. In particular, we will focus on the $`B/T`$ ratio because it is the parameter used for the classification of the galaxies. We evaluated this limiting magnitude by Monte–Carlo simulations of artificial galaxies with similar magnitudes and structural parameters as the real objects. Once this magnitude is obtained, the second step for the completeness of the sample consists in determining how bright (i.e. the absolute magnitude) a galaxy has to be in order to be observed in our whole redshift interval. The limiting absolute magnitude was obtained by using typical spectra from every type of objects, which allows us to verify that we are studying the same kind of objects in all redshift intervals. Unfortunately, most previous studies of the structural properties of high redshift samples do not determine their limiting absolute magnitudes. This type of samples are obtained with only an apparent limiting magnitude, which biases the sample to the brightest objects at high redshifts. For this reason, it is necessary to use a sample cut by absolute magnitude.

### 4.1 Monte-Carlo simulations

We performed Monte–Carlo simulations to test the reliability of our method. First, we tested the ability to recover parameters from bulge–only (i.e. purely elliptical) structures, and second we explored the possibility of carrying out accurate bulge+disc decompositions. In both cases we created 150 artificial galaxies with structural parameters randomly distributed in the following ranges:

* bulge–only structures: 19$``$I$``$23, 0.05′′$``$$`r_e`$0.6′′, 0.5$`n4`$, and $`0ϵ0.6`$ (the lower limit on $`n`$ is due to the physical restrictions pointed out in Trujillo et al 2001a).
* bulge+disc structures: 18.5$``$I$``$23.5, 0.05′′$``$$`r_e`$0.6′′, 0.5$`n4`$, and $`0ϵ_b0.4`$, 0.2”$`h1.5^{\prime \prime }`$, 0$`B/T1`$, and $`0ϵ_d0.6`$.

The artificial galaxies were created by using the IRAF task MKOBJECT. We support as an input to this task the surface brightness distribution coming from our detailed convolution between the PSF and the original model. To simulate the real conditions of our observations, we added a background sky image (free of sources) taken from a piece of the real image; the dispersion in the sky determination was 0.1 %. The PSF FWHM in the simulation was set at 0.2′′ and assumed known exactly. The pixel scale of the simulation was 0.1′′, as is the real WFPC2 pixel size. The same procedure was used to process both the simulated and the actual data.

Figure 1 shows $`d(B/T)`$=$`B/T`$(measured)–$`B/T`$(input) as a function of the input magnitude. For galaxies brighter than $`I=23`$ magnitude $`d(B/T)`$ is less than 0.1. This is a very accurate determination of this parameter. Figure 2 shows $`d(B/T)`$ as a function of the $`B/T(input)`$. Objects with $`I23`$ (triangles) have bigger dispersion of $`d(B/T)`$ than objects with $`I23`$ (points). From our simulations it follows that $`I=23`$ is the limiting magnitude for reliable recover of the $`B/T`$ parameter. The limiting magnitude for the rest of structural parameters will be studied in a forth–coming paper. To our limiting apparent magnitude, the sample of galaxies is reduced to 120 galaxies. According to their $`B/T`$ ratio, absolute magnitude and visual inspection (see Section 3), they were classified as: ellipticals (26), dwarfs (6), S0 (9), irregulars (20), mergers (17) and spirals (42). This left us with $`34\%`$ spheroidal galaxies (E+Dwarfs+S0), $`35\%`$ spirals and $`31\%`$ of unclassified objects. Tables 1 and 2 show the B/T ratios (column 4) and $`M_I`$ (column 3) for the 120 galaxies with $`I23.0`$ for the SSA13 and SSA22, respectively. These tables also show the identification number (column 1) and the redshift of the objects (column 2) given by Cowie et al (1996). Galaxies classified as ellipticals and dwarfs have $`B/T=1.0`$, those classified as irregular of mergers have been marked with $`B/T=1.0`$.

### 4.2 Completeness as function of redshift

In order to be sure that we are studying the same kind of objects at different redshifts we must determine the absolute limiting magnitude of our sample. On doing this we avoid biasing our sample to brighter objects at high redshift. Some claims of galactic evolution have been a consequence of this bias. As an example, Simard et al (1999) analyzed the problem of the completeness of the sample. If selection effects were ignored in their galaxies, then the mean disc surface brightness increases by $`1.3`$ magnitudes from $`z=0.1`$ to $`z=0.9`$. Most of this evolution is plausibly due to comparing low–luminosity galaxies in nearby redshift bins to high-luminosity galaxies in distant bins. If this effect is taken into account, no discernible evolution remains in the disc surface brightness of their disk dominated galaxies. In order to avoid this kind of problem it is necessary to make a selection of the objects on the basis of their absolute luminosity.

Given our apparent limiting magnitude of $`I=23`$, we have studied the completeness of our sample for three different class of galaxies: Sa, Sc and E. Figure 3 shows, for a limiting magnitude of I=23 , the absolute magnitude down to which a galaxy can be observed as a function of $`z`$. This figure was generated using spectral models of 15 Gyr old galaxies (Poggianti 1997). For our distribution of 120 objects with $`I23`$, the parameters which maximize the number of objects into a complete sample are $`z0.8`$ and $`M_I20.0`$ ($`M_B18`$)444We have repeated this calculation with the starburst galaxy NGC4449 without finding any substantial difference.. This left us with a total of 61 objects: 20 E/S0, 25 spirals, 16 irregulars and mergers, or equivalently:$`33\%`$ E/S0 $`41\%`$ spirals and $`26\%`$ unclassified objects. Figure 4 shows the $`Mz`$ diagram for our whole sample down to $`I23`$. The complete subsample studied (left-down corner) is enclosed by the horizontal and vertical lines. This kind of selection criteria is similar to that used by Simard et al (1999) and Fried et al (2001).

## 5 Results and discussion

### 5.1 Galaxy classification

There is no substantial differences between the fraction of galaxies which correspond to the different classes when the sample is restricted in apparent and absolute magnitude. We must note that these numbers are in good agreement with the percentage of E/S0 given by visual classification systems (van den Bergh et al 1996, 2000) in the HDF, but are quite different from that given automated classification of Marleau & Simard (1998), 8%. The classification of Marleau & Simard (1998) takes into account all objects with $`I_{814}26`$ from the HDF. They claim that the discrepancy with visual classifications is due to the difference in the classification of small round galaxies with half-light radii less than 0.′′31. Visually these galaxies are classified as elliptical galaxies, Marleau & Simard classify them as disc–dominated systems with bulge fractions less than 0.5. But, galaxies with an intrinsically big $`B/T`$ tends to be systematically obtained with lower values of $`B/T`$ in their automated routine (see Fig. 10 of Marleau & Simard 1998). The ellipticals in the HDF which have been (probably) mis–classified by these authors are those principally coming from the fainter subsample. Although the relation between the $`B/T`$ output of their simulation and the input magnitude of the objects is not provided by these authors (and consequently our assertions must be taken with caution), it is certainly possible that $`B/T`$ results stronger affected at increasing the input magnitude (i.e. at lower signal ratios), and for that reason, the high redshift population of elliptical galaxies remains biased. By using an automated procedure which avoids this problem we have been able to obtain a result similar to van den Bergh et al (1996, 2000).

Interestingly, our sample and the HDF one are imaging a galaxy population centered around $`z0.5`$, the principal difference being in the exposure time. Because of the different depth in the images, substantial differences would be expected for the fainter subpopulation (smaller and irregular galaxies) between our sample and those based on the HDF. In fact, in the HDF apparent magnitude–limited sample contains 39% of unclassified objects whereas we obtain $`30\%`$.

### 5.2 Galaxy evolution

The two main models of galaxy evolution (monolithic collapse and hierarchical clustering) present a completely different scenario of galaxy evolution, so that the observational implications also are very different. One of these concerns the comoving density of the galaxies. In the redshift interval studied, the hierarchical model framework proposes the comoving density of big galaxies (E/S0s and spirals) decrease with redshift, being constant in the monolithic model. We have computed the comoving density $`\rho (z)`$ for these two different types of galaxies in our complete subsample.

We have assumed both a linear function for modeling the comoving density,

$$\rho (z)=a+bz$$
(3)
with a=$`\rho (0)`$ the comoving density at z=0 and b=$`(\rho (z_{max})\rho (0))/z_{max}`$ with $`z_{max}`$ the maximum value which z reaches in our limiting subsample, and a power law of the form:

$$\rho (z)=a(1+z)^b$$
(4)
with a=$`\rho (0)`$ the comoving density at z=0.

To reduce the loss of information in our data we avoid binning them. The values of the parameters of the function $`\rho (z)`$ are achieved by running a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between the cumulative probability distribution function of finding a galaxy inside our imaging solid angle at a given z given $`\rho (z)`$ and the cumulative distribution from the real data. The cumulative probability function for our model is computed as:

$$P(z)=\frac{_{z_{min}}^z\rho (z^{})r^2(z^{})(dr/dz)𝑑z^{}}{_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}}\rho (z^{})r^2(z^{})(dr/dz)𝑑z^{}}$$
(5)
where $`z_{min}`$ is the closest galaxy redshift, $`z_{max}`$=0.8 for our limiting subsample and r(z) is the comoving distance to an object placed at z.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test gives the probability that two data sets come from the same distribution. The best comoving density is that which maximize this probability.

As a matter of caution, we must note that E/S0 galaxies are placed preferentially in high density environments, being more strongly clustered than other types of galaxies. In order to evaluate the effect of clustering in our comoving density, we have studied the contribution of the E/S0 galaxies of each field to our cumulative function. The number of galaxies on the regions of more accumulation (0.48-0.54 and 0.69-0.73) come from both fields with approximately the same contribution, rejecting a clustering explanation.

To evaluate the errors on the parameters in the E/S0 and in the spiral sample we have assumed that a least two galaxies in each sample are misclassified. This represents $``$10% of each sample. We construct all the subsamples that can be obtained by removing two elements on the original samples and then we recover the values of the parameters associated to them. Using these values we estimate the median and the standard deviation. These are the numbers that we present as the parameter estimations and the errors associated to these measurements. Fig. 5 shows the original whole sample (i.e. without removing any point) and overplotted is the cumulative function associated with the parameters measured as explained before. Bar errors in Fig. 5 were estimated by measuring at each point the maximum distance between the cumulative function represented by using the whole sample and all the cumulative functions resulting from the previous subsamples. We have also overplotted the cumulative distribution obtained from the comoving densities fitted by Fried et al. (2001), who have a similar absolute magnitude cut for their sample ($`M_B18.5`$).

The comoving density of the E/S0s which gives a maximum probability in the KS test for a linear form is given by: $`\rho (z)=0.0033(\pm 0.0015)0.0015(\pm 0.0010)\times z`$. The KS probability of this density is 0.90. This comoving density is closer to that deduced by Fried et al (2001). Using their fit to our sample we obtain a KS p (KS pF) of 0.87. The number of E/S0s decreases with redshift. For the cosmology chosen, this decrease is $`45(\pm 30)\%`$. At using the power–law model, the KS probability is slightly better, 0.92. We have: $`\rho (z)=0.0039(\pm 0.0018)\times (1+z)^{1.6(\pm 0.4)}`$. In this case, the decrease of elliptical galaxies is $`60(\pm 10)\%`$. This behavior is in a very good agreement with the prediction from the hierarchical clustering scenario for this cosmology (Baugh et al. 1996; Kauffmann et al. 1996) but differs from the results presented in Totani & Yoshii (1998) and Im et al. (2001). Interestingly, Daddi (2001) has pointed out that strong discrepancies in the number density evolution for the EROs (Extremely Red Objects555Most of these objects are expected to be E/S0s at redshift 1$``$z$``$2.) can be understood in terms of cosmic variance: “it is much probable, on average, to underestimate the true ERO surface density with small area surveys”. Maybe a similar explanation also holds for more modest redshift E/S0 population and this can be of help to understand the discrepancies in the number density evolution pointed out for different authors.

For the spirals, the comoving density is $`\rho (z)=0.0069(\pm 0.0025)+0.0014(\pm 0.0006)\times z`$, but the KS probability is just 0.78. The parameters of the power–law model for this family are $`\rho (0)=0.0060(\pm 0.0031)`$ and m=1.7$`(\pm 0.5)`$ with a KS probability of 0.92. Interestingly, for this population a peak in the range $`z=0.40.5`$ is shown in the comoving density obtained from binned data in Fried et al. (2001), although they fit only a linear comoving density. Probing on this possibility, we have also tested a quadratic comoving density:

$$\rho (z)=a+bz+cz^2$$
(6)
where the interpretation of these parameters is as follows: a=$`\rho (0)`$, b=2$`\mathrm{}\rho /z_p`$ where $`z_p`$ is the redshift where the comoving density reaches its biggest value and $`\mathrm{}\rho =\rho (z_p)\rho (0)`$ and c=-$`\mathrm{}\rho /z_p^2`$. Using a quadratic comoving density we obtain the highest probability, 0.96, with the next values for the parameters: $`\rho (z)=0.0095(\pm 0.0036)+0.0027(\pm 0.0012)\times z0.0031(\pm 0.0018)\times z^2`$. Notice that this implies a peak of the density at $`z=0.43`$. Nevertheless, the value of the comoving density at this peak is just 6% higher that at $`z=0`$. Meanwhile the value of the density at $`z=0.8`$ is slightly higher (about 1%) than at $`z=0`$. Consequently, contrary to the E/S0s, brighter spiral galaxies ($`M_B18`$) seem to have a relatively quiet evolution.

Our values of $`\rho (0)`$ for E/S0 and spiral galaxies are in good agreement with the values that can be obtained by using the fit to the Schechter luminosity function (Schechter 1976) of nearby samples (Marzke et al. 1998). For $`M_B18`$, the local comoving density is $`\rho (0)`$=$`0.0026\pm 0.0007`$ (E/S0s) and $`\rho (0)`$=$`0.0054\pm 0.0014`$ (spiral galaxies).

We have also evaluated the previous quantities assuming a different cosmology: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. In this case, our absolute magnitude limit is $`M_B19`$. We summarize our results in Table 3. The E/S0 comoving density at this cosmology seems to no–evolve or slightly decreases. This is a similar result to that obtained for this cosmology by Totani & Yoshii (1998) and Im et al. (2001) and what it is expected from semi–analytical hierarchical models (e.g. Kauffmann & Charlot 1998). The results for the spiral galaxies are compatible with no number density evolution.

## 6 Conclusions

We present quantitative morphology of galaxies in two Hawaiian Deep Fields imaged by 6 HST fields. Down to the limiting magnitude of our sample, nearly all galaxies have spectroscopic redshifts. The morphology has been obtained by fitting a pure Sérsic and Sérsic + exponential profiles to the surface brightness distribution of the galaxies. Monte-Carlo simulations have been carried out in order to determine the limiting magnitude down to which the recovered structural parameters are reliable. The galaxies have been classified according to the $`B/T`$ ratio. E/S0s systems are those with $`B/T>0.5`$. Our simulations suggest an apparent magnitude limit of I=23. We have also accurately determined the absolute limiting magnitude of our sample $`M_B18`$. The complete subsample is composed by 61 objects up to $`z=0.8`$.

The percentage of the different galaxy types in the whole sample are in good agreement with those obtained in the HDF by visual methods. We have computed the comoving density of the galaxies as function of redshift. For an Einstein–de Sitter universe, the comoving density of E/S0s decreases as z increases, in very good agreement with the predictions of hierarchical clustering models of galaxy evolution. The comoving density of spiral galaxies shows a good fit to a quadratic form: it grows a $``$6% from $`z=0`$ until $`z=0.43`$, and then decreases slightly until $`z=0.8`$. This fit is compatible with no number evolution. For open or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ universes, the E/S0 galaxies comoving density is compatible with no number density evolution or a slightly decrease as it is expected from semi–analytical models in hierarchical clustering scenarios. Density comoving for brighter spiral galaxies also remain quite constant at this redshift range.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank David Cristóbal and Juan Betancort for valuable discussions. We are also indebted to Victor Debattista who kindly proofread versions of this manuscript. The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for the valuable suggestions that helped us to improve the rigor and clarity of this paper.

Based on observations with the NASA/ESA $`Hubble`$ $`Space`$ $`Telescope`$ obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract 5-26555.


format: text

text:
# The effect of Planck scale space time fluctuations on Lorentz invariance at extreme speeds

## The effect of Planck scale space time fluctuations on Lorentz invariance at extreme speeds

Richard Lieu

Department of Physics, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899, U.S.A.

Abstract

The starting point of this work is the axiomatic existence of a smallest measurable interval, viz. the Planck time $`t_P`$, set by quantum fluctuations in the vacuum metric tensor. By the Relativity Principle, the same limit must then apply to the accuracy of all clocks which register time of events in their own frames. Further, it implies that the ordinary meaning of distance also ceases in the same manner beyond a scale $`l_P=ct_P`$. We demonstrate that quantum space-time, if real, may be made manifest by observing very energetic collisions, defined as interactions which occurred with the center-of-mass frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (of the participating bodies) moving at a high speed $`v`$ relative to our laboratory frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In such situations, the initial conditions of the interaction are determined from direct measurements of the ultra-energetic particles or photons by instruments aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$: they gather a raw dataset $`𝒮`$ which are subject to the limiting uncertainties $`(t_P,l_P)`$. Yet a meaningful (i.e. experimentally verified) version of the interaction is one where the interaction is viewed from frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Since no instruments aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ have taken any data, the way we proceeded is by a Lorentz transformation of $`𝒮`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Beware however that the resulting $`𝒮^{}`$ no longer consists of raw data, i.e. Lorentz distortions of probability distributions render the uncertainties non-Planckian \- in fact, it will be shown that as $`vc`$ they are $``$ $`(t_P,l_P)`$, and are no longer negligible. Examples will given to indicate how a proper interpretation of the most current high energy cosmic and gamma-ray data necessitates incorporation of the said effect.

At present no one knows the design of the most precise clock. There is nonetheless a broad agreement that the unsurpassable limit is $``$ $`t_P`$ (see, e.g. Wilczek 2001), because to achieve such an accuracy a large amount of energy (hence mass) has to be confined within a small region of space - the result is a black hole. We shall therefore begin with a standard deviation $`\sigma _t`$, which is $`t_P`$, and postulate that all clocks which keep time aboard their respective inertial platforms carry the same intrinsic uncertainty of $`\sigma _t`$ (cf Principle of Relativity). The measurement of space by an inertial observer must then be subject to an error $`\sigma _x=c\sigma _t`$, since by special relativity this simply involves light beams and synchronized clocks. Scale sizes like $`t_P`$ and $`l_P`$, though extremely small, may soon be probed by interferometric experiments (Camelia 2001, Abramovici 1996). Here we propose another way of testing the discreteness of time, by observing the behavior of ultra-energetic particles and photons.

Let us now consider the effect of frame transformation on space-time data. Suppose two inertial observers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ construct their own frames of reference having spatial axes oriented in the same way, and that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ moves relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with a speed $`v`$ along the $`+x`$ direction111 For uniform motion we assume that the uncertainty in $`v`$ due to space-time fluctuations may be made arbitrarily small by adopting a large interval for the measurement of $`v`$. Suppose further that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ used instruments aboard their own platforms to locate an event, with the results $`(x,y,z,t)`$ and $`(x^{},y^{},z^{},t^{})`$ respectively, which we shall henceforth refer to as raw data (to distinguish them, in particular, from data which emerge from frame transformations). According to our postulate, intrinsically both sets of coordinates are equally inaccurate to within $`\pm c\sigma _t`$ for $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ (and $`x^{}`$, $`y^{}`$, $`z^{}`$) and $`\pm \sigma _t`$ for $`t`$ (and $`t^{}`$). This indicates the absence of a preferred frame, and remains valid so long as the two observers measure the event by their own clocks and light beams. The symmetry will be broken, however, if e.g. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ fails to take his own data, but monitors the event solely from the data taken by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In that case, the original raw data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would appear meaningless to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ until they are processed by the Lorentz transformation $``$ which necessarily alters the uncertainties.

For a quantitative estimation of the effect, we note that according to $``$:

$$x^{}=\gamma (xvt),y^{}=y,z^{}=z,t^{}=\gamma (t\frac{vx}{c2}),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma =(1v2/c2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Obviously, then, $`y^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ remain uncertain by $`c\sigma _t`$. To calculate the uncertainies of $`x^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ one must add those of $`x`$ and $`t`$ in quadrature, because these two coordinates were directly and separately measured by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ their errors are independent (and, for the same reason, of magnitude $`c\sigma _t`$ and $`\sigma _t`$ respectively). Thus we have:

$$\sigma _x^{}^2=\gamma 2(\sigma _x2+v2\sigma _t2)=c2\sigma _t2\frac{1+\frac{v2}{c2}}{1\frac{v2}{c2}};\sigma _t^{}^2=\gamma 2(\sigma _t2+\frac{v2}{c4}\sigma _x2)=\sigma _t2\frac{1+\frac{v2}{c2}}{1\frac{v2}{c2}}.$$
(2)
In general, Eq. (2) indicates that $`\sigma _x^{}\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _t^{}\sigma _t`$. Further, $`\sigma _x^{}`$ and $`\sigma _t^{}`$ are no longer independent errors. Unlike $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _t`$, they cannot be added in quadrature.

It should be emphasized that, among the consequences which may ensue from Eq. (2), violation of the Principle of Relativity is not one of them. The coordinates $`x^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ carry correlated errors larger than the intrinsic values because they are not raw data. Had $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ performed his own measurements, the results would fundamentally have been limited by the quantum space-time fluctuations $`(\sigma _t,c\sigma _t)`$ in exactly the same way as those of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Any such data taken directly by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, when compared with the transformed data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (which by Eq (2) carry larger errors) could lead to disagreement. Conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ were to transform by $`^1`$ his own data to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ frame, the results would likewise be subject to the same error amplification and correlation as depicted in Eq (2), and could disagree with the measurements done by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ himself. Moreover, the symmetry imposed by the Principle of Relativity tells us that the two observers could continue to argue about ‘who is correct’. Neither in fact is on a privileged platform. Rather, the source of the discrepancy lies with the fact that when raw data are processed $``$ they inevitably emerge with larger than intrinsic (Planckian) uncertainties. This is a feature of $``$ which we have hitherto ignored.

The significance of Eq (2) depends on the situation it applies to. As an example, let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ measure the decay time of a fast-moving particle, which we assume to be at rest relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The result, denoted by $`\tau `$, is simply obtained by taking the difference between two time coordinates, each of which is subject independently to the same random uncertainty $`\sigma _t`$, i.e. $`\tau =t_2t_1`$ and $`\sigma _\tau =\sqrt{2}\sigma _t`$. Likewise, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ were to measure this particle directly his result $`\tau ^{}`$ will also be accurate to $`\pm \sqrt{2}\sigma _t`$. Now suppose no data were ever gathered aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, and the only information available concerning the rest lifetime $`\tau ^{}`$ of the particle is the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ after Lorentz transformation to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ frame. From Eq (2) we see that $``$ enlarges intrinsic uncertainties by the factor $`\sqrt{2}\gamma `$ when $`vc`$. This means, had $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ done his own measurement and compared it with the transformed data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ there may, in the case $`\gamma 1`$, be substantial discrepancies on the value of the rest life $`\tau ^{}`$. One could insist upon a shorter lifetime than the other, which renders it inevitable that they could disagree with each other in a random manner on whether the decay has taken place or not (the ‘time sequencing’ problem which will not be discussed in detail here). The transformed data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ carry a relative (percentage) uncertainty of $`2\gamma \sigma _t/\tau ^{}`$, which exceeds that for the raw data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}\gamma `$ and $`\sqrt{2}\gamma 2`$ respectively. The reliance of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ on the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can no longer be justified when this relative error $`2\gamma \sigma _t/\tau ^{}`$ is $`1`$, which happens for sufficiently large $`\gamma `$.

In the present work we pursue to some depth the impact of the above development on another common usage of $``$. Often the physics of ultra-energetic quanta cannot at all be perceived in our laboratory frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \- we must transform its parameters which we measured aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to another frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ before any sensible conclusions on the nature and fate of the subject can be drawn. As an example, consider a $`10^{20}`$ cosmic ray proton in the vicinity of a 3K microwave background photon. While we may have data about the two bodies taken by laboratory detectors working in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ frame, no experiments done aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have ever directly witnessed how they may interact. However, from the viewpoint of the proton rest frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ a 3K photon appears, according to our laboratory data of the two particles after transformation by $``$, as having sufficient energy to cross the photo-pion production threshold. This reveals a familiar occurence in our own environment (viz. pions from photon-proton interactions) which, by the Principle of Relativity, must happen aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ as well. Thus we conclude that aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one necessarily encounters pions, and the required energy is now drawn from the fast proton. The logic of the above reasoning is sound except for one point: it presumes that $``$ remains highly accurate when the relative motion between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ involves a Lorentz factor as large as $`\gamma 10^{11}`$.

In order to address this point, we must realize that once time and space fluctuate intrinsically the components of all four-vectors will behave similarly. The following example shows how to quantitatively secure the connection. Consider a plane light wave. If by some means the wave frequency $`\nu `$ is very precisely known in the regime $`\nu >1/\sigma _t`$ we will be able to use the wave as a ‘super-clock’ to overcome quantum limitations - which by assumption is impossible. An equivalent manner of expression would state that any value of $`\nu `$ can only be determined to an accuracy $`\sigma _\nu /\nu \nu \sigma _t`$.

A more rigorous approach to the problem, with something similar to the above as an outcome, is afforded by the following abstraction of the measurement procedure. Let the wave phase be written as $`\varphi =(\omega tkxcos\theta )/c`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle which the wavevector $`𝐤`$ makes w.r.t. $`+x`$. All the basic information about the wave have to do with one cycle of oscillation when:

$`\varphi \varphi +2\pi asxx+\mathrm{\Delta }xandtt+\mathrm{\Delta }t.`$ (3)
Denoting any possible variations in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s by the $`\delta `$’s, we have:

$$0=\delta \varphi =\omega \delta tkcos\theta \delta x+\mathrm{\Delta }t\delta \omega \mathrm{\Delta }x\delta (kcos\theta )$$
(4)
Eq (4) embodies the manner by which space-time fluctuations lead to limitations in our knowledge of the wave properties. To elucidate this, we examine the simplest case $`\theta =0`$, and note that the angular frequency is by definition $`\omega =2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ refers to the time interval (cf. the aforementioned $`\tau `$) satisfying Eq (3) in the limit of vanishing space interval, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0`$, during which Eq (4) reduces to $`\delta \omega /\omega =\delta t/\mathrm{\Delta }t+cos\theta (\delta x/c\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. The limiting $`\omega `$ uncertainty is obtained, by treating $`(\delta t,\delta x)`$ as independent random errors of magnitude $`(\sqrt{2}\sigma _t,\sqrt{2}c\sigma _t)`$, to be:

$$\sigma _\omega =\frac{\sigma _t\omega 2}{\sqrt{2}\pi }(1+cos2\theta )^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(5)
or simply $`\sigma _\nu /\nu \nu \sigma _t`$, as before.

Likewise, the quantity $`kcos\theta `$, defined as $`=2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ refers to the value satisfying Eq. (3) in the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$. Thus, using again Eq (4) and arguments similar to those which follow this equation lead to the result:

$$\sigma _{kcos\theta }=\frac{\sigma _t\omega 2|cos\theta |}{\sqrt{2}\pi c}(1+cos2\theta )^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(6)
where in deriving Eq (6) it is also assumed that a real (on-shell) photon satisfying $`\omega /k=c`$ is detected in our laboratory.

Once the original data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are Lorentz transformed to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ frame the frequency will assume a value $`\omega ^{}`$ given by:

$$\omega ^{}=\gamma [\omega v(kcos\theta )]$$
(7)
From the foregoing treatment it is plain that our laboratory ‘energy-momentum’ measurements of $`\omega `$ and $`(kcos\theta )`$, like those of $`t`$ and $`x`$, must be regarded as independent. Thus when $`\omega ^{}`$ is inferred from $`\omega `$ and $`kcos\theta `$ by means of Eq (7), the result carries an error $`\sigma _\omega ^{}`$ of magnitude:

$$\sigma _\omega ^{}=\gamma (\sigma 2_\omega +v2\sigma 2_{kcos\theta })^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\gamma \omega 2\sigma _t}{\sqrt{2}\pi }(1+cos2\theta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[1+\frac{v2}{c2}cos2\theta (1+cos2\theta )\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(8)
where the final form of Eq (8) was obtained with the help of Eqs (5) and (6). Then it follows from Eq (7) that:

$$\frac{\sigma _\omega ^{}}{\omega ^{}}=\frac{\omega \sigma _t}{\sqrt{2}\pi }\left(1\frac{vcos\theta }{c}\right)^1(1+cos2\theta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[1+\frac{v2}{c2}cos2\theta (1+cos2\theta )\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(9)
We now apply our results to the special case of $`\theta =0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ moving relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the same direction as the photon wavevector) and $`vc`$ ($`\gamma 1`$) Eqs (7) and (9) simplify to:

$$\omega ^{}=\frac{\omega }{2\gamma }\mathrm{and}\frac{\sigma _\omega ^{}}{\omega ^{}}=\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\pi }\gamma 2\omega \sigma _t$$
(10)
As can be seen in Eq (10), there is an accuracy deterioration when the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is referred to a frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ where the frequency $`\omega ^{}`$ is $`\omega `$. More precisely, upon comparison of Eq (10) with Eq (5) it is apparent that $`\sigma _\omega ^{}/\omega ^{}`$ exceeds the relative error $`\sigma _\omega /\omega `$ intrinsic to raw data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a factor $`2\sqrt{3}\gamma 2`$. It is also important to assess the ultimate quality of any measurement directly performed aboard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Had such been available, one would have repeated the reasoning which led to Eq (5), with $`(\omega ^{},\theta ^{}=0)`$ now replacing $`(\omega ,\theta =0)`$, to conclude upon a relative error $`\omega ^{}\sigma _t/\pi =\omega \sigma _t/(2\pi \gamma )`$, which is less than that of the transformed data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, Eq (10), by the factor $`4\sqrt{3}\gamma 3`$. This means what we believe as the frequency seen by observer $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ could differ very substantially from the actual value witnessed by that observer. In fact, Eq (10) indicates that the point at which we cannot meaningfully predict $`\omega ^{}`$ using our laboratory measurement of $`\omega `$ occurs when:

$$\frac{\sigma _\omega ^{}}{\omega ^{}}\gamma 2\omega \sigma _t1.$$
(11)
A similar calculation reveals that in the limit of Eq (11) the ‘momentum’ parameter $`k^{}cos\theta ^{}`$ will also undergo large excursions (yet correlated with those of $`\omega ^{}`$).

Further, the argument can be repeated, with similar conclusions, to a situation where the energy of an ultra-relativistic particle is measured in the laboratory frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and transformed to the particle rest frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. For the purpose of calculating intrinsic uncertainties, the laboratory 4-momentum $`(E,𝐩)`$ of such a particle may be treated in the same way as that of the photon $`\mathrm{}(\omega ,𝐤)`$, with an on-shell relation222The relative error in the $`Epc`$ approximation is $`O(1/\gamma 2)`$ for $`\gamma 1`$. As long as this is $``$ the relative error in $`E`$ caused by space-time fluctuations, viz. $`\sigma _E/EE\sigma _t/\mathrm{}`$ (which is the case in our example of a 1020 eV proton) the approximation is valid. of $`E=(p^2c2+m^2c4)^{\frac{1}{2}}pc(mc2)`$. Then the transformed energy $`E^{}`$ carries a relative uncertainty $`\sigma _E^{}/E^{}`$ which likewise exceeds that of the original measurement of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, viz. $`\sigma _E/E`$, by $`2\sqrt{3}\gamma 2`$ times. Again, analogous to Eq (11), our own data become irrelevant towards predicting actual rest frame experiences when:

$$\frac{\sigma _E^{}}{E^{}}\frac{\gamma 2E\sigma _t}{\mathrm{}}1.$$
(12)
When the limit given by Eq (12) is reached the particle energy $`E^{}`$ fluctuates substantially about $`mc2`$. Here and beyond, a key identifying characteristic of the particle, viz. its rest mass, ceases to be meaningful, nor can one assign a special status to the rest frame.

We now consider two applications. In each case presented, we point out the interesting phenomenon of an observational anomaly occurring at a parameter regime where the effect discussed in this paper is non-negigible. We then provide a qualitative yet compelling argument to explain why the anomaly may be a manifestation of quantum space-time. To proceed, a value for the basic parameter $`\sigma _t`$ is necessary. As discussed earlier, it makes sense to adopt the Planck time $`t_P5.4\times 10^{44}`$ s as a conservative estimate.

Our first example concerns the laboratory frame detection of $``$ 25 TeV ($`\omega 4\times 10^{28}`$ Hz) gamma rays from the blazar Mkn 501 (Aharonian et al 1999). This is an unexpected result: the gamma radiation should have severely been attentuated by photons from the isotropic infra-red background which exists along the intervening line-of-sight, because of pair production in the center-of-mass frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ where both photon populations appear to be $`>`$ 1 MeV in energy and undergoing essentially head-on collisions.

Note however a caveat in the logic: while all the relevant data are collected only aboard the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ frame the interaction between 25 TeV and infra-red photons has never directly been studied experimentally in any detail from this frame. Rather, we simply relied on $``$ to avail ourselves a view of the situation from frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ where the physics of the interaction becomes well established but the input parameters for the two colliding photons assume values as derived from the transformed data of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To scrutinize the performance of $``$, let us focus on the $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ operation. Since the two frames are connected by a Lorentz factor of $`\gamma >107`$, subsitution of the above value of $`\omega `$ and $`\sigma _tt_P`$ into Eq (11) reveals that $`\sigma _\omega ^{}/\omega ^{}>0.2`$, i.e. intrinsic uncertainties in the transformed energy of the original gamma rays have become significant. Thus, with respect to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, those 1 MeV photons from the blazar may assume quite different energies than our prediction based upon the laboratory data and $``$. Owing to the sensitivity of the pair production rate to input energies ( particularly the presence of a low energy threshold, below which the reaction cannot proceed) we can no longer insist that the process has necessarily played the expected role in attenuating the source radiation. In fact it is obvious that when $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ 25 TeV the photon can be transmitted without undergoing pair production (because its actual energy in frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ turns out to be sub-threshold). Moreover the probability of such an occurence increases as as $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ exceeds 25 TeV.

In our second example attention is drawn to an expected cutoff in the cosmic ray (CR) spectrum at energies above $`E=10^{20}`$ eV, as when this laboratory frame energy measurement is transformed along with the cosmic microwave background measurements to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, the rest frame of the particle (presumed to be a proton), the familar scene of photo-pion production becomes apparent (Greisen 1966). In reality, no such cutoff was observed (e.g. Takeda et al 1998). Note, however, that the relevant Lorentz factor here is $`\gamma 10^{11}`$, and if we substitute such a value of $`\gamma `$ and the above value of $`E`$ into Eq (12) we will arrive at $`\sigma _E^{}/E^{}10^{14}`$. Such an absurd uncertainty renders obsolete any theoretical expectations of the fate of the particle which is based upon a Lorentz transformation to the rest frame (another manner of expression is to say that because the rest frame cannot at all be identified the incident photon energy in this frame is unknown). Certainly 50 % of the particles can avoid an interaction: for these particles the energy of the microwave photon relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is below the pion production threshold. Moreover, the colossal value of $`\sigma _E^{}`$ prevents any modification of our conclusion even when multiple in-situ interactions and the improbable scenario of $`\sigma _t<t_P`$ are invoked.

For very high energy cosmic rays we wish to inquire the value of the ‘critical energy’ $`E_c`$ beyond which the notion of a unique rest frame is no longer tenable. By means of Eq (12), one readily deduces that $`E_c2\times 10^{15}`$ eV for protons, and $`3\times 10^{13}`$ eV for electrons.

An earlier work (Lieu 2001) presented a plausibility argument for the existence of space and time units which vary randomly both in magnitude and direction, by showing that such a model can interpret relativity as the macroscopic (aggregate) behavior of a microscopic ensemble. The above discussion provides a direct means of testing (a) the existence of Planck scale space-time fluctuations and (b) the validity of the Principle of Relativity as applied to ultra-relativistic speeds. If both hypotheses are upheld the reaction rates for the two processes considered should exhibit an anomaly in the forementioned situations. The gamma ray and cosmic ray data gathered to date suggest that the said anomaly is indeed in place.

It is also worth mentioning that the phenomenon discussed has implications on the theory of General Relativity. Since in the framework of this theory gravity is a sequence of local Lorentz frames $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ moving at varying speeds relative to the laboratory frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, our everyday perception of physical laws are to be applied to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and then transformed to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ \- a transformation which again exaggerates the space-time uncertainties beyond their Planck scale values. Effectively this means that space and time in a gravitation field must fluctuate more severely than the levels given by $`l_P`$ and $`t_P`$. Obviously the consequences in the case of strong fields are very interesting.

Author thanks W.I. Axford and Y. Takahashi for helpful discussions.

References

Abramovici, A. et al, Phys. Lett. A, 218, 157 (1996).
Aharonian, F.A. et al, Astron. Astrophys., 349, 11A (1999).
Camelia, G.A., Nature, 410, 1065 (2001).
Greisen, K., Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, 748 (1966).
Lieu, R., Foundations of Physics, 31, 1233 (2001).
Takeda, M. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 1163 (1998).
Wilczek, F., Physics Today, 54, 13 (2001).


text:
# GRBs Light Curves - Another Clue on the Inner Engine

## 1 Introduction

According to the current Fireball model a Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) contain four stages: (i) A catastrophic event produces an ‘inner pine engine’. (ii) This ‘inner engine’ accelerates a barionic wind into a highly relativistic motion. (iii) Internal collisions within this wind produce the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission (iv) An external-shock between the wind and the surrounding matter produces the afterglow. The most mysterious part of this process is the nature of the ‘inner engine’. There are no direct observations of the ‘inner engine’.

Numerical simulations (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1997; Ramirez & Fenimore, 2000) revealed that the $`\gamma `$-rays light curve replicates the temporal activity of the ’inner engine’. In this letter we explain, using a simple analytic toy model, these results. In our toy model the relativistic wind is described as a sequence of discrete shells with various Lorentz factors, $`\gamma `$. The $`\gamma `$-rays light curve results from collisions between shells with different values of $`\gamma `$. We show that the observed time of a pulse (resulting from such a collision) reflects the time that the inner faster shell was ejected from the ‘inner engine’. We show that unless the background noise prevents the detection of some pulses, the light curve reflects one third to one half of the shells ejection time.

Nakar & Piran (2001) discovered that the pulses width, $`\delta t`$, and the intervals between pulses, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, have a similar distributions. Moreover, the duration of an interval between pulses is correlated with the width of the following pulse. Our analysis shows that in an internal shocks model with equal energy shells both the intervals and the pulses’ widths reflect the initial separation between the shells. Therefore, both observational results arise naturally in this model. If instead the shells’ mass is constant then the intervals still reflects the shells’ separation but the pulses widths depend also on the distribution of the shells’ Lorentz factors. In this case the variance in $`\gamma `$ wipes out both the $`\delta t`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ similarity and the correlation.

Our toy model includes some simplifying assumptions. We confirm these results using numerical simulations. The equal energy simulation fit the observations very well, while the equal mass model does not fit the observations. These results suggest that the ‘inner engine’ produces a variable Lorentz factor flow by modulating the mass of a constant energy flow. These results provide yet another strong support to the Internal Shock model. They also give one of the first clues on the nature of the ‘inner engine’.

## 2 The Toy Model

In our toy model the ‘inner engine’ emits relativistic shells which collides and produce the observed light curve. We make the following simplifying assumptions: (i) The shells are discrete and homogeneous. Each shell has a well define boundaries and a well defined $`\gamma `$. (ii) The colliding shells merge into a single shell after the collision. (iii) Only efficient collisions produce an observable pulse. The efficiency, $`\epsilon `$, is defined as the ratio between the post shock internal energy and the total energy. We consider only collisions with $`\epsilon >0.05`$.

Under these assumptions each shell is defined by four parameters $`t_i`$, $`m_i`$, $`\gamma _i`$ and $`l_i`$, where $`i`$ is the shell index, $`t`$ is the ejection time of the shell, and $`m`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`l`$ are the mass, Lorentz factor and width of the shell respectively. For convenience we define $`L_{i,j}`$, the interval between the rear end of the i’th shell and the front of the j’th shell. Note that111Hereafter we take c=1. This equality is only approximate since the shells’ velocity is almost (but not exactly) c.  $`L_{i,i+1}t_{i+1}(t_i+l_i)`$.

### 2.1 A single collision

Consider a single collision between two shells with widths $`l_1`$, $`l_2`$, a separation $`L`$, and ejection times $`t_2t_1+(l_1+L)`$. We define $`\gamma _1\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _2a\gamma `$ ($`a>1`$). The collision efficiency depends strongly on $`a`$ (Piran 1999). $`\epsilon (a=2)0.05`$ , and it decreases fast with decreasing $`a`$. Hence, we consider only collisions with $`a>2`$.

The collision takes place at: $`R_s\gamma ^2L\frac{2a^2}{a^21}2\gamma ^2L`$ ($`R_s`$ is measured in the rest frame). Note that as long as $`a>2`$, $`R_s`$ depends rather weakly on $`\gamma _2`$. The emitted photons from the collision reach the observer at time (omitting the photons flight time):

$$t_{obs}t_1+l_1+R_s/(2\gamma ^2)t_1+l_1+Lt_2$$
(1)
The photons from the collision are observed almost simultaneously with an hypothetical photon emitted from the ‘inner engine’ together with the faster shell (at $`t_2`$). This result is accurate up to an error of $`L(a^21)^1`$ , which is small compared to $`L`$ as long as $`a>2`$.

### 2.2 Multiple collisions

The light curve obtained from multiple collisions can be described in terms of three basic pairs of collisions (see fig. 1): (I) Two collisions between four consequent shells with $`\gamma _2=a\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _4=b\gamma _3`$. The collision are between the first and the second shells and between the third and the forth shells. (II) Two collisions between three consequent shells with $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2/a=\gamma _3/b`$. The two front shells collide and then the third shell collides with the merged one. (III) Same as type II but here the rear shells collide first.

#### 2.2.1 Interval between consequent pulses

Type I collisions result in two observed pulses, the first at $`t_2`$ and the second at $`t_4`$. The interval between the pulses, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, would be: $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_4t_2l_2+L_{2,3}+l_3+L_{3,4}`$. In type II collisions the first pulse is observed at $`t_2`$, and second pulse is observed at $`t_3`$. The interval is: $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_3t_2l_2+L_{2,3}`$. In type III collisions the last shell takes over the second one, and the first pulse is observed at $`t_3`$. Then the merged shell takes over the first one releasing another pulse observed at222Detailed calculations show that the interval between these two pulses is shorter then the pulses’ widths.  $`t_3`$. Therefore type III collisions, results in a single wide pulse.

All these results are accurate up to an order of $`1/a_{i,j}^2`$, where $`a_{i,j}`$ is the ratio of the Lorentz factors between the two colliding shells. As long as the collisions are efficient, these results depend weakly on the mass distribution of the shells.

#### 2.2.2 The pulses width

The relevant time scales that determine the pulse width are (Piran, 1999): (i) The angular time, $`t_{ang}`$, which results from the spherical geometry of the shells: $`t_{ang}R_c/2\gamma _{sh}^2`$. (ii) The hydrodynamic time, $`t_{hyd}`$, which arises from the shell’s width and the shock crossing time: $`t_{hyd}l_{c_{in}}`$, where $`l_{c_{in}}`$ is the width of the inner shell at the time of the collision. (iii) The cooling time - the time that it takes for the emitting electrons to cool. For synchrotron emission with typical parameters of internal shocks this time is much shorter then $`t_{ang}`$ and $`t_{hyd}`$ (Kobayashi et. al. 1997, Wu & Fenimore 2000). Therefore under the assumption of transparent shells the pulse width is $`\delta tt_{ang}+t_{hyd}`$.

Unlike the pulse’s timing, the pulse’s width depends strongly on the shells’ masses. The relevant Lorentz factor for the calculation is the one of the shocked, and therefore radiating, region - $`\gamma _{sh}`$. $`\gamma _{sh}`$ depends strongly on the ratio of the shells’ masses. We examine two possible cases: equal mass shells and equal energy shells. Table 1 summarizes the intervals and the pulses’ width for the two different mass distributions for the three types of collisions.

## 3 Numerical Simulation

The toy model demonstrates that the properties of the light curve depend on the dominant type of collisions. In order to determine what are the dominant collisions types we performed numerical simulations of internal shocks light curves. These simulations also enable us to verify some of the approximations used in the analytic toy model.

Following Kobayashi et. al. (1997) each shell is defined by four parameters $`\gamma _i,m_i,l_i`$ and $`L_{i,i+1}`$. The distribution of the separation between the shells, $`L`$, is taken to be lognormal with $`\mu (ln(L))=0.5`$ and $`\sigma (ln(L))=0.9`$ (chosen in order to fit the observations). The initial shells width is taken as a constant of 0.1lsec and we assume that the shells do not spread ($`l_c=l`$). The Lorentz factor distribution is uniform ($`\gamma _{min}=30`$, $`\gamma _{max}=2000`$). The shells’ mass is either constant (equal mass model) or proportional to $`\gamma ^1`$ (equal energy model).

Each simulation included 50 shells. Following the shell’s motion we identify the collisions. Each collision produce a pulse. The duration of a pulse is taken as $`t_{ang}+t_{hyd}`$. All the pulses has a fast rise slow decay shape with a ratio of 3:1 between the decay and the rise times. The area below a pulse equals to its radiated energy (no assumption is made here about the efficiency). Using these pulses we prepare a binned (64ms time bins) light curve. We analyze this light curve using the Li & Fenimore (1996) peak finding algorithm, obtaining the observed pulses timing and width.

### 3.1 Numerical Results

In both models the number of observed pulses is between a third and a half of the total shells emitted. Types I & II collisions are the dominant types (about 80%) in the simulations. The total efficiency in both models is about 20-30%. The equal mass model prefers type I collisions while the equal energy model prefer type II collisions. Efficient type III collisions almost don’t exist in the equal energy model.

Figure 2 illustrates the histograms of the pulses width, $`\delta t`$, the interval between pulses, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and the separation between shells, $`L`$. In the equal mass model (fig. 2a) there is no $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$-$`\delta t`$ similarity. $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ reflects the $`L`$ distribution while $`\delta t`$ is much shorter and does not reflects $`L`$. In the equal energy model (fig. 2b) both distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\delta t`$ reflects the ‘inner engine’ shells separation distribution. Both distributions are consistent with a log normal distribution and the best fits parameters are described in table 2.

Both results are in a perfect agreement with the analytical results obtained in section 2. The similarity between the “observed” interval distribution in both models is explained by the weak dependence of the pulses’ timing on the mass distribution. The pulses width in the equal energy model reflection of the shells initial separation, $`L`$, are explained by the analytical result $`\delta tL`$. The deviation from a lognormal distribution and the short pulses in the equal mass model are explained by the analytical result $`\delta tL/a`$.

Nakar & Piran (2001) find a correlation between an interval duration and the following pulse. In the equal energy model we find a highly significant correlation between the interval duration and the following pulse. There is no significant correlation in the equal mass model. This result is explained again by the equal mass relation $`\delta tL/a`$. As the variations in $`a`$ are larger then the variations in $`L`$ it wipe out the correlation.

## 4 Discussion

Former numerical simulations of internal shocks have shown that the resulting light curves reflect the activity of the inner engine. We have shown that this feature arise from the fact that the pulse timing is approximately equal to the ejection time of one of the colliding shell. Moreover, in most collisions (Types I & II) the pulses are distinguishable and each pulse reflects a single collision. In all models the number of observed pulses is 30%-50% of the number of ejected shells. Therefore the light curve reflects the emission time of one third to one half of the shells. The ‘inner engine’ is slightly more variable then the observed light curve.

The observed similarity between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\delta t`$ distributions is explained naturally in the equal energy shells’ model. Both parameters reflects the the separation between the shells during their ejection. In the equal mass shells’ model only $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ reflects the initial shells’ separation and therefore such a similarity is not expected.

Our numerical simulations confirmed these predictions. Note that many of the simplifying assumptions can be relaxed with no significant change in the results. We present elsewhere a more detailed model and more elaborated simulations (Nakar & Piran, 2002). The equal energy model simulations fit the observations very well. These results imply that the ‘inner engine’ ejects, most likely, equal energy shells. These results are yet another strong support to the Internal Shock model. They also give one of the first clues on the nature of the ‘inner engine’.

This research was supported by a US-Israel BSF grant.


text:
# Nonradial Pulsations in Classical Pulsators

## 1. Introduction

The long-term periodic phase modulation of the RR Lyrae star RW Dra was discovered almost one hundred years ago by Blazhko (1907). Therefore, this phenomenon is called Blazhko effect (for the nomenclature see also the comment of Szeidl & Kolláth 2000).

Long-term amplitude/phase modulation is quite common in the case of multimode pulsators (e.g., $`\delta `$ Scuti stars, white dwarfs), where the effect of close excited normal modes can also be viewed as an amplitude modulation. What makes Blazhko-type stars particularly interesting and important is that they have high pulsation amplitudes, and therefore there is no doubt that their main pulsation component is basically a radial mode. Since the long-term amplitude/phase modulations are exhibited in the frequency spectra as closely spaced components, and the eigenspectrum of the radial modes is too sparse, we are left with the following two possibilities to explain the Blazhko effect:

* amplitude/phase-modulated pulsation of a purely radial mode,
* basically radial pulsation, contaminated by nonradial component(s) either through mode coupling, or through the distortion of the radial eigenfunction by a large-scale magnetic field.

Convection can be considered also in the above scheme, because (at least in the first approximation) it can be treated as a large set of nonradial modes of high spherical harmonic order. Of course, if any form of convection is responsible for the amplitude modulation, the interaction with the radial normal mode should lead to a genuine amplitude modulation which is independent of the aspect angle, because the averaging effect is certainly overwhelming in this case.

In the following we will give an account of the observed properties of the Blazhko variables and describe the ability of the current models to explain the observations. We will see that, according to our current understanding, it is very difficult to escape the possibility that nonradial pulsations play a significant role in these variables.

## 2. Data analysis

Because of the long modulation periods, identification of Blazhko variables requires sufficiently long data coverage and proper analysis. While in the case of old photographic data the high noise level is the most serious problem, the photoelectric observations, made on individual variables during the past decades, suffer from another problem. Besides the daily alias in the sampling of these data there is another artificial periodicity due to the high concentration of data points on the rising branches. This observation technique was justified because of the input data required by the $`OC`$ analyses, most frequently used in the past to study these stars. The sampling periodicity with the pulsation period makes it very difficult/impossible to perform a Fourier analysis and correctly identify the modulation components around the harmonics.

Data supplied by the microlensing surveys and observations made on individual globular clusters suffer from problems, too. Microlensing data have rather low sampling rate and usually high noise (at least at the brightness level of the RR Lyrae stars). Although individual cluster data have much higher sampling rate, and, in general, are more accurate, they are far less extended. Nevertheless, analysis of the above types of data during the last few years has led to significant progress in the study of these stars.

As an example of the data quality and types of frequency patterns obtained in the recent analysis of the macho database on the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) fundamental mode RR Lyrae (RRab) stars (Welch et al. 2002), we show the result for five representative variables in Fig. 1.

The top panel is only to demonstrate that for single mode variables, the prewhitened spectrum is completely featureless, presuming that sufficient number of harmonics (in this case three) are subtracted from the signal. In the next two panels from the top we show cases when only one side component is seen after prewhitening, whereas the lower two panels are examples when both modulation components are clearly visible. These types of frequency spectra have also been observed in the first overtone RR Lyrae (RRc) stars (see Alcock et al. 2000; Cseresnjes 2001; Olech et al. 2001, and references therein). In this paper variables displaying any of the above types of frequency patterns are called Blazhko (BL) variables, because at the time of this writing it is not entirely clear if there is an abrupt or continuous transition between the cases of strongly asymmetric and single modulation components.

Although additional analyses of new and already existing data will continuously increase the number of Blazhko stars with reliably identified frequency patterns, we think it is useful to present the number statistics available for us at this moment. Several comments should be added to the numbers displayed in Table 1.

For the RRab-BL stars in the Galactic field, we rely on the review of Szeidl (1988), who listed ‘RRab stars with known or presumed Blazhko period’ in his Table 3. We note that there are stars (mentioned also by Szeidl) which might not be Blazhko variables, because they do not show definitive change in the shape of their light curves in the contemporary observations, whereas the old photographic data might indicate such changes. Furthermore, partially because of the problems due to the biased sampling as mentioned at the beginning of this section, only a few of these stars have been frequency analyzed (Borkowski 1980; Smith et al. 1994; Kovács 1995; Nagy 1998; Smith et al. 1999; Szeidl & Kolláth 2000; Lee & Schmidt 2001, and references therein).

In the case of globular clusters, we included only those variables which have been discovered from the frequency analysis of current ccd observations. Unfortunately, none of these analyses were extended to RRab stars. Therefore, we did not include any data for the RRab-BL stars. For these variables we refer the interested reader to the statistics based mostly on the visual inspection of photographic data as presented by Szeidl (1988).

We also do not have complete information on the statistics of the Blazhko phenomenon for the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. This is because the analysis of the RRab stars was dropped due to the short time span of the observations.

Periodic amplitude/phase variation among Cepheids must be very rare. The only known Blazhko variable in the Galactic field classified as a Cepheid, is HR 7308 (Burki et al. 1986; see also Van Hoolst & Waelkens 1995). A preliminary analysis of the macho database of the Magellanic Clouds suggests an incidence rate of $`0.51.0`$% (Welch, 2001, private communication). Our own analysis of some 1400 Cepheids in the same system from the ogle database (Udalski et al. 1999), has led basically to a null result. Considering that the Blazhko Cepheids identified so far have short periods and our analysis covered a wide range of periods, these results seem to suggest an incidence rate lower than 1% for these variables. This is an order of magnitude lower than the recent estimate of the incidence rate of the Blazhko RR Lyrae stars in the LMC (Welch et al. 2002).

## 3. Observed properties

As we mentioned in the previous section, the statistics of the Blazhko stars is incomplete in many systems. The only exception is the LMC, where, due to the analysis of several thousands stars, we have a sample of $`200`$ Blazhko stars (RRab & RRc). Based mainly on these stars, we summarize the properties obtained from frequency analyses in Fig. 2.

First of all, we have to point out that, although the data strongly suggest the existence of two main classes, the noise level is still too high to separate clearly the class of variables with two modulation components (BL2-type) from the ones which apparently have only one such a component (BL1-type). Significant doublets rarely appear with an asymmetry larger than 50% in the prewhitened spectra of the BL2 variables. However, less significant peaks are sometimes observable at the equally spaced frequency position in the case of variables classified as BL1-type. Even though we cannot exclude the existence of BL2 variables with strongly asymmetric modulation components, we think that it is safe to state that in the large majority of BL2 stars this asymmetry cannot be larger than 70%.

Modulation periods are larger than $`20`$ days for the RRab stars whereas for the RRc stars they can be even shorter than 10 days. For the upper limit of the modulation periods we may not have such a relatively firm statement. The longest modulation periods observed in the macho database are comparable with the length of the total time span of the observations, which is 7.5 years. The modulation periods for the RRc-BL stars are distributed roughly uniformly with some preference toward longer periods. For the RRab-BL stars, modulation periods shorter than $`40`$ days are not frequent, but above this value the distribution is reasonably uniform.

The pulsation periods cover almost the total range of that of the monoperiodic variables. For the RRab- and RRc-BL stars we have $`0.^\mathrm{d}35<P_0<0.^\mathrm{d}7`$ and $`0.^\mathrm{d}23<P_0<0.^\mathrm{d}46`$, respectively.

There are a few RRc-BL stars with very strong modulation ($`A_\pm /A_0>0.7`$). In about two third of the BL2 stars (both among the RRab and RRc stars) the modulation component with the larger frequency has also larger amplitude. In 80% of the RRab-BL1 variables the modulation component has larger frequency than the pulsation component. There is no such trend among the RRc-BL1 stars.

To estimate the incidence rate of the Blazhko phenomenon, we turn to the macho data set which contains enough variables to yield reliable figures. According to Alcock et al. (2000) and Welch et al. (2002), the incidence rates of the BL1 & BL2 phenomena in the LMC are about 10% and 4% among the RRab and RRc variables, respectively. Based on the analysis of 214 stars from the ogle data set, Moskalik & Poretti (2002) get rates of 23% and 3% for the Galactic Bulge. We think that these results clearly show that, in general, the Blazhko phenomenon has at least three times higher incidence rate among RRab stars than among RRc stars. However, the actual value of this ratio depends on the system studied.

## 4. Physical modelling

The reasons why all current models include some form of nonradial pulsations in explaining Blazhko effect are the following:

* Previous attempts in using only radial mode interactions have failed (nonresonant modes – Buchler & Kovács 1986; 2:1 resonance – Moskalik 1986; noise induced transitions – Kovács 1994; no reports from past and current hydrodynamical simulations – Kolláth 2001, private communication).
* Linear models suggest excitation of nonradial modes (Cepheids – Osaki 1977; RR Lyrae stars – Dziembowski 1977; Cox 1993; Dziembowski & Cassisi 1999; beyond the blue edge – Shibahashi & Osaki 1981).
* Observed frequency patterns are compatible with the assumption of nonradial pulsation (equidistant triplet, closely spaced frequencies).

We show the schematic representation of the two currently competing models in Fig. 3. Both in the Oblique Rotating Magnetic Pulsator (ORMP, see Shibahashi 2000) and in the Rotating Resonant Pulsator (RRP, see Nowakowski & Dziembowski 2001) models the pulsation amplitudes are constant. The observed modulation of the light curve is a consequence of rotation, and the modulation period is directly related to it. The degree of modulation is strongly aspect-dependent in both cases. Another peculiarity of these models is that they predict modulation components of equal amplitudes, which is in sharp contrast to most of the frequency patterns observed, especially with those which are of BL1-type. A further question to deal with is the reason why RRc-BL variables show significantly lower incidence rates than their fundamental mode counterparts. This question has not yet been dealt with in the ORMP model, but the RRP model does show such an effect, although still not in the degree observed. Finally, it is important to mention that deviations from strict amplitude/phase modulations might occur in Blazhko stars (e.g., Szeidl 1988; Smith et al. 2002) which should be explained by future modelling.

## 5. Problems and prospects

In spite of the progress made during the last few years both in the observations and modelling, the basic physical understanding of the Blazhko phenomenon is still missing. Posed by the observations, here is a (probably incomplete) list of problems to be dealt with: – uneven modulation components; – incidence rates (high for RRab, much lower for RRc and almost zero for Cepheids); – deviations from strictly periodic modulations; – magnetic field (spectroscopic detection and its relation to the Blazhko effect); – surface velocity field (spectroscopic detection of the nonradial component). Present models are still not the results of direct hydrodynamical simulations, but rely either on linear pulsation (OMRP) or on the amplitude equation formalism, using some numerical estimates of the coupling coefficients. Further progress in this field requires substantial efforts. From the observational side, disentangling the radial and nonradial components of the surface velocity field and detecting/studying magnetic field would be of prime importance. From the theoretical side, a full scale hydrodynamical simulation is still a formidable task. Therefore, additional work within the framework of amplitude equations seems to be the most promising. Considering the fundamental importance of RR Lyrae stars in various fields of astronomy, we think that it is very much worthwhile to put substantial efforts in understanding this long-standing problem.

### Acknowledgments.

Useful discussions with Conny Aerts, Wojtek Dziembowski, Doug Welch, Pawel Moskalik, Rafal Nowakowski and Arkadiusz Olech are very much appreciated. We thank the organizers of this meeting for the financial help and hospitality. This work was completed during the author’s visit to the Copernicus Astronomical Center, Warsaw. The following grants are acknowledged: otka t–026031, t–030954 and t–038437.

## References

Alcock et al. (the macho collaboration), 2000, ApJ, 542, 257

Blazhko, S., 1907, Astr. Nachr., 175, 325

Borkowski, K.J., 1980, Acta Astr., 30, 393

Buchler, J.R. & Kovács, G., 1986, ApJ, 308, 661

Burki, G., Schmidt, E.G., Arellano Ferro, A. et al., 1986, A&A, 168, 139

Cox, A.N., 1993, in ‘New Perspectives on Stellar Pulsation and Pulsating Variable Stars’, Cambridge Univ. Press, Eds.: J.M. Nemec & J.M. Matthews, pp. 409

Cseresnjes, P., 2001, A&A, 375, 909

Dziembowski, W., 1977, Acta Astr., 27, 95

Dziembowski, W.A. & Cassisi, S., 1999, Acta Astr., 49, 371

Kovács, G., 1994, Annals of the New York Acad. Sci., 706, 70

Kovács, G., 1995, A&A, 295, 693

Lee, K.M. & Schmidt, E.G., 2001, PASP, 113, 1140

Moskalik, P., 1986, Acta Astr., 36, 333

Moskalik, P. & Poretti, E., 2002, these proceeedings

Nagy, A., 1998, A&A, 339, 440

Nowakowski, R.M., & Dziembowski, W.A., 2001, Acta Astr., 51, 5

Olech, A., Kaluzny, J. & Thompson, I.B. et al., 1999a, AJ, 118, 442

Olech, A., Woźniak, P.R. & Alard, C. et al., 1999b, MNRAS, 310, 759

Olech, A., Kaluzny, J. & Thompson, I.B., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 421

Osaki, Y., 1977, PASJ, 29, 235

Shibahashi, H., 2000, ASP Conf. Ser., 203, 299

Shibahashi, H. & Osaki, Y., 1981, PASJ, 33, 427

Smith, H.A., Matthews, J.M. & Lee, K.M. et al., 1994, AJ, 107, 679

Smith, H.A., Barnett, M. & Silbermann, N.A., 1999, AJ, 118, 572

Smith, H.A., LaCluyzé, A. & Gill, E-M. et al., 2002, these proceedings

Szeidl, B., 1988, in ‘Multimode Stellar Pulsations’, Konkoly Observatory – Kultúra, Budapest, Eds. G. Kovács, L. Szabados & B. Szeidl, pp. 45

Szeidl, B. & Kolláth, Z., 2000, ASP Conf. Ser., 203, 281

Udalski A., Szymański M. & Kubiak M. et al., 1999, Acta Astr., 49, 201

Van Hoolst, T. & Waelkens, C., 1995, A&A, 295, 361

Welch, D. et al. (the macho collaboration), 2002, these proceedings