text:
# Evolution of “51 Peg b-like” Planets

## 1 Introduction

The detection of planetary-mass companions in small orbits around solar-type stars has been a major discovery of the past decade. To date, 73 extrasolar giant planets (with masses $`M\mathrm{sin}i<13`$$`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ being the mass of Jupiter and $`i`$ the inclination of the system) have been detected by radial velocimetry. Fifteen of these (21%) have distances less than 0.1 AU, and ten (14%) have distances less than 0.06 AU (see Marcy et al. Mar00 (2000) and the discoverers’ web pages). This is for example the case with the first extrasolar giant planet to have been discovered, 51 Peg b (Mayor & Queloz MQ95 (1995)). These close-in planets form a statistically distinct population: all planets with semi-major axis smaller than 0.06 AU have near-circular orbits while the mean eccentricity of the global population is $`<e>0.27`$. This is explained by the circularization by tides raised on the star by the planet (Marcy et al. Mar97 (1997)). One exception to this rule, HD83443b ($`e=0.079\pm 0.033`$), can be attributed to the presence of another eccentric planet in the system (Mayor et al. May01 (2001)). As we shall see, the planets inside $``$0.1 AU also have very specific properties due to the closeness to their star and the intense radiation they receive. For this reason, following astronomical conventions, we choose to name them after the first object of this class to have been discovered: “51 Peg b-like” planets, or in short “Pegasi planets”.

Such planets provide an unprecendented opportunity to study how intense stellar irradiation affects the evolution and atmospheric circulation of a giant planet. Roughly 1% of stars surveyed so far bear Pegasi planets in orbit, suggesting that they are not a rare phenomenon. Their proximity to their stars increases the likelihood that they will transit their stars as viewed from Earth, allowing a precise determination of their radii. (The probability varies inversely with the planet’s orbital radius, reaching $``$10% for a planet at 0.05 AU around a solar-type star.) One planet, HD209458b, has already been observed to transit its star every 3.524 days (Charbonneau et al. Cal00 (2000); Henry et al. Hal00 (2000)). The object’s mass is $`0.69\pm 0.05`$$`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$ , where $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{J}`$$`=1.89\times 10^{27}`$ kg is the mass of Jupiter. Hubble Space Telescope measurements of the transit (Brown et al. Betal01 (2001)) imply that the planet’s radius is $`96300\pm 4000`$ km. An analysis of the lightcurve combined with atmospheric models shows that this should correspond to a radius of 94430 km at the 1 bar level (Hubbard et al. Hub01 (2001)). This last estimate corresponds to 1.349 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$$`70,000\mathrm{km}`$ is a characteristic radius of Jupiter. This large radius, in fair agreement with theoretical predictions (Guillot et al. Gui96 (1996)), shows unambiguously that HD209458b is a gas giant.

We expect that the evolution of Pegasi planets depends more on the stellar irradiation than is the case with Jupiter. HD209458b and other Pegasi planets differ qualitatively from Jupiter because the globally-averaged stellar flux they absorb is $`10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`10^5\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$), which is $`10^4`$ times greater than the predicted intrinsic flux of $`10^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. (In contrast, Jupiter’s absorbed and intrinsic fluxes are the same within a factor of two.) Several evolution calculations of Pegasi planets have been published (Burrows et al. 2000a , Bodenheimer et al. Bod01 (2001)), but these papers disagree about whether HD209458b’s radius can be explained, and so far there has been no general discussion of how the irradiation affects the evolution. Our aim is to help fill this gap.

Here, we quantify how atmospheric processes affect the evolution of Pegasi planets such as HD209458b. First (Section 2), we show that the evolution is sensitive to the assumed atmospheric temperatures. This sensitivity has not previously been documented, and quantifying it is important because the temperature profiles appropriate for specific planets remain uncertain (e.g., no atmospheric radiative transfer calculation for HD209458b yet exists). Our works suggests that the discrepancy between the predictions of Burrows et al. (2000a ) and Bodenheimer et al. (Bod01 (2001)) can be largely explained by their different assumptions about atmospheric temperature.

Second, the effect of atmospheric dynamics on the evolution has to date been neglected. For example, current models assume the day-night temperature difference is zero, despite the fact that substantial day-night temperature variations are likely. In Section 3.1 we demonstrate how the evolution is modified when a day-night temperature difference is included. Furthermore, the intense stellar irradiation will lead to production of atmospheric kinetic energy, and transport of this energy into the interior could provide a substantial energy flux that would counteract the loss of energy that causes planetary contraction. In Section 3.2 we investigate this effect.

The research has major implications for HD209458b. Early calculations implied that Pegasi planets contract slowly enough to explain HD209458b’s large radius (Guillot et al. Gui96 (1996), Burrows et al. 2000a ). But recent calculations of irradiated atmospheres suggest that the actual deep atmosphere is colder than assumed (Goukenleuque et al. 2000). When such realistic temperatures are adopted (our Section 2), the planet contracts too fast and the radius is $`0.2`$–0.3 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ too small. Bodenheimer et al. (Bod01 (2001)) argued that tidal heating from circularization of the orbit would slow the contraction, leading to a larger radius, but this is a transient process that would end $`10^8`$ years after the planet’s formation. Instead we argue that kinetic energy produced in the atmosphere is transported into the interior and dissipated (Section 3.2). We show that plausible downward energy fluxes can slow or even halt the planet’s contraction, allowing HD209458b’s radius to be explained.

In a joint paper (Showman & Guillot SG01 (2001), Paper II) we consider the atmospheric dynamics of these planets, with emphasis on how the atmospheres respond to stellar heating and gravitational tidal interactions, and on the observable consequences.

## 2 Sensitivity of Evolution to Atmospheric Temperature

The upper boundary condition of evolution models consists of a relationship between the effective temperature and some deeper temperature (say that at 10 bars) to which the model’s interior temperature profile is attached. Here we show that the evolution is sensitive to the assumed relationship (i.e., to the assumed atmospheric temperature structure).

Before we begin, we provide some definitions. We define the effective temperature of the irradiated planet as

$$4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4=L_{\mathrm{}}+L_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the planet’s radius, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is its effective temperature, $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the part of the stellar luminosity absorbed by the planet and $`L_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the intrinsic luminosity of the planet due to its cooling and contraction (and possibly other processes such as radioactivity or thermonuclear reactions in the case of massive objects).

The temperature corresponding to the intrinsic planetary flux, called the “intrinsic” temperature $`T_{\mathrm{int}}`$, is defined by

$$4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{int}}^4=L_{\mathrm{int}}.$$
(2)
Similarly, we define $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ from the absorbed stellar luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$. $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the effective temperature towards which the planet tends as it cools and $`L_{\mathrm{int}}`$ diminishes (see e.g. Hubbard Hub77 (1977)). It is a function of the Bond albedo (i.e. the ratio of the luminosity directly reflected to the total luminosity intercepted by the planet). $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be viewed as the effective temperature reached by the planet after it has lost its internal heat, and is hence sometimes noted $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ (e.g. Guillot et al. Gui96 (1996); Saumon et al. Sau96 (1996)).

### 2.1 Atmospheric boundary conditions

We consider two evolution models of HD209458b based on the parameters listed in table 1; the two models differ only in their prescription for the atmospheric boundary condition.

Our first evolution sequence, dubbed the “hot” case, uses the standard boundary condition from Guillot et al. (1996) and Burrows et al. (2001a). These papers adopted an atmospheric structure of an isolated object with the expected effective temperature, which provides a fair fit to the evolution of Jupiter. The surface boundary condition consists of a relationship between the temperature at the 10 bar pressure level $`T_{\mathrm{isolated}}`$, the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the gravity $`g`$ of an isolated planet/brown dwarf derived by several authors (see Marley et al. Mar96 (1996); Burrows et al. Bur97 (1997)):

$$T(P=10\mathrm{bar})=T_{\mathrm{isolated}}(T_{\mathrm{eff}},g)$$
(3)
This approximation is exact in the limit when the stellar flux is entirely absorbed at the 10 bar level, or in a deep adiabatic (convective) region, as is the case for Jupiter (see Hubbard Hub77 (1977) for a detailed discussion of the effect of insolation on Jupiter’s evolution). Figure 1 shows the variation of $`T_{\mathrm{isolated}}`$ with effective temperature and gravity, for values of interest in the case of Pegasi planets.

Unfortunately, the approximation becomes incorrect in the case of strongly irradiated planets because of the growth of a thick external radiative zone. Another boundary condition has therefore to be sought: either part of the stellar flux is able to penetrate to deeper levels ($`P_0>10`$ bar) and lead to a boundary condition defined by $`T(P_0)>T_{\mathrm{isolated}}`$, or most of the stellar flux is absorbed at $`P_0<10`$ bar, yielding $`T(P_0)<T_{\mathrm{isolated}}`$. (This is due to the fact that in the radiative zone $`dT/dPF`$, where $`F`$ is the flux to be transported). It will be shown hereafter (see section 3.3) that Eq. 3 is effectively an upper limit to the boundary temperature because continuum opacity sources only effectively limit the penetration of the stellar photons. Indeed, more detailed models of the atmospheres of Pegasi planets have shown that most of the starlight is absorbed at pressures less than 10 bar, and that Eq. 3 overestimates the atmospheric temperatures by as much as 300 to 1000 K (Seager & Sasselov SS98 (1998), SS00 (2000); Goukenleuque et al. Gouk00 (2000); Barman et al. Bar01 (2001)).

Because these atmospheric models do not presently span the effective temperature and gravity range that is needed, and more importantly because they assume unrealistic intrinsic temperatures, we chose to construct an arbitrary boundary condition based on the results of the isolated case. For a given $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the isolated case provides an upper bound to the “surface” temperature and by extension to the temperatures in the planetary interior. In order to have an approximate lower bound that agrees with atmospheric models of irradiated giant planets, we assume (i) a lower value of $`P_0=3`$ bar, and (ii) that the temperature at that level is given by:

$$T(P=3\mathrm{bar})=T_{\mathrm{isolated}}(T_{\mathrm{eff}},g)1000\mathrm{K}.$$
(4)
Evolution calculations made with this boundary condition are dubbed the “cold” case.

Note that we found a posteriori that the choice of $`P_0`$ is almost unconsequential for the evolution calculations. This is because the external radiative region quickly becomes almost isothermal (see fig. 4 hereafter). However, the consequences of the cooler temperatures are profound, and as we shall see lead to a much faster evolution.

In this context, Bodenheimer et al. (Bod00 (2000); Bod01 (2001)) assume that the temperature at optical depth $`2/3`$ (corresponding in their model to a pressure of the order $`1`$ mbar) is equal to the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, an approximation that leads to an underestimation of the actual atmospheric temperatures. As a consequence, their 1 bar temperatures are of the order of $`1400`$ K, i.e. even lower than what is implied by Eq. (4). This would imply an extremely inefficient penetration of the stellar flux in the planetary atmosphere, in disagreement with detailed models of these atmospheres. We therefore prefer to use Eq. (4) as our “cold” boundary condition.

### 2.2 Evolution models of HD209458b

The evolution of HD209458b is calculated as described in Guillot et al. (Gui96 (1996)), using the parameters given in Table 1. Because of the high stellar insolation, the contraction and cooling of the planet from a high entropy initial state is only possible through the build-up and growth of a radiative zone (Guillot et al. Gui96 (1996)).

The evolution of the interior of HD209458b for the two cases is shown in figures 2 and 3. After a rapid contraction during which both the central pressure and temperature increase, the onset of degeneracy leads to a cooling of the interior as the planet continues to contract. The cooling of the interior proceeds despite the fact that the atmospheric temperatures remain nearly constant thanks to the growth of a radiative region in the planet’s upper layers, as indicated by the dashed area.

In the case of the “hot” atmospheric boundary condition (Fig. 2), the measured radius (1.35 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$) is attained after 5.37 Ga ($`5.37\times 10^9`$ years), which is compatible with the age of the G0 star HD209458 (see Burrows et al. 2000a ). The radiative zone then extends to about 730 bar, and the intrinsic luminosity is $`7.7\times 10^{24}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (2.3 times that of Jupiter), which corresponds to an intrinsic temperature of 105K.

The “cold” atmospheric boundary condition (Fig. 3) yields a much faster evolution: the planet then shrinks to 1.35 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ in only 0.18 Ga (see also fig. 6 hereafter). This is incompatible with the age derived for HD209458b. The radiative/convective boundary in this model (at 0.18 Ga) is at 160 bar, due to the higher intrinsic luminosity equal to $`1.9\times 10^{26}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, equivalent to an intrinsic temperature of 234 K.

The fact that the evolution is faster in the “cold” case may seem counterintuitive. It occurs because the intrinsic luminosity is proportional to the temperature gradient, not to the temperature itself. As shown by Fig. 4 hereafter, the temperature variation in the radiative region is more pronounced in the “cold” case than in the “hot” case. Basically, this is because the temperatures at deep levels are fixed by the condition on the radius, but that the surface temperatures are very different in the “cold” and “hot” cases.

Bodenheimer et al. (Bod01 (2001)) obtain radii that slightly exceed those of our “cold” case, despite their lower atmospheric temperatures. However, this is probably due to their lower assumed value for the helium abundance $`Y=0.24`$, whereas we chose $`Y=0.30`$, a value representative of conditions in the solar nebula and that accounts for a solar proportion of heavy elements. In both cases, young ages are required to reproduce the measured planetary radius.

We therefore feel that because the “cold” atmospheric boundary condition is preferable to the “hot” boundary condition, there is a problem in explaining HD209458b’s radius. An absolute proof of this statement would require calculations of many different models using different assumptions, which we will not attempt in this paper. The conclusion should be relatively secure however, because several factors point towards a reduction of the planet’s radius compared to what we have calculated: (i) The atmospheric temperatures could be even lower than in the cold case; (ii) The opacities used include the presence of abundant grains in the atmosphere and does not account for their gravitational settling; (iii) Our choice of the equation of state tends to yield larger radii than would be the case using an equation of state that consistently models the molecular/metallic transition (see Saumon et al. Sau95 (1995)); (iv) The presence of a central core will tend to greatly reduce the planet’s radius (Bodenheimer et al. Bod01 (2001)).

An additional source of energy then appears to be required. We note that the presence of a hydrogen/helium phase separation, like in Jupiter and Saturn (e.g. Stevenson & Salpeter SS77 (1977); Guillot Gui99 (1999)), is not a valid alternative because of the high interior temperatures involved in the case of Pegasi planets (e.g. 20,000 K at 1 Mbar).

An important aspect of the hot and cold models is shown in Fig. 4: Apart from the outer radiative layers, the two models possess a very similar interior structure at the times (5.37 and 0.18 Ga for the hot and cold cases, respectively) when they match HD209458b’s observed radius. This is easily understood by the fact that the radiative layer encompasses only a small fraction of the radius. Most of the contribution to the planetary radius is due to the convective interior. Fixing the radius is, for a given equation of state and composition, almost equivalent to fixing the temperature-pressure profile in the deep interior. HD209458b can be thought of as a relatively well-constrained convective core underlying a radiative envelope of uncertain mass and temperature.

## 3 Evolution of Pegasi planets: “non-standard” models

### 3.1 Implications of atmospheric day/night temperature variations

We show in Paper II that the atmosphere should be significantly hotter on the dayside than the night side. Here we examine the consequences for the evolution models. To do so, we use a toy model that, while simple, elucidates the important physics. A full two-dimensional model that would allow us to calculate the evolution of Pegasi planets including latitudinal or longitudinal temperature variations will be left for future work.

Let us assume that the planet can be divided in two hemispheres (night and day) with two different effective temperatures such that $`T_{\mathrm{night}}T_{\mathrm{day}}`$. When the absorbed stellar energy is fully redistributed by advection, $`T_{\mathrm{day}}=T_{\mathrm{night}}=T_{\mathrm{}}`$. In all cases, energy conservation implies that $`2T_{\mathrm{}}^4=T_{\mathrm{night}}^4+T_{\mathrm{day}}^4`$. Therefore, $`T_{\mathrm{night}}=0`$ implies $`T_{\mathrm{day}}=2^{1/4}T_{\mathrm{}}`$; $`T_{\mathrm{}}=1400`$ K and $`T_{\mathrm{day}}=1500`$ K yields $`T_{\mathrm{night}}=1272`$ K.

Let us do the following gedanken experiment, as illustrated by Fig. 5: we suppose that the two hemispheres cannot exchange energy, and let them evolve from the same initial state. After a given time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the central entropy on the day side will have decreased by a smaller amount than on the night side. This is due to the fact that a higher atmospheric temperature is equivalent to a higher stellar flux, and leads to a slower evolution (see Hubbard Hub77 (1977); Guillot et al. Gui95 (1995)). In consequence, the night side will have become internally colder, have a smaller radius and a larger central pressure than the day side.

The pressure differences caused by the differential cooling ensures an efficient mixing between the two hemispheres on a time scale of decades or less, i.e. much shorter than the evolution time scale.

We therefore include the effect of atmospheric temperature variations on the evolution in the following way: We calculate two evolution tracks of a planet with uniform temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{night}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{day}}`$, respectively. Using these evolution tracks and starting from an initial condition for which the two models have the same central entropy, we calculate the entropies of the two sides after a time interval $`\delta t`$. We then decrease the entropy of the day side and increase that of the night side so that both are equal to $`(S_{\mathrm{night}}+S_{\mathrm{day}})/2`$. The process is repeated for each time step. The cooling of the night side is therefore slowed by the mixing of material of slightly higher entropy from the day side, while the opposite is true for the day side.

The resulting evolution tracks are shown in Fig. 6. Not suprisingly, the cooling of an irradiated planet with inefficient heat redistribution in the atmosphere is faster than if the stellar heat is efficiently advected to the night side. This is mainly due to the fact that, with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{day}\mathrm{night}}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{night}}`$ decreases much more rapidly than $`T_{\mathrm{day}}`$ increases, yielding a much faster cooling of the night side. However, for the temperature variation of 228 K shown in Fig. 6 (long dashed line), the effect is limited to a variation of $`0.5`$% of the radius after 1 Ga of evolution or more. The effect is of course more pronounced if no thermal energy advection occurs in the atmosphere ($`T_{\mathrm{night}}=0`$). In that case (short dashed line), the minimal radius is, for a given mass, composition and stellar insolation, up to 5% smaller than calculated in the uniform case.

Figure 7 shows that a non-uniform atmosphere has a substantial effect on the planet’s intrinsic flux ($`F=L/4\pi R^2`$). After 4.5 Ga, the flux of our planet with $`T_{\mathrm{night}}=`$1272 K and $`T_{\mathrm{day}}=`$1500 K is 6310 and 2950$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ on the night and day sides, respectively, which can be compared with the measured intrinsic fluxes of Jupiter, $`5440\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ and Saturn, $`2010\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Pearl & Conrath Pea91 (1991)). This process is analogous to that proposed by Ingersoll & Porco (IP78 (1978)) to explain the uniform temperatures of Jupiter. Stellar insolation tends to suppress the planet’s intrinsic heat flux, and so the planetary heat preferentially escapes in regions where the insolation is minimal.

### 3.2 Evolution with internal energy dissipation

Current models predict that several-Ga-old Pegasi planets have intrinsic heat fluxes of $`10^4\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which is about $`10^4`$ times less than the total luminosity of $`10^8\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ resulting from thermal balance with the stellar insolation. A fraction $`\eta `$ of the total luminosity will be converted into kinetic energy by the atmospheric pressure gradients. On Earth, the globally-averaged flux transported by the atmosphere is about $`2.4\times 10^5\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ ($`240\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2`$), while about $`2000\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is converted into large-scale atmospheric kinetic energy (Peixoto and Oort PO92 (1992), p. 385), leading to a value $`\eta =0.01`$. This energy production can be viewed as the work done by an atmospheric heat engine with an efficiency of 1%. Preliminary simulations that we have conducted indicate that a similar ratio is relevant for Pegasi planets (Paper II). If so, the implied kinetic energy generation is $`10^2`$ times the intrinsic heat flux computed by current models. Inclusion of this energy could then lead to a first-order alteration in the behavior predicted in evolution models.

In steady state, the kinetic energy that is produced must be dissipated. On Earth, this dissipation mostly results from friction with the surface (Peixoto and Oort PO92 (1992), p. 385). For Pegasi planets, Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities and breaking of gravity and planetary waves are more relevant. The key question is whether the energy is dissipated in the “weather” layer, where starlight is absorbed and radiation to space occurs, or in the deeper atmosphere. In the former case, the dissipation will provide only an order-1% perturbation to the vertical profile of absorbed starlight and radiated thermal energy. In the latter case, it comprises a hundred-fold alteration in the interior energy budget. We therefore need to know (i) to what pressures can the energy be transported, and (ii) how deep must it be transported to cause a major effect on the interior?

As discussed in Paper II, mechanisms for transporting kinetic energy into the interior include Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, direct vertical advection, and waves. The dynamical coupling between atmospheric layers suggests that winds should develop throughout the radiative region even though the radiative cooling and heating occurs predominantly at pressures less than a few bars. The boundary between the radiative region and the convective interior (at 100–1000 bars depending on the model) is a likely location for dissipation, because Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities and breaking of downward propagating waves can both happen there. Furthermore, application of the Taylor-Proudman theorem to the convective interior suggests that winds should develop throughout the convective interior even if the forcing occurs only near the top of the convective region. This increases the possibility of dissipation in the interior.

With the inclusion of an internal dissipative source, the energy equation becomes

$$\frac{L}{m}=\dot{ϵ}T\frac{S}{t},$$
(5)
where $`m`$ is the mass inside any given level, and $`\dot{ϵ}(m)`$ is the energy dissipated per unit time per unit mass at that level.

The evolution of Pegasi planets including energy dissipation has been studied by Bodenheimer et al. (Bod01 (2001)) in the context of the tidal circularization of the orbit of the planet. These authors focused on simulations where $`\dot{ϵ}`$ was constant with $`m`$ (although they also performed some simulations with spatially-varying dissipation). The major difficulty is, as noted by the authors, the fact that the present eccentricities of extrasolar planets within 0.1 AU of their star are small and that the detected Pegasi planets generally do not possess close massive planetary companions which would impose on them a forced eccentricity.

Instead, we have argued that kinetic energy, generated from a portion of the absorbed stellar flux, is transported to the interior where it can be dissipated. Although the depth of such dissipation is unknown, the majority could be deposited within the radiative zone rather than throughout the interior. Due to the rapid rise of the Rosseland opacity with pressure and temperature, the effect of heating anywhere within the convective core is essentially equivalent to the case where it occurs entirely at the center (a result shown by Bodenheimer et al.). The question is whether even shallower heating — say that occurring at tens to hundreds of bars, where atmospheric kinetic-energy deposition is likely — can affect the evolution. Therefore, we here explore the influence of the dissipation’s depth dependence and magnitude $`\dot{E}=\dot{ϵ}𝑑m`$.

An ad hoc, but reasonable, assumption is that a fraction of up to 1% of the absorbed stellar flux is dissipated inside the planet. Quantitatively, we use $`\dot{E}=2.4\times 10^{27}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Relatively small values of $`\dot{E}`$ can affect the evolution, provided they are comparable or larger than the luminosity obtained without dissipation $`L`$ (note that $`L10^{24}10^{25}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and affect the radiative gradient on a sufficiently extended region of the interior.

A first calculation assumes that energy is dissipated entirely at the center of the planet. In that case, as shown in Fig. 8 (uppermost solid line), an equilibrium with the star is reached after only $`100`$ Ma, at which point the planet’s radius is 1.87 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ and its structure remains unchanged with time (as long as the star is also in equilibrium). This is very similar to the results obtained by Bodenheimer et al. (2001). Also in agreement with their results, we find that a calculation with the same $`\dot{E}`$, but with the dissipation evenly distributed throughout the interior (i.e., uniform $`\dot{ϵ}`$) yields a curve similar to the upper solid line in Fig. 8.

In order to estimate the consequences of energy dissipation occurring closer to the planet’s surface, we use the following arbitrary functional form:

$$\dot{ϵ}=\dot{ϵ}_0e^{(1\stackrel{~}{m})/\stackrel{~}{m}_0},$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the adimensional mass (0 at planet’s center and 1 at its surface), $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ is the mass fraction of the external regions over which most of the dissipation occurs, and $`\dot{ϵ}_0`$ is chosen such that $`\dot{ϵ}𝑑m=\dot{E}=2.4\times 10^{27}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. We will use values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ equal to $`5\times 10^6`$, $`10^5`$, and $`2\times 10^5`$, which correspond to locations where the pressure is 5, 11, and 21 bars, respectively.

A choice of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=10^5`$ (which implies dissipative heating distributed dominantly from the top boundary to 15 bar but with a tail of heating reaching $`100`$ bar) yields a radius which is, after a few billion years, about 10% larger than in the case with no dissipation (third solid line from the top in Fig. 8). This is, in the “cold” case, insufficient to reproduce the observed radius of HD209458b. A slightly higher value of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=2\times 10^5`$ yields an evolution track which is in agreement with the measured radius, as shown in Fig. 8 (second solid line from the top). In that case, the value of $`1\stackrel{~}{m}=\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$ corresponds, for the model with 1.35 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ to a pressure level $`P=28`$bar and $`T=2800`$ K. However, because of the form of Eq. (6), dissipation becomes negligible only around $`1\stackrel{~}{m}10\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$, i.e. $`P=130`$ bar and $`T=3380`$ K.

Two other evolution tracks have been calculated specifically to illustrate how HD209458b’s radius can be reproduced with different values of $`\dot{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0`$. In the case of dissipation at the center, we were able to match an equilibrium radius of 1.35 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ with $`\dot{E}=1.8\times 10^{26}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (dotted line in Fig. 8), which is only 0.08% of the global-mean absorbed stellar flux. In the case of dissipation limited to a shallow layer ($`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=5\times 10^6`$, corresponding to a pressure of 5 bars), we found that a relatively high value of $`\dot{E}`$ corresponding to 10% of the absorbed stellar flux was necessary for the planet to contract to its present radius in about $`5`$ Ga (dashed line in Fig. 8).

The temperature pressure profiles of three models calculated with the “cold” atmospheric boundary conditions but with different values of the dissipation factor, and such that their total radius is 1.35 $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{J}`$ , are compared in Fig. 9. The temperature profile of the model with dissipation at the center (solid line) is essentially indistinguishable from our reference “cold” model which included no dissipation but had a high intrinsic heat flux due to its young age. As dissipation is increased but at the same time limited to shallower outer layers, the temperature profile becomes more similar to the “hot” case shown in Fig. 4. In the case of the highest dissipation considered here but with a small $`\stackrel{~}{m}_0=5\times 10^6`$, an external (detached) convective region can form. Note that in this case $`T_{\mathrm{int}}=790`$K; atmospheric models calculated with these high intrinsic effective temperatures are also found to possess a deep convective zone (Barman et al. Bar01 (2001)).

### 3.3 Penetration of the stellar flux into the deep atmosphere

We have shown that a kinetic energy flux corresponding to a small fraction of the stellar flux can, if dissipated deep enough, significantly affect the planet’s evolution. The result would be exactly the same if the stellar flux was radiatively transported to these deep levels. We argue that stellar heat cannot be deposited so deep, however.

As shown by figures 4 and 9, the temperature profile of HD209458b must cross the point defined by $`P_\mathrm{i}1`$ kbar, $`T_\mathrm{i}4000`$ K, assuming that the planet is of solar composition (the addition of heavy elements tends to increase the temperature required at a given pressure, but doesn’t otherwise alter the conclusions that follow). This point and the external boundary condition then define the intrinsic luminosity required to reproduce the measured radius, i.e.

$$L_{\mathrm{int}}\frac{64\pi \sigma GM}{3}\frac{<T^3>}{<\kappa >}\left(\frac{dT}{dp}\right)_{\mathrm{rad}},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma `$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $`<T>`$ and $`<\kappa >`$ are a mean temperature and opacity, respectively, and $`(dT/dp)_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the mean temperature lapse rate in the radiative zone.

In the “hot” case, the value of $`L_{\mathrm{int}}`$ thus derived is small because the difference in temperature between the bottom of the radiative zone and the external boundary is small. This implies that HD209458b needs to be relatively old to have such a low intrinsic luminosity. In the more realistic “cold” case, the planet either has to be uncomfortably young, or some additional heat has to be transported to these levels. This requires $`\dot{ϵ}>0`$, but with the additional requirement that the temperature should be brought close to $`3200`$ K at a pressure $`P<P_\mathrm{i}`$.

By definition of the optical depth $`\tau _\lambda `$, the proportion of stellar flux still remaining at a given level is equal to $`e^{\tau _\lambda }`$, where

$$\tau _\lambda =_z^{\mathrm{}}\kappa _\lambda \rho 𝑑z,$$
(8)
and $`\kappa _\lambda `$ is the monochromatic opacity, and $`z`$ is the altitude in the atmosphere. Equation (8) is strictly valid only in a one-dimensional approximation, but this is sufficient here. It is useful to approximate the integral by assuming a constant opacity and density in a slice of atmosphere of height equal to the pressure scale height. In that case, the pressure at which 99% of the stellar flux has been absorbed can be estimated by:

$$P<5\frac{g}{\kappa _{\mathrm{min}}},$$
(9)
where $`\kappa _{\mathrm{min}}`$ corresponds to the minimum value of the opacity $`\kappa _\lambda `$.

We estimate from the previous section that a penetration of 1% of the stellar flux to $`P100`$ bar in the “cold” case allows the radius of HD209458b to be explained without any other energy dissipation. 99% of the flux of a 6000 K black body is emitted between 0.22 and 4.9 $`\mu `$m. The measured radius and mass implies that $`g10^3\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2`$, therefore requiring $`\kappa _{\mathrm{min}}<5\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$.

This opacity is approximately the minimum expected for a pure hydrogen-helium mixture at $`P1`$ bar and $`T1500`$ K, at $`\lambda 1\mu `$m due to Rayleigh scattering by H<sub>2</sub> and H<sub>2</sub>-H<sub>2</sub> collision-induced absorption (see e.g. Lenzuni et al. Len91 (1991); Guillot et al. Gui94 (1994)). At temperatures above about 2000 K, two very important sources of continuous opacity arise, led by the increasing number of free electrons: the free-free absoption of H$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and the bound-free absorption of the H<sup>-</sup> ion. However the number of free electrons in a zero-metallicity gas remains low even at 3000 K, and the low opacity minimum persists to temperatures exceeding 3000 K, and pressures exceeding 10 bar. In this case a deep absorption of the stellar flux would then be likely.

However, in a mixture of solar-like composition, a large fraction of the electrons can be provided by alkali metals. Using electrons number densities obtained from Kurucz (Ku70 (1970)) and Lodders (personal communication, 2001), we estimate the minimum continuous opacity to climb to $`3\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$ at 2500 K and to $`0.1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$ at 3500 K, mostly due to H<sup>-</sup> absorption (John Jo88 (1988)). This alone prevents any relevant fraction of the stellar flux to reach levels at which the temperature is larger than 2500 K.

Furthermore, a number of other opacity sources are expected to occur and even dominate the spectrum. Likely candidates are K and Na which are now known to contribute significantly to the atmospheric absorption of brown dwarfs with similar temperatures, at visible wavelengths (Burrows et al. 2000b ). Similarly, TiO is expected to provide an even larger absorption at short wavelength where it appears in the deeper atmosphere. For example, Barman et al. (Bar01 (2001)) find that $`\tau _{1.2\mu \mathrm{m}}=10`$ is attained at pressures smaller than $`6`$ bar in the cloud-free atmosphere of Pegasi planets. Finally, clouds, if present, would cause an absorption of the stellar flux at even lower pressures.

It hence appears that only a zero-metallicity atmosphere would have a low-enough opacity to allow the stellar flux to penetrate to $`P100`$ bar. This is an unlikely possibility, the metallicity of HD209458 being close to solar (Mazeh et al. Maz00 (2000)). One possibility remains however: that alkali metals and strong absorbers such as TiO are buried deep due to condensation effects on the night side (see Paper II), so that the atmosphere on the day side would be almost metal-free. It is not clear even in this case that the measured radius could be explained, because the lower overall opacities would increase the rate of cooling and hence contraction of the planet.

In all the cases considered here, it seems very difficult for the incoming stellar flux to penetrate down to levels where the temperature is large (more than $`2500`$ K). In order to reproduce HD209458b’s large radius, a temperature $`4000K`$ at a pressure $`P1`$kbar must be attained. Energy dissipation due to a transfer of kinetic energy hence appears as the most likely missing energy source.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that the evolution of Pegasi planets is mainly driven by processes occuring in their atmosphere and is consequently complex. The measurement of the radius of one of these objects, HD209458b, has allowed us to probe some of these mechanisms in detail.

We demonstrated that radiative-equilibrium atmospheric models predicting temperatures above $`2500`$ K at pressures $`P10`$ bar are unlikely given the rapid rise of the absorption with increasing temperature. Cooler temperatures are to be expected in the atmosphere and without other means than radiation to transport the incoming heat flux, HD209458b’s large radius cannot be reproduced unless the planet is much younger than is revealed by observations of its parent star.

We showed the atmospheric temperature variations to have a small effect on the planetary cooling, if limited to a few 100’s K. The temperature variations lead to faster cooling of the planet compared to standard models, which assume the stellar heat to be evenly distributed onto the planet’s atmosphere. This accentuates the problem of reproducing HD209458b’s radius.

Energy dissipation is however a very promising candidate to explain HD209458b’s missing heating source. Lubow et al. (1997) have shown that tidal synchronization of Pegasi planets could give rise to a large heat flux. But this mechanism is limited to the early evolution of the planet and should rapidly become negligible. Bodenheimer et al. (Bod01 (2001)) argued that internal heating could be provided by tidal circularization of an eccentric orbit. This is similarly unlikely to occur in most Pegasi planets in the absence of a detected close, massive companion capable of exciting their eccentricity. The mechanism that we invoke is simply a downward transport of kinetic energy generated by the intense atmospheric heat engine. We showed that only $``$0.08% of the stellar flux has to be transported to the interior regions to explain the radius of HD209458b. This fraction rises to 1% if heat dissipation occurs predominantly in the outer $`2\times 10^5`$ in mass (reaching down to $`2\times 10^4`$), or to 10% if it occurs predominantly in the outer $`5\times 10^6`$ (reaching down to $`5\times 10^5`$). Data for Earth show that 1% of the absorbed solar radiation is converted to kinetic energy and dissipated in the atmosphere, and 1% is plausible for Pegasi planets too. To alter the evolution, the energy need be deposited only a few scale heights below the altitude where it is created, lending plausibility to the idea.

The presence of energy dissipation may be quantified in the future when several Pegasi planets have been characterized. With several ground programs (STARE, VULCAN), accepted space missions (COROT, MONS, MOST) and proposed ones (KEPLER, EDDINGTON) aiming at detecting photometric transits of Pegasi planets, there is indeed a good chance that enough statistical information on the mass radius relationship of Pegasi planets can be gathered.

An unfortunate consequence of this study is that the possibility to determine the planets’ compositions solely from their mass, radius and orbital characteristics seems to be postponed to a more distant future. On the other hand, we should rejoice over the perspective of better understanding of irradiated atmospheres and tidal dissipation. As usual, progress will mainly occur through observations and the direct characterization of Pegasi planets.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work benefited from many interactions with M.S. Marley, and discussions over many years with members of the “Tucson group” (W.B. Hubbard, J.I. Lunine, A. Burrows). We also wish to thank P. Bodenheimer, R. Freedman, K. Lodders, and D. Saumon for a variety of useful contributions. This research was supported by the French Programme National de Planétologie, Institute of Theoretical Physics (NSF PH94-07194), and National Research Council of the United States. The numerical results described in this article are available from the following URL: http://www.obs-nice.fr/guillot/pegasi-planets.


format: text

text:
# Eigenfunction and Bochner Riesz estimates on manifolds with boundary

## 1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to give a simple proof of sharp $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimates for the eigenfunctions of the Dirichlet Laplacian on smooth compact Riemannian manifolds $`(M,g)`$ of dimension $`n2`$ with boundary $`M`$ and then to use these estimates to prove new estimates for Bochner Riesz means in this setting. Thus, we shall consider the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem

(1.1)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda ^2)u(x)=0,xM,u(x)=0,xM,$$

with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ being the Laplace-Beltrami operator associated to the Riemannian metric $`g`$. Recall that the spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is discrete and tends to infinity. Let $`0<\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2\lambda _3^2\mathrm{}`$ denote the eigenvalues, so that $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ is the spectrum of the first order operator $`𝒫=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Let $`\{e_j(x)\}`$ be an associated real orthonormal basis, and let

$$e_j(f)(x)=e_j(x)_Mf(y)e_j(y)𝑑y,$$

be the projection onto the $`j`$-th eigenspace. Here and in what follows $`dy`$ denotes the volume element associated with the metric $`g`$.

Grieser  recently proved the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimates

(1.2)
$$e_j(f)_{\mathrm{}}C\lambda _j^{(n1)/2}f_2,$$

which are sharp for instance when $`M`$ is the upper hemisphere of $`S^n`$ with the standard metric. One of our main results is a slight strengthening of this. We shall consider the unit band spectral projection operators,

(1.3)
$$\chi _\lambda f=\underset{|\lambda _j\lambda |1}{}e_j(f),$$

and show that these enjoy the same bounds:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Fix a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ with boundary of dimension $`n2`$. Then there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that

(1.4)
$$\chi _\lambda f_{\mathrm{}}C\lambda ^{(n1)/2}f_2,\lambda 1.$$

In the case of manifolds without boundary, this and more general estimates of the form

(1.5)
$$\chi _\lambda f_pC\lambda ^{\sigma (p)}f_p,\lambda 1,p2$$

where

(1.6)
$$\sigma (p)=\mathrm{max}\{\frac{n1}{2}\frac{n}{p},\frac{n1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{p}\right)\}$$

were proved in . These estimates cannot be improved since one can show that the operator norms satisfy $`lim\; sup_\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda ^{\sigma (p)}\chi _\lambda _{L2L^p}>0`$ (see ).

The special case of (1.5) where $`p=\mathrm{}`$ seems to have been first stated in , but it can be proved using much older estimates of Avakumovic ,  and Levitan  that arise in the proof of the sharp Weyl formula for Riemannian manifolds without boundary. After that, Hörmander  proved the sharp Weyl formula for general self-adjoint elliptic operators on manifolds without boundary. Recently, in the case of manifolds without boundary, the author and Zelditch  proved estimates that imply that for generic metrics on any manifold one has the bounds $`e_j_{\mathrm{}}=o(\lambda _j^{(n1)/2})`$ for $`L^2`$-normalized eigenfunctions. The corresponding result for manifolds with boundary is not known.

In the case of manifolds with boundary, the only known results for the unit band spectral projection operators were due to D. Grieser  and H. Smith and the author , who showed that the bounds (1.5) hold under the assumption that the manifold has geodesically concave boundary. The two-dimensional case was handled in , and the higher dimensional in .

In the other direction, Grieser in his thesis , showed that (1.5) cannot hold if the boundary of $`M`$ has a point that is geodesically convex. In this case, for instance, when $`n=2`$, he constructed a counterexample showing that the bounds in in (1.5) can only hold for $`p8`$. Showing that they are valid for this range of exponents appears to be very difficult. The reason for the difference in the smaller range of exponents for this case is related to the existence of Rayleigh whispering galleries. Specifically, one can construct functions with spectrum in $`\lambda `$-unit bands that are concentrated in a $`\lambda ^{2/3}`$ neighborhood of the boundary, while in the boundaryless case, the counterexample showing that (1.5) is sharp involves showing that there are functions of this type concentrating in $`\lambda ^{1/2}`$ neighborhoods of geodesics.

We shall follow an idea of Grieser  to prove our generalization (1.4) of his result (1.2). Grieser first showed that one always has the uniform bounds $`|e_j(x)|C\lambda _j^{(n1)/2}`$ when the distance from $`x`$ to $`M`$ is bounded from below by $`\lambda _j^1`$. This first step was achieved by adapting the proof of estimates for the local Weyl law which are due to Seeley , Pham The Lai  and Hörmander . He then used these bounds and a form of the maximum principle (, Theorem 10, p. 73) for solutions of (1.1) to obtain the bounds in the $`\lambda _j^1`$ neighborhood of the boundary.

Our proof of (1.4) will be to first see that the aforementioned local Weyl estimate of Seeley, Pham The Lai, and Hörmander immediately gives the stronger estimate

(1.7)
$$|\chi _\lambda f(x)|C\lambda ^{(n1)/2}f_2,\lambda 1,$$

for all $`x`$ when $`n=2`$ or when for $`n3`$ the distance to the boundary is bounded below by $`\lambda ^{(n1)/(n2)}`$. If $`n=3`$, one can use this fact and a simple argument involving Sobolev’s theorem (cf. Theorem 17.5.3 in ) to show that (1.7) must also hold in the missing piece where $`\text{dist}(x,M)\lambda ^2`$ . For $`n4`$; however, one must use a maximum principle argument as introduced by Greiser for these problems. We shall not directly use the form of the maximum principle employed by Grieser, but rather see that its proof can be used to show that the uniform bounds (1.7) must also hold in a $`\lambda ^1`$ neighborhood of the boundary, which would finish the proof of (1.4).

Our other main result will be some new estimates for Bochner Riesz means of eigenfunctions. Recall the Bochner Riesz means of index $`\delta 0`$ are defined by

(1.8)
$$S_\lambda ^\delta f=\underset{\lambda _j\lambda }{}\left(1\frac{\lambda _j^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^\delta e_j(f).$$

It is known that a necessary condition for these operators to be uniformly bounded on $`L^p`$ for a given $`1p\mathrm{}`$, $`p2`$, is that

(1.9)
$$\delta (p)=\mathrm{max}\{n|1/21/p|1/2,0\}.$$

Note that when $`p2(n+1)/(n1)`$, one has $`\delta (p)=\sigma (p)`$, where $`\sigma (p)`$ is the exponent in (1.6). Using this fact, the author used the boundarlyless estimates (1.5) to prove the first sharp estimates for Bochner Riesz means on compact Riemannian manifolds in . Specifically, it was shown that for a given $`p[1,2(n+1)/(n+3)][2(n+1)/(n1),\mathrm{}]`$ one has the uniform bounds

$$S_\lambda ^\delta f_pCf_p$$

in this setting, provided that $`\delta >\delta (p)`$. Earlier, weaker results were due to many people, including Hörmander .

Since we only know that the desired bounds for eigenfunctions (1.5) hold for $`p=\mathrm{}`$, we can only at this stage prove the sharp estimates for Bochner Riesz means when $`p=1`$ or $`p=\mathrm{}`$:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Fix a smooth compact Riemannian manifold with boundary $`(M,g)`$ of dimension $`n2`$. Then if $`\delta >(n1)/2`$ one has the uniform bounds

(1.10)
$$S_\lambda ^\delta f_pCf_p,$$

for every $`1p\mathrm{}`$.

By interpolating with the trivial estimate for $`p=2`$, and using duality one gets the bounds (1.10) from the special case where $`p=1`$. However, the bounds for $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$ certainly are not sharp.

We shall adapt the argument from  to show that (1.5) implies (1.10). In  the Tauberian arguments behind the proof of the sharp Weyl formula were adapted to show that one could write $`S_\lambda ^\delta =\stackrel{~}{S}_\lambda ^\delta +R_\lambda ^\delta `$, where the ”remainder” term $`R_\lambda ^\delta `$ could be controlled by (1.5), while the other piece, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\lambda ^\delta `$, could be estimated by computing its kernel explicitly via the Hadamard parametrix and then estimating the resulting integral operator using straightforward adaptations of the arguments for the Euclidean case. In the setting of manifolds with boundary, this approach does not seem to work since the known parametrices for the wave equation do not seem strong enough unless one assumes that the boundary is geodesically concave. Here, we shall get around this fact by simplifying the earlier arguments and show that estimates for Bochner Riesz operators just follow from (1.5) and the finite propagation speed of solutions of the Dirichlet wave equation.

In what follows we shall use the convention that $`C`$ will denote a constant that is not necessarily the same at each occurrence.

It is a pleasure to thank S. Zelditch for a number helpful conversations. I am also grateful to M. Taylor and X. Xu for helpful comments regarding an early draft of this paper.

## 2. $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimates for unit band spectral projection operators

In this section we shall prove Theorem 1.1. Thus, we need to see that one has the uniform bounds

(2.1)
$$|\chi _\lambda f(x)|C\lambda ^{(n1)/2}f_2,\lambda 1.$$

Note that

$$\chi _\lambda f(x)=_M\underset{|\lambda _j\lambda |1}{}e_j(x)e_j(y)f(y)dy,$$

therefore, by the converse to Schwartz’s inequality and orthogonality, one has the bounds (2.1) at a given point $`x`$ if and only if

(2.2)
$$\underset{|\lambda \lambda _j|1}{}(e_j(x))^2C^2\lambda ^{n1}.$$

Because of this, (2.1) would be a consequence of the following two results.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Fix $`(M,g)`$ as above. Then, given $`\epsilon >0`$, there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that for $`\lambda 1`$

(2.3)
$$\underset{|\lambda \lambda _j|1}{}(e_j(x))^2C_\epsilon \lambda ^{n1},$$

for $`x`$ satisfying

(2.4)
$$d(x)\epsilon \lambda ^1$$

if $`n3`$ where $`d(x)`$ denotes the Riemannian distance to $`M`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

If $`(M,g)`$ is as above then for large $`\lambda `$ we have

(2.5)
$$\underset{\{x:d(x)\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{|\lambda \lambda _j|1}{}(e_j(x))^24\underset{\{x:d(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{|\lambda \lambda _j|1}{}(e_j(x))^2.$$

Proof of Proposition 2.1: We shall see that (2.3) is an immediate consequence of Theorem 17.5.10 in Hörmander , which in turn is based on earlier work of Seeley  and Pham The Lai . To state this result, we let

(2.6)
$$e(x,\lambda )=(2\pi )^n_{\{\xi ^n:|\xi |\lambda \}}\left(1e^{i2d(x)\xi _n}\right)𝑑\xi .$$

If we assume that local coordinates have been chosen so that the Riemannian volume form is $`dx_1\mathrm{}dx_n`$, then the result just quoted says that there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that for $`\lambda 1`$

(2.7)
$$|\underset{\lambda _j\lambda }{}(e_j(x))^2e(x,\lambda )|C\lambda (\lambda +d(x)^1)^{n2}.$$

Since $`\lambda (\lambda +d(x)^1)^{n2}=O(\lambda ^{n1})`$ for all $`x`$ satisfying (2.4) this yields Proposition 2.1 since

$$|e(x,\lambda +1)e(x,\lambda 1)|C\lambda ^{n1}.$$

Although, we do not need to use it here, the proof of (2.7) actually gives the bounds (2.3) when $`d(x)\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{n2}}`$ for $`n3`$ and for all $`x`$ when $`n=2`$. This stronger fact just follows from the estimate (17.5.20) in .

Proof of Proposition 2.2: It is convenient to use geodesic coordinates with respect to the boundary. Specifically, we shall use the fact that we can find a small constant $`c>0`$ so that the map $`(x^{},x_n)M\times [0,c)M`$, sending $`(x^{},x_n)`$ to the endpoint, $`x`$, of the geodesic of length $`x_n`$ which starts at $`x^{}M`$ and is perpendicular to $`M`$ is a local diffeomorphism. Note then that $`d(x)=x_n`$. Under this identification the metric takes the form

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j=dx_n^2+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}g_{ij}^{}(x^{},x_n)dx^idx^j,$$

where $`g_{ij}^{}(,x_n)`$ is a Riemannian metric on $`M`$ depending smoothly on $`x_n[0,c)`$. Consequently, in this neighborhood of the boundary, the Laplacian can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{ij}(x)\frac{^2}{x_ix_j}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_i(x)\frac{}{x_i},$$

using local coordinates for $`M`$, where $`g^{ij}`$ the matrix with entries $`(g^{ij})_{1i,jn1}=(g_{ij}^{})^1`$ and $`g^{nn}=1`$, and $`g^{nk}=g^{kn}=0`$, $`kn`$. Also the $`b_j(x)`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and real valued.

In what follows we shall assume that $`\lambda `$ is large enough so that $`\lambda 2/c`$. Assume further that $`\text{spec }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]\mathrm{}`$, and consider the function

$$H(x)=\frac{1}{(w(x))^2}\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}{}(e_j(x))^2,$$

where

$$w(x)=1(\lambda +1)^2x_n^2.$$

Suppose that in the strip $`\{xM:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}x_n\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}`$ the function $`H(x)`$ has a maximum at an interior point $`x=x_0`$. Then

$$v(x)=\frac{1}{w(x)}\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda ,\lambda +1]}{}\frac{e_j(x_0)}{w(x_0)}e_j(x)$$

must have a positive maximum at $`x=x_0`$. For because of our assumptions on the spectrum we then have $`v(x_0)=_{\lambda _j[\lambda ,\lambda +1]}(e_j(x_0)/w(x_0))^2>0`$, while at other points in the strip

$$\begin{array}{c}|v(x)|\frac{1}{w(x)}\left(\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda ,\lambda +1]}{}(e_j(x))^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{w(x_0)}\left(\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda ,\lambda +1]}{}(e_j(x_0))^2\right)^{1/2}\hfill \\ \hfill =(H(x))^{1/2}(H(x_0))^{1/2}H(x_0)=v(x_0).\end{array}$$

Note that in the strip $`\{xM:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}x_n\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)w=2(\lambda +1)^22b_n(x)x_n(\lambda +1)^2+\lambda _j^2(1(\lambda +1)^2x_n^2)\hfill \\ \hfill (\lambda +1)^2/2,\lambda _j\lambda +1,\end{array}$$

assuming that $`\lambda `$ is large enough so that $`|2b_1(x)x_n|1/2`$. Also, in this strip we have that $`\frac{1}{2}w(x)1`$.

Let us set

$$v_j(x)=\frac{e_j(x)}{w(x)}\frac{e_j(x_0)}{w(x_0)},$$

so that $`v(x)=_{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}v_j(x)`$. We also set

$$u_j(x)=\frac{e_j(x_0)}{w(x_0)}e_j(x),$$

and note that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)u_j(x)=0`$.

A computation (see p. 72, ) shows that for a given $`j`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}0=\frac{1}{w}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)u_j\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x)\frac{^2v_j}{x_kx_l}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{2}{w}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x)\frac{w}{x_l}+b_k\right)\frac{v_j}{x_k}+\frac{v_j}{w}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)w.\end{array}$$

Therefore, if we sum over $`\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]`$, we get

$$\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x)\frac{^2v}{x_kx_l}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{2}{w}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x)\frac{w}{x_l}+b_k\right)\frac{v}{x_k}=\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}{}\frac{v_j}{w}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)w.$$

In particular, at $`x=x_0`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x_0)\frac{^2v(x_0)}{x_kx_l}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{2}{w}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}g^{kl}(x_0)\frac{w}{x_l}+b_k\right)\frac{v(x_0)}{x_k}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{w(x_0)}\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}{}\left(\frac{e_j(x_0)}{w(x_0)}\right)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda _j^2)w(x_0)>0.\end{array}$$

But this is impossible since $`v`$ has a positive maximum at $`x_0`$, which implies that $`v(x_0)/x_k=0`$ for every $`k`$, and $`_{k,l=1}^ng^{kl}(x_0)\frac{^2v(x_0)}{x_kx_l}0`$. Thus, we conclude that the function $`H(x)`$ cannot have a maximum at an interior point of the strip, $`\{x:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}x_n\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}`$. Because of this, the Dirichlet conditions, and our lower bound for $`w`$, we get that

$$\underset{\{x:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}x_n\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}}{sup}\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}{}(e_j(x))^24\underset{\{x:x_n=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda +1)^1\}}{sup}\underset{\lambda _j[\lambda 1,\lambda +1]}{}(e_j(x))^2,$$

as desired, which completes the proof of Proposition 2.2.

## 3. Estimates for Bochner Riesz means

In this section we shall see how favorable estimates for the unit band spectral projection operators imply sharp estimates for Bochner Riesz means. Specifically, we shall prove the following result which implies Theorem 1.2.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Assume that for a given $`1p<2`$ one has the uniform bounds

(3.1)
$$\chi _\lambda f_2C\lambda ^{\delta (p)}f_p,\lambda 1,$$

where $`\delta (p)`$ is as in (1.9). Then for a given $`\delta >\delta (p)`$ there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that

(3.2)
$$S_\lambda ^\delta f_pC_\delta f_p.$$

This implies Theorem 1.2, since, by duality, (1.4) implies that (3.1) must hold when $`p=1`$. This implies that if $`\delta >\delta (1)=(n1)/2`$ the $`S_\lambda ^\delta `$ are uniformly bounded on $`L^1`$, which implies the same for all $`L^p`$, $`1p\mathrm{}`$ by duality and interpolation.

To prove Proposition 3.1, we shall require the following straightforward consequences of its hypotheses.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose that (3.1) holds. Suppose also that $`\rho C()`$ satisfies $`|\rho (\tau )|C_N(1+|\tau |)^N`$ for some $`N\delta (p)+1`$. Assume also that $`12^k\lambda `$. Then there is a uniform constant $`C`$ so that

(3.3)
$$\rho (2^k(\lambda 𝒫))f_2+\rho (2^k(\lambda +𝒫))f_2C2^{k/2}\lambda ^{\delta (p)}f_p,\lambda 1,$$

where the constant only depends on $`C_N`$ and the constant in (3.1).

Here we are of course using the notation that $`\rho (𝒫)f=_j\rho (\lambda _j)e_j(f)`$.

Proof of Lemma 3.2: If we just use orthogonality, (3.1), and our assumptions on $`\rho `$ we find that

$``$ $`\rho (2^k(\lambda 𝒫))f_2^2+\rho (2^k(\lambda +𝒫))f_2^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\underset{\lambda _l[j,j+1]}{sup}|\rho (2^k(\lambda \lambda _l))|^2+\underset{\lambda _l[j,j+1]}{sup}|\rho (2^k(\lambda +\lambda _l))|^2\right)\chi _jf_2^2`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left((1+2^k|\lambda j|)^N(1+j)^{2\delta (p)}+(1+2^k|\lambda +j|)^N(1+j)^{2\delta (p)}\right)f_p^2.`$
The first term in the left dominates the second term. Since $`N>\delta (p)+1`$ and $`2^k\lambda 1`$, by comparing the sums to the corresponding integrals, one sees that both terms on the right can be dominated by the square of the right hand side of (3.3), which finishes the proof. ∎

We now have the main tools needed to prove Proposition 3.1. To be able to rewrite the operators $`S_\lambda ^\delta `$ in a way that will allow us to use the above estimates we need to relate the operator to the wave equation. For this purpose, we need to compute the Fourier transform of the symbol $`\tau (1\tau ^2/\lambda ^2)_+^\delta `$ of the Bochner Riesz means. We shall use the Bessel function formula,

$$_1^1e^{i\tau t}(1\tau ^2)^\delta 𝑑\tau =\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)^{\delta \frac{1}{2}}J_{\delta +\frac{1}{2}}(t),t>0.$$

Recall that as $`r\mathrm{}`$, we have the following asymptotics for Bessel functions of order $`m`$

$$J_m(r)=\underset{\pm }{}\alpha _m^\pm (r)e^{\pm ir},$$

where

$$|^j\alpha _m^\pm (r)|C_jr^{j1/2},r1,j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore, since this Fourier transform is an even function, we can write

(3.4) $`S_\lambda ^\delta f`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _j\lambda }{}}(1\lambda _j^2/\lambda ^2)^\delta e_j(f)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\lambda \sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\delta )\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda |t|}{2}}\right)^{\delta \frac{1}{2}}J_{\delta +\frac{1}{2}}(\lambda |t|){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{cos}t\lambda _je_j(f)dt`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\lambda m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)e^{\pm i\lambda t}\mathrm{cos}t𝒫fdt,`$
where, for every $`j`$, $`|(1+|t|)^j_t^jm_\delta ^\pm (t)|C_\delta (1+|t|)^{1\delta }`$, and hence

(3.5)
$$\lambda |(1+|t|)^j_t^jm_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)|\{\begin{array}{cc}C_\delta \lambda ,|t|\lambda ^1\hfill & \\ C_\delta \lambda ^\delta |t|^{1\delta },|t|\lambda ^1.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here, $`𝒫=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, and

$$u(t,x)=\mathrm{cos}t𝒫f(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}t\lambda _je_j(f)(x),$$

is the cosine transform of $`f`$. Thus, it is the solution of the wave equation

$$(_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }_g)u=0,u(0,)=f,_tu(0,)=0.$$

We shall use the finite propagation speed for solutions to the wave equation. Specifically, if $`f`$ is supported in a geodesic ball $`B(x_0,R)`$ centered at $`x_0`$ with radius $`R`$, then $`x\mathrm{cos}t𝒫f`$ vanishes outside of $`B(x_0,2R)`$ if $`0tR`$.

We shall now proceed to break up the operators $`S_\lambda ^\delta `$ into a sum of pieces that we can estimate using a combination of (3.3) and Hölder’s inequality, along with a “remainder term”. This is related to an argument of Fefferman  for the Euclidean case, and also an argument of the author  for the case of Riemannian manifolds without boundary. The latter argument also relied on the small time parametrix for the wave equation, which is impossible to use in this setting. Instead we use a simpler argument that only uses the finite propagation speed of the wave equation.

Let us first deal with the remainder term. We fix an even function $`bC^{\mathrm{}}()`$ satisfying $`b(t)=0`$, $`|t|<1`$ and $`b(t)=1`$, $`|t|>2`$, and then set

$$R_\lambda ^\delta f=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{\pm }{}\lambda m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)b(t)e^{\pm i\lambda t}\mathrm{cos}t𝒫fdt.$$

If $`\rho _\lambda `$ denotes the inverse Fourier transform $`t\frac{1}{2}m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)b(t)`$, then

$$R_\lambda ^\delta f=\rho _\lambda (\lambda 𝒫)f+\rho _\lambda (\lambda +𝒫)f.$$

Using (3.5), one finds that for fixed $`\delta `$ one has the uniform bounds

$$|\rho _\lambda (\tau )|C_N\lambda ^\delta (1+|\tau |)^N,$$

for every $`N`$. Hence, (3.3) and Hölder’s inequality imply that for every $`\lambda 1`$

$$R_\lambda ^\delta f_pCR_\lambda ^\delta f_2C\lambda ^{\delta (p)\delta }f_p,$$

which shows that the remainder terms $`R_\lambda ^\delta `$ are uniformly bounded when $`\delta >\delta (p)`$.

If we let $`a(t)=1b(t)`$, so that $`a(t)=1`$ for $`|t|<1`$ and $`0`$ for $`|t|>2`$, we would be done if we could prove the same for

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_\lambda ^\delta f=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{\pm }{}\lambda m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)a(t)e^{\pm i\lambda t}\mathrm{cos}t𝒫fdt.$$

To do this, we shall make a dyadic decomposition of the integral. Fix $`\beta C_0^{\mathrm{}}()`$ satisfying $`\beta (t)=0`$ $`t[1/2,4]`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\beta (2^jt)=1`$, $`t>0`$. We then set $`\beta _0(t)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}\beta (2^j|t|)`$ so that $`\beta _0`$ is smooth and satisfies $`\beta _0(t)=0`$, $`|t|>2`$. We then define for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{\pm }{}\lambda m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)\beta (\lambda 2^j|t|)a(t)e^{\pm i\lambda t}\mathrm{cos}t𝒫fdt,$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,0}^\delta f=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\underset{\pm }{}\lambda m_\delta ^\pm (\lambda t)\beta _0(\lambda t)a(t)e^{\pm i\lambda t}\mathrm{cos}t𝒫fdt,$$

so that $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\lambda ^\delta f=_{j0}\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f`$. Note that, because of the support properties of $`a(t)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f`$ vanishes if $`j`$ is larger than a fixed multiple of $`\mathrm{log}\lambda `$.

We claim that if $`\delta >\delta (p)`$ is fixed then

(3.6)
$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f_pC2^{(\delta \delta (p))j}f_p,$$

where $`C`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$ and $`j`$. This would of course complete the missing step of obtaining the uniform boundedness of the $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\lambda ^\delta `$ for $`\delta >\delta (p)`$.

To prove this estimate we shall exploit the fact that the finite propagation speed of the wave equation mentioned before implies that the kernels of the operators, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta (x,y)`$ must satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta (x,y)=0,\text{if }\text{dist}(x,y)8(2^j\lambda ^1),$$

since $`\mathrm{cos}t𝒫`$ will have a kernel that vanishes on this set when $`t`$ belongs to the support of the integral defining $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta `$. Because of this, in order to prove (3.6), it suffices to show that for all geodesic balls $`B_{R_{\lambda ,j}}`$ of radius $`R_{\lambda ,j}=\lambda ^12^j`$ on has the bounds

(3.7)
$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f_{L^p(B_{R_{\lambda ,j}})}C2^{(\delta \delta (p))j}f_p,$$

for the $`L^p`$ norms over $`B_{R_{\lambda ,j}}`$, with $`C`$, as before, being independent of $`\lambda `$ and $`j`$. However, by Hölder’s inequality,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f_{L^p(B_{R_{\lambda ,j}})}C(\lambda ^12^j)^{\frac{n}{p}\frac{n}{2}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f_{L^2(M)},$$

and so we would be done if we could show that

(3.8)
$$S_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f_2C(\lambda ^12^j)^{\frac{n}{p}+\frac{n}{2}}2^{(\delta \delta (p))j}f_p=\lambda ^{\delta (p)}(\lambda 2^j)^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\delta j}f_p.$$

To prove this for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ we note that, by (3.5), the inverse Fourier transform of $`t\frac{1}{2}\lambda m_\delta (\lambda t)\beta (\lambda 2^j|t|)`$ behaves like that of $`\lambda ^\delta |t|^{1\delta }\beta (\lambda 2^j|t|)`$. Since the dyadic cutoff localizes to $`|t|\lambda ^12^j`$, we conclude that we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{\lambda ,j}^\delta f=2^{j\delta }\rho _{\lambda ,j}(\lambda ^12^j(\lambda 𝒫))+2^{j\delta }\rho _{\lambda ,j}(\lambda ^12^j(\lambda +𝒫)),$$

where the $`\rho _{\lambda ,j}`$ satisfy the uniform bounds

$$|\rho _{\lambda ,j}(\tau )|C_N(1+|\tau |)^N,$$

for every $`N`$. Because of this, the estimates (3.8) with $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ just follow from (3.3) with $`2^k`$ being replaced by $`\lambda 2^j`$. Since the estimate for $`j=0`$ follows from the same argument, the proof is complete. ∎


text:
# 1 Physics of antihyperon production

## 1 Physics of antihyperon production

Strangeness enhancement has been predicted a long time ago as a diagnostic probe to prove for the short-time existence of a QGP in the course of a relativistic heavy ion collision. With respect to the high production thresholds in the various binary hadronic reaction channels, especially the antihyperons were then advocated as the appropriate candidates . Assuming the existence of a temporarily present phase of QGP and following statistical coalescence estimates, the abundant (anti-)strange quarks can easily be redistributed to combine to strange (anti-)baryons , which do then, in return, come close to their chemical equilibrium values at the onset of the hadronic phase.

Indeed, such a behaviour of nearly chemically saturated populations of the antihyperons has been experimentally demonstrated with the Pb+Pb experiments NA49 and WA97 at CERN-SPS. For this statement, of course, a quantitative, theoretical analysis within a thermal model has to be invoked by fitting the thermodynamical parameters to the set of individual (strange) hadronic abundancies . Some phenomenological attempts to explain a more abundant production of antihyperons within a hadronic transport description  do exist like the color rope or the high-dense cluster formation. The underlying mechanisms, however, have to be considered as exotic. In particular, a dramatic role of antibaryon annihilation is observed, which, in return, has to be more than counterbalanced in a rather ad hoc way by these more exotic mechanisms.

Be it as it is, a correct incorporation of the strong baryonic annihilation channels had actually not been achieved within the various microscopic implementations. Recently we have conjectured that a sufficiently fast redistributions of strange and light quarks into (strange) baryon-antibaryon pairs should be achieved by multi-mesonic fusion-type reactions of the type

$$n_1\pi +n_2K\overline{Y}+p$$
(1)
for a moderately dense hadronic system . The beauty of this argument lies in the fact that (at least) these special kind of multi-hadronic reactions have to be present because of the fundamental principle of detailed balance. As the annihilation of antihyperons on baryons is of dramatic relevance, the multi-mesonic (fusion-like) ‘back-reactions’ involving $`n_1`$ pions and $`n_2`$ kaons, where $`n_2`$ counts the number of anti-strange quarks within the antihyperon $`\overline{Y}`$), must, in principle, be taken care of in a dynamical simulation. This reasoning has first been raised by Rapp and Shuryak concerning the production of anti-protons , which then triggered our work.

It is plausible to assume that the annihilation crosssections are approximately the same as for $`N\overline{p}`$ at the same relative momenta, i.e. $`\sigma _{B\overline{Y}n\pi +n_YK}\sigma _050`$ mb. The equilibration timescale $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{Y}})^{(1)}1/(\sigma _{B\overline{Y}}v_{\overline{B}N}\rho _B)`$ is to a good approximation proportional to the inverse of the density of baryons and their resonances. Adopting an initial density of 1–2 times normal nuclear matter density $`\rho _0`$ for the initial and thermalized hadronic fireball, the antihyperons will equilibrate on a timescale of 1–3 fm/c! This timescale competes with the expansion timescale of the late hadronic fireball. To be more quantitative rate calculations for a dynamical setup will be presented in the next section.

## 2 Rate equation results and their implications

Following the concepts of kinetic theory, the microscopic starting point would be a Boltzmann-type equation of the form

$`_tf_{\overline{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{E_{\overline{Y}}}}f_{\overline{Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\left\{n_1\right\};B}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2E_{\overline{Y}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_B}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_B}\underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}\frac{d^3p_i}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_i}\left(2\pi \right)^4\delta ^4\left(p_{\overline{Y}}+p_B\underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}p_i\right)}`$
$`\left|n_1,n_2\left|T\right|\overline{Y}B\right|^2\left\{()f_{\overline{Y}}f_B{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}}\left(1+f_i\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}}f_i\left(1f_{\overline{Y}}\right)\left(1f_B\right)\right\},`$
where

$`\sigma _{\overline{Y}B}^{\left\{n_1\right\}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{`}Flux^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_i}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_i}\left(2\pi \right)^4\delta ^4\left(p_{\overline{Y}}+p_B\underset{\{n_1,n_2\}}{}p_i\right)\left|n_1,n_2\left|T\right|\overline{Y}B\right|^2}`$
corresponds to the annihilation cross section. Assuming $`v_{rel}\sigma _{\overline{Y}B}(\sqrt{s})`$ to be roughly constant, which is actually a good approximation for the $`p\overline{p}`$-annihilation, or, invoking a standard coarse grained description of thermally averaged cross sections and distributions, and furthermore taking the distributions in the Boltzmann approximantion, the following master equation for the respectively considered antihyperon density is obtained

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _{\overline{Y}}=\sigma _{\overline{Y}B}v_{\overline{Y}B}\left\{\rho _{\overline{Y}}\rho _B\underset{\{n_1\}}{}_{(n_1,n_2)}(T,\mu _B,\mu _s)(\rho _\pi )^{n_1}(\rho _K)^{n_2}\right\},$$
(2)
where the ‘back-reactions’ of several effectively coalescing pions and kaons are incorporated in the ‘mass-law’ factor

$$_{(n,n_Y)}(T,\mu _B,\mu _s)=\frac{\rho _{\overline{Y}}^{eq.}\rho _B^{eq.}}{(\rho _\pi ^{eq.})^{n_1}(\rho _K^{eq.})^{n_2}}p_{n_1}.$$

Here $`p_{n_1}`$ states the relative probability of the reaction (1) to decay into a specific number $`n_1`$ of pions and $`\rho _B`$ denotes the total number density of baryonic particles. $``$ depends only on the temperature and the baryon and strange quark chemical potentials. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{Y}}\sigma _{\overline{Y}N}v_{\overline{Y}N}\rho _B`$ gives the effective annihilation rate of the respective antihyperon specie on a baryon.

Nonequilibrium inelastic hadronic reactions can explain to a good extent the overall strangeness production seen experimentally: The major amount of the produced kaons at SPS-energies can be understood in terms of still early and energetic non-equilibrium interactions . Refering to the master equation (2), one can then take the pions, baryons and kaons to stay approximately in thermal equilibrium throughout the later hadronic evolution of the collision, the later being modelled to be an isentropic expansion with fixed total entropy content being specified via the entropy per baryon ratio $`S/A`$. (2) becomes

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _{\overline{Y}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{Y}}\left\{\rho _{\overline{Y}}\rho _{\overline{Y}}^{eq}\right\}.$$
(3)
The ‘effective’ (global or at midrapidity) volume $`V(t)`$ is parametrized as function of time by longitudinal Bjorken expansion and including an accelerating radial flow, e.g.

$$V_{eff}(tt_0)=\pi (ct)\left(R_0+v_0(tt_0)+0.5a_0(tt_0)^2\right)^2$$
(4)
with $`R_0=6.5fm`$, $`v_0=0.15c`$ and $`a_0=0.05c^2/fm`$. At starting time $`t_0`$ an initial temperature $`T_0`$ is chosen. ($`T_0`$ is set to $`190`$ MeV for the SPS and $`150MeV`$ for the AGS situation, while the initial energy densities are then about 1 GeV/fm3.) From (4) together with the constraint of conserved entropy the temperature and the chemical potentials do follow as function of time. As a minimal  assumption the initial abundancy of antihyperons is set to zero. Equation (3) is solved for each specie.

Fig. 1: The anti-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to baryon number ratio $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}/N_B(t)`$ as a function of time for various implemented annihiation cross section $`\sigma _{eff}\lambda \sigma _0`$. The entropy per baryon is taken as $`S/A=30`$, $`t_0=3`$ fm/c and $`T_0=190`$ MeV.

In Fig. 1 the number of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$s (normalized to the conserved net baryon number) as a function of time is depicted. The entropy per baryon is chosen as $`S/A=30`$ being characteristic to global SPS results. In addition the cross section employed is varied by a constant factor, i.e. $`\sigma _{eff}\lambda \sigma _0`$. The characteristics is that first the antihyperons are dramatically being poulated, and then in the very late expansion some more are still being annihilated. The results are rather robust against a variation by a factor of 2 in the cross section.

In Fig. 2 the number of antihyperons of each specie are now shown as a function of the decreasing temperature $`T(t)`$ of the hadronic system. For a direct comparison the instantaneous equilibrium abundancy $`N_{\overline{Y}}^{eq.}(T(t),\mu _B(t),\mu _s(t))/N_B`$ is also given. As noted above, after a fast initial population, the individual yields of the antihyperons do overshoot their respective equilibrium number and then do finally saturate at some slightly smaller value. Moreover, one notices that the yields effectively do saturate at a number which can be compared to an equivalent equilibrium number at a temperature parameter around $`T_{eff}150160`$ MeV, being strikingly close to the ones obtained within the various thermal analyses .

Fig. 2: The antihyperon to baryon number ratio $`N_{\overline{Y}}/N_B(T)`$ and $`N_{\overline{Y}}^{eq.}/N_B(T)`$ (dotted line) as a function of the decreasing temperature. Parameters are the same as in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 3 the number of anti-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s as a function of time is given for various entropy per baryon ratios. One notices that the final value in the yield significantly depends on the entropy content, or, in other words, on the baryochemical potential. We note that the results at midrapidity from WA97 can best be reproduced by employing an entropy to baryon ratio $`S/A=40`$, where one qualitatively expects a larger entropy content.

There is also a clear hint at AGS energies of enhanced anti-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production . For most central collisions more anti-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s are found compared to anti-protons, which is quite puzzling as within a thermal model analysis this ratio is found not to be larger than 1. This enhanced ratio of anti-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s compared to anti-protons at AGS energies one can understand in a way that one assumes that their annihilation cross section on baryons is just slightly smaller than for the antiprotons. In Fig. 4 a similar study like that of Fig. 1 is shown for a characteristic situation at AGS. For smaller, yet not too small effective cross sections the final yield can here be enlarged by a factor of 2 compared to the case with a ‘full’ crossection, as the final reabsorption is not as effective. But, of course, this idea is speculation at present. Also, we remark that the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$s effectively do saturate at an equivalent equilibrium number at a temperature parameter around $`T_{eff}120130`$ MeV. Unfortunately, there are no data for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ at AGS. A detailed measurement of all antihyperons represents an excellent opportunity for future heavy ion facilities at an energy upgraded GSI.

Fig. 3: $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}/N_B(t)`$ as a function of time for various entropy content described via the entropy per baryon ratio ($`S/A=2040`$). Other parameters are as in Fig. 1.

Fig. 4: $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}/N_B(T)`$ and $`N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{eq.}/N_B(T)`$ as a function of decreasing temperature for a characteristic AGS situation with an entropy content of $`S/A=12`$ for various implemented annihiation cross section $`\sigma _{eff}\lambda \sigma _0`$. $`t_0=5`$ fm/c and $`T_0=150`$ MeV.