text:
# References

DEFORMATION QUANTIZATION IN COVARIANT

HAMILTONIAN FIELD THEORY

G.Sardanashvily

Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University

117234 Moscow, Russia

E-mail: sard@grav.phys.msu.su

## Abstract

The deformation star product of smooth functions on the momentum phase space of covariant (polysymplectic) Hamiltonian field theory is introduced.

It is well known that, applied to field theory, the familiar symplectic technique of mechanics takes the form of instantaneous Hamiltonian formalism on an infinite-dimensional phase space. The finite-dimensional covariant Hamiltonian approach to field theory is vigorously developed from the seventies in its multisymplectic and polysymplectic variants, related to the two different Legendre morphisms in the first order calculus of variations on fibre bundles (see \[1-5\] for a survey).

Recall that, given a fibre bundle $`YX`$ coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i)`$, a first order Lagrangian $`L`$ is defined as a semibasic density

$`L=\omega :J^1Y\stackrel{n}{}T^{}X,\omega =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n,n=dimX,`$
on the jet manifold $`J^1Y`$ of $`Y`$. Every Lagrangian $`L`$ yields the Legendre map of $`J^1Y`$ to the Legendre bundle

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\stackrel{n}{}T^{}X\underset{Y}{}V^{}Y\underset{Y}{}TX,`$
coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,p_i^\lambda )`$. It is provided with the canonical polysymplectic form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y=dp_i^\lambda dy^i\omega _\lambda ,`$
and is regarded as the polysymplectic momentum phase space of fields.

The multisymplectic momentum phase space of fields is the homogeneous Legendre bundle

$`Z_Y=T^{}Y(\stackrel{n1}{}T^{}X),`$
coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,p_i^\lambda ,p)`$ and equipped with the canonical multisymplectic form

$`d\mathrm{\Xi }_Y=dp\omega +dp_i^\lambda dy^i\omega _\lambda .`$
The relationship between polysymplectic and multisymplectic phase spaces is given by the exact sequence

$`0\mathrm{\Pi }\underset{X}{\times }\stackrel{n}{}T^{}XZ_Y\mathrm{\Pi }0,`$
where $`Z_Y\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a one-dimensional affine bundle. Given a section $`h`$ of $`Z_Y\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the pull-back $`h^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_Y`$ is a polysymplectic Hamiltonian form on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

It seems natural to generalize a Poisson bracket in symplectic mechanics to polysymplectic or multisymplectic manifolds in order to obtain the covariant canonical quantization of field theory. Different variants of such a bracket have been suggested (see the recent works ). The main difficulty is that the bracket must be globally defined, i.e., maintained under the bundle coordinate transformations.

Let us assume that a fibre bundle $`YX`$ is affine. All realistic field models are of these type, and only vector and affine fields are quantized. One can introduce the bilinear differential operator

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu :(f,f^{})f\stackrel{}{\Delta }_\mu f^{}=_\mu ^if_if^{}_if_\mu ^if^{}`$
on smooth functions $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ . Let $`X`$ be provided with a nowhere vanishing vector field $`\vartheta `$. This condition implies the existence of a pseudo-Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`X`$ such that integral curves of $`\vartheta `$ are time lines with respect to $`g`$. Let us consider the operator

$`\mathrm{\Delta }:C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\times C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi })C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Pi }),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }:(f,f^{})f\stackrel{}{\Delta }f^{}=f[\stackrel{}{\Delta }_\mu \vartheta ^\mu ]f^{}.`$ (1)
If $`X=𝐑`$, then $`\vartheta =_t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (1) is the canonical Poisson bracket in Hamiltonian time-dependent mechanics .

Therefore, by analogy with the well-known Moyal product on symplectic manifolds, one can introduce the associative star product

$`ff^{}=f\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}\stackrel{}{\Delta }\}f^{}`$
and the bracket

$`[f,f^{}]=ff^{}f^{}f`$
of smooth functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. This bracket provides deformation quantization of the momentum phase space of classical fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Similarly to the familiar quantization in instantaneous Hamiltonian field theory, this deformation quantization is tangential to the integral curves of the vector field $`\vartheta `$, i.e., to the time lines.


format: text

text:
# References

UND-HEP-02-BIG 03

hep-ph/0203157

Looking from the East at an Elephant Trotting West 111With due apologies to Sir Charles Laughton. : Direct $`CP`$ Violation in $`B^0`$ Decays

I. I. Bigi
Physics Dept., Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, Notre Dame, IN 46556, U.S.A.

e-mail address:

bigi.1@nd.edu

Abstract

With the time dependant CP asymmetry in $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$ well measured, the most powerful method to search for direct CP violation in $`B_d`$ decays is to analyze whether the CP asymmetry of other transitions like $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{},\eta ^{}K_S`$ etc. can be described by a $`sin`$ term taken from $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$ and without a $`cos`$ term. The failure of such a constrained fit would establish direct CP violation (even if no CP asymmetry were observed in these other modes).

Prologos

The occurrance of large $`CP`$ violation in $`B_d\psi K_S`$ predicted in 1981  has been established in 2001 . BABAR and BELLE have just now presented updates:

$`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`0.82\pm 0.12\pm 0.05\mathrm{BELLE}\text{[5]}`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`0.75\pm 0.09\pm 0.04\mathrm{BABAR}\text{[4]}`$ (2)
These findings are of a paradigmatic nature in several respects even beyond the obvious one that they constitute the first observation of CP violation outside the $`K_L`$ system: (i) The effect being truly large ‘de-mystifies’ CP violation: for it tells us that if CP invariance can be broken, that violation is not intrinsically small . (ii) While the observed asymmetry could still contain sizeable contributions from New Physics, it conforms to the CKM prediction in a completely unforced way. It behooves us now to refer to the CKM description of CP violation as a theory rather than giving it the somewhat patronizing label ansatz.

Parabasis

Despite the success of the CKM theory so far, it would be premature to accept even the overall pattern of its predictions and consider only deviations from it as noteworthy. In particular there is another paradigmatic issue to be raised concerning the classification of the underlying dynamics: is there also direct CP violation, i.e. CP violation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ transitions? The CKM theory definitely does not produce a superweak scenario for $`B`$ decays – alas, one still has to verify it.

Observing a CP asymmetry in charged $`B`$ decays would establish it unequivocally. The situation concerning neutral $`B`$ decays is more subtle. Consider

$$e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B_d\overline{B}_df_{tag}f_{CP}$$
(3)
where $`f_{tag}`$ denotes a final state tagging the flavour of one beauty meson and $`f_{CP}`$ a CP eigenstate, into which the other beauty meson decays and which is reconstructed. Then one finds for the decay rate $`R_+`$ \[$`R_{}`$\] where the tagging decay is that of a $`B_d`$ \[$`\overline{B}_d`$\]:

$$R_\pm (\mathrm{\Delta }t)e^{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d)}\times \left[1\pm S\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\pm C\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)\right]$$

$$S\frac{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}(q/p)\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})}{1+|\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})|^2},C\frac{1|\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})|^2}{1+|\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})|^2}$$
(4)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ denoting the difference in (proper) time of the two decays \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_{CP}t_{tag}`$\], $`\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})`$ the ratio between the two decay amplitudes \[$`\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})T(\overline{B}_df_{CP})/T(B_df_{CP})`$\] and $`q/p`$ coming from the diagonalization of the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mass matrix. The asymmetry then reads:

$$\frac{R_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)R_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}{R_+(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+R_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}=S\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)+C\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_d\mathrm{\Delta }t)$$
(5)
Observing a $`cos`$ term in the time evolution establishes direct CP violation, since in that case $`|T(\overline{B}f_{CP})|^2|T(Bf_{CP})|^2`$ – an obvious and well-known statement. For this to happen, two transition amplitudes with different weak and strong phases have to contribute; this situation is realized due to the intervention of Penguin operators.

However – as is known as well , though less appreciated – direct CP violation can manifest itself also in a different way. The quantity $`(q/p)\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})`$ reflects $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ dynamics in the first and second factors, respectively; $`(q/p)`$ and $`\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})`$ separately depend on the phase convention $`\xi `$ adopted for the definition of antiparticles: $`|\overline{B}_de^{i\xi }\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}|B_d`$. Their product, however, is phase convention independant and thus an observable. As long as CP violation is studied in a single channel $`B_d(t)f_{CP}`$, one cannot draw an empirical distinction between classifying a signal as ‘superweak’ or ‘direct’ from measuring the $`sin`$ term; for a change in the phase convention $`\xi \xi +\mathrm{\Delta }\xi `$ can make either $`q/p`$ or $`\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})`$ real. A superweak scenario of CP violation is thus best defined as one where there exists a convention for the phase $`\xi `$ s.t. all $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ decay amplitudes are real. However once one studies the time evolution in two different channels

$$B_d(t)f_{CP}vs.B_d(t)\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}$$
(6)
an empirical distinction can be drawn: in a superweak scenario the $`cos`$ term is effectively absent since $`|(q/p)\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})|^2=|(q/p)\overline{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP})|^2=|q/p|^21`$ with $`|q/p|=0.998\pm 0.006\pm 0.007`$ experimentally  222Theoretically one expects $`|1|q/p|^2|𝒪(10^3)`$. ; likewise the $`sin`$ term is then of equal size for both modes:

$$S(f_{CP})=\frac{2}{1+\left|\frac{q}{p}\right|^2}\mathrm{Im}\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})=\eta _f\eta _{\stackrel{~}{f}}S(\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}),$$
(7)
where $`\eta _f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ denote the CP parities of $`f_{CP}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$, respectively. Any deviation from this simple pattern reveals direct CP violation! One should also note that if the two transitions $`B_df_{CP}`$ and $`B_d\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$ are each described by a single amplitude or if there are no significant final state interactions in those two modes, then one has $`|\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})|^2=1=|\overline{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP})|^2`$. Yet Im$`(q/p)\overline{\rho }(f_{CP})`$ Im$`(q/p)\overline{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP})`$ can hold due to different weak phases in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ amplitudes for $`B_df_{CP}`$ and $`B_d\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$. I.e., such direct CP violation could not manifest itself through a $`cos`$ term, only through a difference in the $`sin`$ terms.

Such a method becomes quite powerful now, since the well measured asymmetry in $`B\psi K_S`$, Eqs.(1,2), provides an excellent calibrator: the $`sin`$ term has been well measured and a fairly tight bound placed on the $`cos`$ term. I.e., one considers other $`B_d\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$ decays into CP eigenstates and analyzes whether the time evolution of the rate can adequately be described without a $`cos`$ term and with a $`sin`$ term that has the same \[opposite\] coefficient as in $`B_d\psi K_S`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$ is CP odd \[even\].

BELLE and $`BABAR`$ have presented data on two such additional channels:

* BELLE describes the time evolution of the asymmetry in the decay $`B_d\eta ^{}K_S`$ with just a $`sin`$ term :

$$\mathrm{Im}\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(\eta ^{}K_S)=0.29_{0.54}^{+0.53}\pm 0.07$$
(8)
This result is consistent with no asymmetry, which would imply large direct CP violation to make it consistent with the findings in $`B_d\psi K_S`$. At the same time it falls within one sigma of a superweak CP violation (both $`\eta ^{}K_S`$ and $`\psi K_S`$ are CP odd).
* BELLE fits the $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ evolution using a $`sin`$ as well as $`cos`$ term with coefficients

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`1.21_{0.270.13}^{+0.38+0.16}`$ (9)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`+0.94_{0.31}^{+0.25}\pm 0.09;`$ (10)
$`BABAR`$ on the other hand finds  333With the definition for $`C`$ given in Eq.(4) $`C`$ has the opposite sign from the $`BABAR`$ convention. :

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`0.01\pm 0.37\pm 0.07`$ (11)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`+0.02\pm 0.29\pm 0.07.`$ (12)
Those two sets of numbers convey the sense of two different messages: the BELLE analysis presents tantalizing evidence for a CP asymmetry in a second class of $`B`$ decays that furthermore has a large direct component, whereas the $`BABAR`$ study shows no evidence for a CP asymmetry. Future measurements will clarify the experimental picture.

The first step towards properly interpreting the data is to analyze whether the time evolution of $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ contains a qualitatively new feature beyond what is seen in $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$, i.e. whether there is direct CP violation. This question has to be answered experimentally irrespective of the KM theory predicting such an effect! This is most efficiently achieved by studying whether the CP asymmetry in $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ can be described with $`C=0`$ and $`S_{\pi \pi }=S_{\psi K_S}`$ ($`\pi \pi `$ and $`\psi K_S`$ carry opposite CP parity), see Eqs.(1,2), i.e. without any free fit parameter! What drives $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$ has to contribute to $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ as well. Before such a ‘minimal’ scenario has not been ruled out, it is premature to undertake fits where $`S`$ and $`C`$ are allowed to float! Only after direct CP violation has been established due to the failure of a superweak fit (or quantitative theoretical control has been established over the impact of Penguin operators) should one concentrate on fitting the data with $`S`$ and $`C`$ not a priori fixed. The goal there is to separate the two variants of direct CP violation, namely Im$`\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(\psi K_S)`$ Im$`\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }(\pi \pi )`$ and $`|\overline{\rho }(\pi \pi )|^21`$, and ultimately also of isolating the Penguin contribution.

One should note that a fit to $`B_d(t)\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ yielding $`S0C`$ as suggested by the $`BABAR`$ findings – viewed together with the data on $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$ – would reveal the intervention of large direct CP violation without exhibiting any CP asymmetry!

In summary: The main point of this short note is to emphasize that one should and can empirically establish the categorical feature whether direct CP violation occurs in $`B_d`$ decays. This is best achieved by analyzing whether the time evolution of a CP asymmetry in $`B_d(t)\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{CP}\psi K_S`$ can be described without a $`cos`$ term and with a $`sin`$ term of equal size as in $`B_d(t)\psi K_S`$. Once it has been decided that such a description without a free fit parameter fails, one can address the more challenging task to extract the coefficients of the $`sin`$ and $`cos`$ terms in an unconstrained fit with the ultimate goal of determining the size of the Penguin contribution, phases etc.

Epilogos

The great actor Sir Charles Laughton once referred to his face as looking like the east side of an elephant walking west. The point of analogy here differs from this imagery, though: Evaluating the beauty of an elephant is a rather complex task, yet spotting him from any direction should be quite straightforward.

Acknowledgements: This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY00-87419.


text:
# Stabilization in the braid groups (with applications to transverse knots)

This paper has been withdrawn and replaced by two other papers:

1. Stabilization in the braid groups I:MTWS, published in Geometry and Topology 10, 413-540, arXiv:math.GT/0310279, and
2. Stabilization in the braid groups II: Transversal simplicity of knots, Geometry and Topology, to appear, arXiv:math,GT/0310280.

Together they subsume the contents of the original version.


text:
# Dark matter, dark charge, and the fractal structure of the Universe

## Abstract

It is shown that the observed fractal distribution of galaxies is, in fact, consistent with homogeneity of the Universe and observational limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$, if the presence of dark matter and dark charge predicted by the Modified Field Theory is taken into account. It is discussed a new scenario of structure formation in which observed structures appear as a result of decay of the primordial fractal distribution of baryons.

As it was shown (e.g., see Ref.  and for a more recent discussions Ref. ) observed galaxy distribution exhibits a fractal behaviour with dimension $`D2`$ and which seems to show no evidence of cross-over to homogeneity. In spite the fact that the picture in which baryons have a fractal distribution in space is not widely accepted, it, in fact, has recently found a rigorous theoretical ground. First, we note that there are two basic arguments which do not allow to accept such a picture. The first argument is that the fractal distribution can be in a conflict with the Cosmological Principle which is expressed by the statement that the metric of the universe is well approximated by the Friedmann metric and, therefore, gravitational potential fluctuations must be small. Such metric potential fluctuations are measured directly by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ in the microwave background and as it was discussed in Ref.  the density distribution does not give direct evidence of the ”Cosmological principle”. However, if we suppose that the Universe does not contain some hidden component of matter and all baryons are described by a fractal distribution in space, this should result in too strong metric fluctuations and too strong $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$, whereas there exist strong observational limits $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T<10^5`$. We stress that if the leading contribution to the matter density is given by a dark component then metric fluctuations are not directly related to the distribution of baryons and can remain small. However, there exists another argument which does not depend on the presence of dark matter and can be considered independently. It is the Silk effect which directly relates the distribution of baryons at the moment of recombination with variation of the CMB temperature $`n_bT^3`$ and, therefore, the fractal distribution of baryons must leave a direct imprint in the temperature. It turns out that these problems can be easily solved in the so-called Modified Field Theory (MOFT) suggested first in Ref. and developed recently in Ref..

Indeed, MOFT was shown to possess a nontrivial vacuum state which leads to a scale-dependent renormalization of all interaction constants $`\alpha ^2`$ $`\alpha ^2N\left(k\right)`$ (where $`k`$ is the wave number and $`\alpha `$ is either the electron charge $`e`$, the gauge charge $`g`$ , or the gravitational constant $`\sqrt{G}`$) with the same structural function $`N\left(k\right)`$ which reflects the topology of the momentum space (for details we send readers to Ref. ). This means that in MOFT particles lose their point-like character and acquire a specific distribution in space, i.e., each point source is surrounded with a dark halo which carries charges of all sorts. In the case of the thermodynamically equilibrium state at low temperatures properties of the dark halo are described by two characteristic scales $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ between which interaction constants do increase $`\alpha ^2\left(\mathrm{}\right)\alpha _0^2\mathrm{}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=2\pi /k`$) and the Newton’s and Coulomb’s interaction energies show the logarithmic $`V\mathrm{ln}r`$ (instead of $`1/r`$) behaviour. We note that MOFT reproduces the basic features of the Modified Newtonian dynamics proposed by Milgrom Ref.  (see also the list of references devoted to MOND at the site ). However conceptually MOFT differs form the latter and, besides, predicts analogous modification of the Maxwell’s electrodynamics.

Consider a particular baryon as a source for electromagnetic and gravitational field and a test particle. Due to the halo both particles are distributed in space and the energy of interaction between them (in the case of rest particles) in the range $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`<r<`$ $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is (see Ref.)

$$V\left(r\right)\frac{q_bq}{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}}\right),$$
(1)
where $`q_bq=m_pmG`$ ($`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`m`$ is the mass of the test particle, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant) for the gravitational interaction and $`q_bq=Ze^2`$ (where $`Ze`$ is the charge of the test particle) for the electromagnetic field. If we suppose the law $`1/r`$ is intact and the test particle has a point-like character, we define the ”dynamical” charge/mass of the baryon contained within a radius $`r`$ with the baryon in the center as $`q\left(r\right)q_br/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{ln}\left(r/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}\right).`$ Consider a baryon only Universe, then the total dynamical charge and the dynamical mass within the radius $`r`$ will be given by

$$Q_{tot}\left(r\right)=q\left(r\right)N_b\left(r\right)+\delta Q\left(r\right),$$
(2)
where $`N_b\left(r\right)`$ is the actual number of baryons and $`\delta Q\left(r\right)`$ accounts for the contribution of dark halos of baryons from the outer region.

It is important that for potentials of the type (1) the homogeneous distribution of particles (which corresponds to $`N\left(r\right)nr^3`$ with a constant $`n`$) is unstable (at least gravitationally). This can be seen straightforwardly from ( 1) by considering the limit $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}`$, or $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}0`$. In this limit the dynamical charge diverges $`q\left(r\right)\mathrm{}`$, the interaction energy of particles becomes too strong, and such a system collapses. In this case a stable distribution of particles can be reached by a fractal distribution $`N\left(r\right)r^D`$ with $`D2`$. Indeed, let us consider the ”dynamical” (or effective) number of particles $`\stackrel{~}{N}_b=Q_{tot}\left(r\right)/q_b`$. Then the equilibrium state will corresponds to the homogeneous distribution of the dynamical (or effective) density of particles, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{N}_b/r^3=const`$. This, in turn is consistent with both, the Cosmological Principle (Friedmann metric) and the Silk effect ($`T^3\stackrel{~}{n}=const`$), while the actual number of baryons in the range $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}r`$ $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$, as it can be seen from (2), will follow the law $`N_b\left(r\right)Q_{tot}\left(r\right)/q\left(r\right)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{n}r^2\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}/\mathrm{ln}\left(r/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}\right)`$ which perfectly fits the results of Ref.  . Above the scale $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and below $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ the law $`1/r`$ restores and the actual distribution of baryons has to cross-over to homogeneity $`N_b\left(r\right)r^3`$. The minimal scale $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ represents the lower boundary where effects of MOFT start to show up and as it is shown in Ref. $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}4÷5kpc`$. The results of Ref.  provide that the size of the upper cutoff $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ , if it really does exist, must be more than $`200Mpc`$ and, therefore, for the baryon fraction we get the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}10^5`$ (which, in particular, sets the restriction on the mass of the primordial scalar field $`m<10^5m_{pl}`$). We recall that, in fact, due to the dark charge the Silk effect does not set any restrictions on possible values of $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and it can be larger than the Hubble radius.

To clarify the reason of origin of the fractal distribution of baryons we note that as it was shown in Ref.  the nontrivial topology of the momentum space ($`N\left(k\right)1`$) leads to the fact that the ground state of all bosonic fields is characterized by a nonvanishing particle number density. Consider plasma oscillations of baryons. These oscillations represent Bose particles and in MOFT the total energy of such oscillations can be written as $`H=_kn\omega _kN(n,k)`$, where $`N(n,k)`$ is the number of field (plasma) modes with the given wave number $`k`$ and the number of plasmons $`n`$, while $`\omega _k`$ is the energy of a plasmon (for small $`k`$ we get $`\omega _k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(4\pi e^2\stackrel{~}{n}/m_p\right)^{1/2}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is the dynamical density introduced above which accounts for the renormalization of the charge). The ground state is characterized by occupation numbers $`N(n,k)=\theta \left(\mu _kn\omega _k\right)`$ where $`\theta \left(x\right)`$ is the step function and the chemical potential $`\mu _k`$ is defined by $`_nN(n,k)`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left[\mu _k/\omega _k\right]`$ $`=`$ $`N\left(k\right)`$, where $`[x]`$ denotes the integral part of $`x`$ and $`N\left(k\right)`$ is the structural function which defines the topology of the momentum space (see, Ref. ). In the range $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}2\pi /k`$ $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ the function $`N\left(k\right)`$ can be approximated by $`N_k1+\left[k_0/k\right]`$ ($`k_0=2\pi /\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$). The number of plasmons in the ground state is $`\overline{n}_k=_nnN(n,k)=\frac{1}{2}N\left(k\right)\left(N\left(k\right)1\right)`$, i.e., is solely expressed via the structural function, and thus, the energy of the ground state reads $`H_0_k\overline{n}_k\omega _0`$ (for the sake of simplicity we suppose $`\omega _02\pi c/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$). From the other hand side this energy must coincide with the energy of baryons which at low temperatures is given by $`H_0_km_pn_{bk}`$. Thus, we see that the baryon number density should follow the density of plasmons in the ground state $`n_b`$ $`\overline{n}_k\omega _0/m_p`$ which at large scales behaves as $`\overline{n}_k`$ $`\left(k_0/k\right)^2`$ , e.g., corresponds to the fractal distribution.

We stress that in MOFT observed fractal galaxy distribution (at large scales) corresponds to the thermodynamically equilibrium state at low temperatures and in this sense is not a result of an evolutionary process as it is commonly considered. The fractal distribution of baryons represents a background which corresponds to the homogeneous distribution of matter, while gravitational potential fluctuations can be considered in the same way as in the standard model which, however, to make specific predictions, requires the further investigation.

In conclusion we note that there is a possibility to construct a new scenario in which the observed structures (stars, galaxies, clusters, etc.) is the result of a decay of the primordial equilibrium fractal distribution of baryons. Indeed, the only relevant parameter in MOFT is the minimal scale $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ below which there acts the standard Newton’s physics and the fractal distribution of baryons is unstable. If, at present, topology changes of the momentum space are forbidden, then this scale must be a constant in the commoving frame $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}/a\left(t\right)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{min}}=const`$ (where $`a\left(t\right)`$ is the scale factor). If this is the case, then observed structures can appear only due to the growth of primordial density fluctuations (i.e., in the same way as in the standard model). However, the primordial topology of the momentum space may eventually decay and this would lead to a monotonic increase of the minimal scale $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{min}}\left(t\right)`$. Then on early stages the minimal scale could reach the value $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}r_0`$ (where $`r_0`$ is a characteristic baryon size) and the primordial distribution of baryons followed the fractal behaviour at all scales ($`n_{b0}b/k^2`$). Eventually $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ increases and due to the instability of the fractal baryon distribution, which takes place below the scale $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the larger and larger scales are involved into the structure formation.

The simplest realization of the fractal law $`N_b\left(r\right)r^2`$ gives the case when baryons are homogeneously distributed on thin two- dimensional surfaces and at present $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}4÷5kpc`$. This may give at least a qualitative explanation of why at scales $`\mathrm{}>\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ we observe spiral galaxies (which have the size $`L10÷20kpc`$ $`>\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$) which are still flat, while at smaller scales $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ we observe only spherical collections of stars ($`L1pc<\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{min}}`$).

I would like to acknowledge the referee for valuable comments which essentially improved this Letter.


text:
# Are X-ray Clusters Cooled by Heat Conduction to the Surrounding Intergalactic Medium?

## 1  Introduction

Recently, the old idea that heat conduction may suppress cooling flows in X-ray clusters (Binney & Cowie 1981; Tucker & Rosner 1983; Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986; Bregman & David 1988; Gaetz 1989; Rosner & Tucker 1989; David et al. 1992; Pistinner & Shaviv 1996; Dos Santos 2001) has been revived due to the apparent lack of strong cooling flows in Chandra and XMM-Newton data (Fabian et al. 2001; Böhringer et al. 2001; Molendi & Pizolato 2001). It was argued that if the heat conductivity is not suppressed by more than a factor of a few relative to the Spitzer value, then the inward heat flow due to the positive temperature gradient in cluster cores would be sufficient to compensate for the energy loss caused by Bremsstrahlung cooling of the gas (Narayan & Medvedev 2001; Gruzinov 2002; Voigt et al. 2002).

The purpose of this paper is to caution that a large heat conduction coefficient would also lead to dramatic cooling of the entire cluster gas due to energy transport outwards into the cooler, surrounding intergalactic medium. By analyzing ASCA data for 30 X-ray clusters, Markevitch et al. (1998) have identified a composite temperature profile that declines by a factor of $`2`$ from the core out to about half the virial radius (see also Finoguenov et al. 2001). This profile has been confirmed in a recent BeppoSAX data set of 21 clusters (De Grandi & Molendi 2002). Here we use this profile to calculate the resulting conductive heat transfer from the cluster interior to the surrounding envelope.

We note that the above ASCA results were challenged in several clusters by preliminary XMM-Newton data which showed a nearly isothermal profile (Arnaud et al. 2001a,b; Pratt et al. 2001). However, since clusters represent the hottest structures in the universe there is no doubt that they are surrounded by cooler gas at a sufficiently large radius. In fact, if the temperature profile is nearly flat all the way out to the radius where the surface brightness of the cluster is too faint to be detectable, then the temperature gradient around the (more distant) virial radius of the cluster must be even steeper than assumed here (since the temperature must eventually approach the ambient value over a shorter range of radii). Hence, the heat flux that we calculate based on the Markevitch et al. (1998) temperature profile provides a conservative lower limit for the conductive energy loss of cluster interiors.

Infall of gas onto the cluster could in principle suppress conduction of heat outwards. However, numerical simulation show that much of this infall is confined within filaments that cover only a small fraction of the surface area of the accreting object, and the gas flow is often clumpy and episodic (e.g., Yoshida et al. 2002, and references therein). Hence, conduction is unlikely to be suppressed by infall in all directions at all times. In this paper we focus our attention on the virialized region of the cluster, where the gas is stationary and in hydrostatic equilibrium. Since most of the mass is located in the outer envelope of the cluster, a considerable transport of heat out of the cluster core would only have a minor effect on the cluster envelope. For example, a reduction by $`50\%`$ in the X-ray temperature of the cluster – which is dictated by the core at $`300\mathrm{kpc}`$ – would typically only lead to a $`5`$$`10\%`$ increase in the outer envelope temperature at a radius of $`3\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In the following we examine the question of whether the cores of clusters, which dominate their X-ray emission, would cool through thermal conduction by more than they are allowed to cool over a Hubble time, given the observed temperature profiles of Markevitch et al. (1998). Throughout the discussion we assume a fully-ionized, hydrogen-helium plasma with a helium mass fraction of $`24\%`$, for which the mean particle mass (including the electrons) is $`\mu =0.59`$ in units of the proton mass $`m_p`$.

## 2  Cooling of X-ray Clusters by Heat Conduction

The time over which thermal energy is drained out of an X-ray cluster by conduction can be found by dividing the total thermal energy of the cluster, $`(M_g/\mu m_p)(\frac{3}{2}k_B\overline{T})`$, by the rate of conductive heat loss across its boundary radius $`r_b`$,

$$t_{\mathrm{cond}}=\frac{\frac{3}{2}(M_g/\mu m_p)k_B\overline{T}}{4\pi r_b^2\left[\kappa |T/r|\right]_{r_b}},$$
(1)
where $`\overline{T}=M_g^1_0^{r_b}T(r)\rho _g(r)4\pi r^2𝑑r`$ is the (mass-weighted) mean temperature of the cluster, $`\rho _g(r)`$ is the mass density of the gas, $`M_g=_0^{r_b}\rho _g(r)4\pi r^2𝑑r`$ is the total gas mass out to the radius $`r_b`$, $`\kappa `$ is the coefficient of heat conductivity, and $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The hydrostatic equilibrium equation, $`(GM_{\mathrm{tot}}\rho _g/r^2)=_r(\rho _gk_BT/\mu m_p)`$, yields

$$\frac{M_g}{r_b}=f_g\left[\left(\frac{k_BT}{G\mu m_p}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho _g}{\mathrm{ln}r}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}T}{\mathrm{ln}r}\right)\right]_{r_b},$$
(2)
where $`f_g=(M_g/M_{\mathrm{tot}})`$ is the gas mass fraction at $`r_b`$, $`G`$ is Newton’s constant, and $`_r\frac{}{r}`$. By substituting equation (2) into equation (1) we get

$$t_{\mathrm{cond}}=\frac{3}{8\pi }\frac{f_gk_B\overline{T}}{G\mu ^2m_p^2}\left[\kappa ^1\left(1+\frac{_r\mathrm{ln}\rho _g}{_r\mathrm{ln}T}\right)\right]_{r_b}.$$
(3)
Thus, the characteristic cooling time for the entire cluster depends on the boundary values of the conductivity coefficient, $`\kappa (r_b)`$, and the effective “adiabatic index” of the gas, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}[1+(_r\mathrm{ln}T/_r\mathrm{ln}\rho _g)]_{r_b}`$.

As customary in the literature, we identify the boundary of the hot interior of the cluster as the radius, $`r_{180}`$, where the average interior density of the gas is $`180`$ times the mean cosmological density. The universal temperature profile derived by Markevitch et al. (1998) from ASCA data implies $`[\mathrm{ln}T/\mathrm{ln}r]_{r_b}0.4`$, $`\beta _b[T(r_b)/\overline{T}]0.6`$, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}1.24`$. In order to get a numerical value for the cooling time $`t_{\mathrm{cond}}`$, we normalize the conductivity coefficient by the Spitzer (1962) value, $`\kappa _{\mathrm{Sp}}(r_b)=5\times 10^{29}k_B(\beta _b\overline{T}_{10})^{5/2}\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{s}^1`$ where $`\overline{T}_{10}=(k_B\overline{T}/10\mathrm{keV})`$, and define the suppression fractor $`\eta \kappa /\kappa _{\mathrm{Sp}}`$. By substituting the above parameter values into equation (3) we get111Note that the heat flux saturates when the Coulomb mean-free-path $`\lambda _{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ becomes longer than the characteristic scale of the temperature variation $`(\mathrm{ln}T/r)^1`$ (Sarazin 1988). For a conductivity coefficient which is lower than the Spitzer value by a factor of $`\eta `$, the effective mean-free-path (at the same thermal speed) is $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}\eta \lambda _{\mathrm{Coul}}`$. From the $`T`$-vs-$`r_{180}`$ relation of Evrard et al. (1996) we get $`(\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}/r_{180})0.1(\eta /0.1)T_{10}^{3/2}`$.,

$$t_{\mathrm{cond}}=5\eta ^1\left(\frac{f_g}{0.15}\right)\left(\frac{k_B\overline{T}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{3/2}\mathrm{Gyr}.$$
(4)
Over a cluster lifetime, $`\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, the cluster temperature is expected to decline by a fraction

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{T}}{\overline{T}}\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}}{t_{\mathrm{cond}}}=0.2\left(\frac{\eta }{0.1}\right)\left(\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}}{10\mathrm{Gyr}}\right)\left(\frac{f_g}{0.15}\right)^1\left(\frac{k_B\overline{T}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{3/2},$$
(5)
where we have assumed that $`\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}t_{\mathrm{cond}}`$. Note that the cluster lifetime cannot be shorter than the sound crossing time across its diameter, $`6(r_{180}/5\mathrm{Mpc})\overline{T}_{10}^{1/2}\mathrm{Gyr}`$. Cooling is inevitable (and cannot be eliminated by adiabatic heating of the gas as it settles towards the center) since the gravitational potential that confines the gas is dominated by the dark matter.

Equation (5) implies that hot X-ray clusters in the local universe must have been even hotter when they formed. The abundance of X-ray clusters is exponentially suppressed at high temperatures (Henry & Arnaud 1991; Eke et al. 1996; Viana & Liddle 1996; Pierpaoli et al. 2001; Ikebe et al. 2002) and even more so at earlier cosmic times (Fan, Bahcall, & Cen 1997; Bahcall & Fan 1998; Evrard et al. 2002). It therefore becomes exponentially more difficult to account for the abundance of hot clusters in the present-day universe if those same clusters had to be even hotter $`5`$ billion years ago. The agreement between the measured abundances of hot ($`k_B\overline{T}>6\mathrm{keV}`$) clusters and those predicted by popular cosmological models (see Figures 9 and 12 in Evrard et al. 2002) would be significantly spoiled unless we require $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{T}/\overline{T})0.3`$. From equation (5) we then find $`\eta 0.15(\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}/10\mathrm{Gyr})^1\overline{T}_{10}^{3/2}`$. Note that this constraint is strongest for the hottest clusters where the total thermal energy is $`10^{64}`$ ergs, and in which plausible astrophysical heating sources (such as supernovae or active galactic nuclei) are unable to compensate for the energy loss due to thermal conduction. Of particular interest is the cluster 1E 0657-56 at $`z=0.296`$ for which the inferred emissivity-weighted temperature is $`14.8_{1.2}^{+1.7}`$ keV, although it may be a relatively young merger (Tucker et al. 1998; Markevitch et al. 2002). Since heat conduction is temperature dependent, it distorts the shape of the abundance distribution of cluster temperatures in a generic way that is not degenerate with variations in cosmological parameters such as the normalization of the power-spectrum of density fluctuations. Inclusion of thermal conduction in future high-resolution hydrodynamic simulations can be used to refine the above upper limit on $`\eta `$. In these simulations, it would be important to treat the electron and ion temperatures separately since the thermal equilibiration timescale is long near the virialization shock of clusters (Fox & Loeb 1997).

We reiterate that the emission-weighted temperature of an X-ray cluster is dominated by its core which amounts to only a small fraction of the total cluster mass. A substantial reduction in the core temperature would merely result from the transfer of heat out of the hot core to the cooler, stationary cluster envelope without requiring that this heat be transferred further to accreting material in the surrounding large-scale structure. Nevertheless, heat conduction is inevitably expected to preheat the surrounding gas and suppress smooth accretion of gas onto the gravitational potential well of the hottest clusters. If substantial, such a suppression would have implied that the baryon mass fraction in the hottest clusters is lower than its cosmic average, a result that would have been at odds with the concordance model of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and structure formation (Burles et al. 2001; Tegmark, Zaldarriaga, & Hamilton 2002).

## 3 Conclusion

We find that heat conduction must be suppressed by a factor $`\eta 0.15(\tau _{\mathrm{cl}}/10\mathrm{Gyr})^1\overline{T}_{10}^{3/2}`$ relative to the Spitzer value, or else the cores of X-ray clusters would have cooled significantly over their lifetime. This suppression can be naturally produced (see Malyshkin & Kulsrud 2000 and §5 in Malyshkin 2001) by the magnetic fields that are inferred to exist in the halos of X-ray clusters (Carilli & Taylor 2002). The recent Chandra detections of sharp temperature jumps (cold fronts) in several clusters (Markevitch et al. 2000; Vikhlinin et al. 2001a) indicate an even stronger suppression of heat conduction across these jumps (Markevitch et al. 2000; Ettori & Fabian 2000). Similarly, a suppression factor of $`\eta 1`$$`3\%`$ is required to account for the conditions in the interstellar gas of cluster galaxies (Vikhlinin et al. 2001b). If this suppression applies also to the diffuse gas in cluster cores, then thermal conduction could not account for the apparent lack of cooling flows in them. Mixing of gas due to mergers or central heating sources, such as active galactic nuclei, could in principle compensate for the radiative losses in these environments (Böhringer et al. 2002; Churazov et al. 2002). In this paper we have shown that if the thermal conductivity had been comparable to the Spitzer value as recently suggested (Voigt et al. 2002), then cooling flows would have not been suppressed but rather induced in hot X-ray clusters.

I thank Maxim Markevitch and Jerry Ostriker for useful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the grants 5-7768 from NASA and AST-9900877, AST-0071019 from NSF.


text:
# Measurement of the branching fraction for the decay 𝐾_𝑆→𝜋𝑒𝜈

## Abstract

We present a measurement of the branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(K\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu ))`$ performed using the KLOE detector. $`K_S`$-mesons are produced in the reaction $`e^+e^{}\varphi K_SK_L`$ at the DAΦNE collider. In a sample of $`5\times 10^6`$ $`K_S`$-tagged events we find $`624\pm 30`$ semileptonic $`K_S`$ decays. Normalizing to the $`K_S`$$``$$`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ count in the same data sample, we obtain $`\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi e\nu )=(6.91\pm 0.37)\times 10^4`$, in agreement with the Standard Model expectation.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , In the Standard Model, there are only $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ transitions at tree level. $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ transitions exist at higher order, but are suppressed by a factor of $`10^6`$$`10^7`$ . Under this assumption, together with $`TCP`$-invariance , it follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi e\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi e\nu )`$ to very high accuracy. Using the values of $`\mathrm{BR}(K_L\pi e\nu )`$ and $`\tau _S/\tau _L`$ from ref , one obtains $`\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi e\nu )=(6.70\pm 0.07)\times 10^4`$. Precise measurements of the $`K_S`$ semileptonic decay rate are important for checking the above assumptions. Until recently, no experimental information was available about the semileptonic decay of the $`K_S`$-meson. This is in large part due to the smallness of the branching ratio and to the difficulty of isolating $`\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu )`$ decays from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. Both decays are observed as two charged tracks, but the latter are $`1000`$ times more abundant. Good particle identification is necessary for isolating a pure sample of $`\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu )`$ events. The CMD-2 collaboration at VEPP-2M operating at the $`\varphi `$ peak has observed $`75\pm 13`$ semileptonic $`K_S`$ decays , with limited separation of signal and background. They find $`\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi e\nu )=(7.2\pm 1.4)\times 10^4`$. With KLOE , we have considerably improved on this result.

Our measurement is performed with kaons from $`\varphi K_SK_L`$ decays. KLOE operates at DAΦNE , an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider also known as the Frascati $`\varphi `$–factory. $`\varphi `$-mesons are produced in small angle (25 mrad) collisions of equal energy electrons and positrons, giving the $`\varphi `$ a small transverse momentum component in the horizontal plane, $`p_\varphi 13\mathrm{MeV}/c.`$ The main advantage of studying kaons at a $`\varphi `$–factory is that $`\varphi `$-mesons decay $`34\%`$ of the time into neutral kaons. $`K_L`$’s and $`K_S`$’s are produced almost back-to-back in the laboratory, with mean decay paths $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}340`$ cm and $`\lambda _\mathrm{S}0.6`$ cm, respectively. Detection of a long-lived kaon therefore tags the production of a $`K_S`$-meson and gives its direction and momentum. The contamination from $`K_LK_L\gamma `$ and $`K_SK_S\gamma `$ final states is negligible for our measurement . Since the branching ratio for $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is known with an accuracy of $`0.4\%`$ , the $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ branching ratio is evaluated by normalizing the number of signal events to the number of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events in the same data set. This allows cancellation of the uncertainties coming from the integrated luminosity, the $`\varphi `$ production cross section, and the tagging efficiency. Both charge states $`\pi ^+e^{}\overline{\nu }`$ and $`\pi ^{}e^+\nu `$ are included in the measured branching ratio. The measurement is based on an integrated luminosity of 17 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ at the $`\varphi `$ peak collected during the year 2000, corresponding to $`5\times 10^7`$ produced $`\varphi `$-mesons.

The KLOE detector (Fig. 1) consists of a large cylindrical drift chamber surrounded by a lead-scintillating fiber sampling calorimeter. A superconducting coil outside the calorimeter provides a 0.52 T field. The drift chamber , 4 m in diameter and 3.3 m long, has 12 582 all-stereo sense wires and 37 746 aluminium field wires. The chamber shell is made of carbon fiber-epoxy composite and the gas used is a 90% helium, 10% isobutane mixture. These features maximize transparency to photons and reduce $`K_L`$$``$$`K_S`$ regeneration. The position resolutions are $`\sigma _{xy}150\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _z2\mathrm{mm}.`$ The momentum resolution is $`\sigma (p_{})/p_{}0.4\%`$. Vertices are reconstructed with a spatial resolution of $`3\mathrm{mm}`$. The calorimeter , divided into a barrel and two endcaps, covers 98% of the solid angle. The energy resolution is $`\sigma _E/E=5.7\%/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}`$ and the timing resolution is $`\sigma _t=54\mathrm{ps}/\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}50\mathrm{ps}.`$ The trigger  uses calorimeter and chamber information. For the present analysis, the trigger relies entirely on calorimeter information. Two local energy deposits above threshold ($`50`$ MeV on the barrel, $`150`$ MeV on the endcaps) are required. The trigger time has a large spread with respect to the bunch crossing time. It is however synchronized with the machine RF divided by 4, $`T_{\mathrm{sync}}=10.8\mathrm{ns}`$, with an accuracy of 50 ps. The time $`T_0`$ of the bunch crossing producing an event is determined after event reconstruction.

About half of the $`K_L`$-mesons reach the calorimeter, where most interact. A $`K_L`$ interaction is called a $`K_L`$-crash in the following. A $`K_L`$-crash is identified as a local energy deposit with energy above 100 MeV and a time of flight indicating low velocity: $`\beta 0.218`$. The coordinates of the energy deposit determine the $`K_L`$’s direction to $`20`$ mrad and its momentum $`𝐩_L`$, which is weakly dependent on the $`K_L`$ direction because of the motion of the $`\varphi `$-meson. A $`K_L`$-crash thus tags the production of a $`K_S`$ of momentum $`𝐩_S=𝐩_\varphi 𝐩_L`$. $`K_S`$-mesons are tagged with an overall efficiency of $`30\%`$. Both $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ and $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays are selected from this tagged sample. Event selection consists of fiducial cuts, particle identification by time of flight, and kinematic closure.

Identification of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays requires two tracks of opposite curvature. Tracks must extrapolate to the interaction point (IP) within KLOE resolutions. The reconstructed momenta and polar angles must lie in the intervals $`120\mathrm{MeV}/c<p<300\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ and $`30^{}<\theta <150^{}`$. A cut in $`(p_{},p_{})`$ selects non-spiralling tracks. 1 636 604 $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events have been found. Contamination due to $`K_S`$ decays other than $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is well below the per-mil level and is ignored.

Identification of $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ events also begins with two tracks of opposite curvature. Tracks must extrapolate and form a vertex at the IP. The invariant mass $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ of the pair calculated assuming both tracks are pions must be smaller than 490 MeV. This rejects $`95\%`$ of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays.

Electrons and pions are discriminated by time of flight (TOF). Tracks are therefore required to be associated with calorimeter energy clusters. For each track, we compute the difference $`\delta _t(m)=t_{\mathrm{cl}}L/c\beta (m)`$ using the cluster time $`t_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ and the track length $`L`$. The velocity $`\beta `$ is computed from the track momentum for each mass hypothesis, $`m=m_e`$ and $`m=m_\pi `$. In order to avoid uncertainties due to the determination of $`T_0`$, we make cuts on the two-track difference

$$d\delta _{t,\mathrm{ab}}=\delta _t(m_a)_1\delta _t(m_b)_2\text{,}$$

where the mass hypothesis $`m_{a(b)}`$ is used for the track 1(2). This difference is zero for the correct mass assignments. An additional fraction of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events is rejected by requiring $`|d\delta _{t,\pi \pi }|>1.5`$ ns. The differences $`d\delta _{t,\pi \mathrm{e}}`$ and $`d\delta _{t,\mathrm{e}\pi }`$ are calculated for events surviving the previous cut. The scatter plot of the two variables is shown in Fig. 2 for Monte Carlo events. The cuts applied on these time differences for the selection of $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ events are illustrated in the figure: $`|d\delta _{t,\pi \mathrm{e}}|<1`$ ns, $`d\delta _{t,\mathrm{e}\pi }>3`$ ns; or $`|d\delta _{t,\mathrm{e}\pi }|<1`$ ns, $`d\delta _{t,\pi \mathrm{e}}>3`$ ns.

Finally, for events passing all of the above criteria, we compute the missing energy and momentum $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}`$, $`p_{\mathrm{miss}}`$. For $`\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu )`$ decays, these variables are the neutrino energy and momentum, and satisfy $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}=cp_{\mathrm{miss}}.`$ The distribution of $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}cp_{\mathrm{miss}}`$ is shown in Fig. 3 before (left) and after (right) the time-of-flight cuts are imposed. A clear peak at $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}cp_{\mathrm{miss}}=0`$ is evident in the distribution in the right panel and corresponds to a clean signal for $`K_S\pi e\nu `$. Events with $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}cp_{\mathrm{miss}}>10`$ MeV are mostly due to $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays in which a pion decays to a muon before reaching the tracking volume. The solid line in the right graph is a fit of the data to the sum of the signal and background spectra simulated using the Monte Carlo (MC). The free fit parameters are the signal and background normalizations. We find:

$$N(\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu ))=624\pm 30$$

The quoted error includes the contributions from fluctuations in the signal statistics ($`\pm 25`$), from the background subtraction ($`\pm 10`$), and from the finite statistics of the MC spectra ($`\pm 13`$).

For both $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (normalization) and $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ (signal) events, contributions to the tagging and selection inefficiencies due to purely geometrical effects have been estimated using MC simulation, while data have been used to estimate the corrections for tracking and trigger inefficiencies. For $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ events, the corrections for vertex reconstruction and time-of-flight $`\pi `$-$`e`$ identification inefficiencies have also been evaluated using data.

For $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, the MC is used to compute the efficiency after application of the fiducial cuts, since these are fundamentally geometrical. The single-track reconstruction efficiency is obtained in bins of $`(p_{},\theta )`$ from subsamples of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events. The ratio of data and MC reconstruction efficiencies is found to be constant throughout the acceptance, and the overall MC efficiency is scaled accordingly. The $`K_S`$-$`K_L`$ final state allows the trigger efficiency to be evaluated directly from data. Because of its high energy, the $`K_L`$-crash always fires at least one calorimeter sector. Approximately 40% of the time it fires two sectors, giving rise to a valid trigger by itself. Events recognized to have triggered in this way are used to measure the probability that at least one $`K_S`$ secondary satisfies the trigger together with the $`K_L`$-crash cluster, which defines the trigger efficiency in the remaining 60% of events. The $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ selection efficiencies are listed in table 1; for more details see ref. .

For $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ events, the MC is used to evaluate the contributions to the selection inefficiency from the vertex reconstruction, the fiducial cuts, and the $`M_{\pi \pi }`$ cut. The vertex reconstruction efficiency is also estimated from data, using events in which the $`K_L`$ decays into $`\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu )`$ near the IP and the $`K_S`$ decays into 2$`\pi ^0`$’s ($`\pi ^0`$’s do not affect tracking in the drift chamber). The ratio of data and MC efficiencies is used as a scale correction to the MC efficiency. The tracking efficiencies for MC and data have been measured using $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, as stated above. The need to extrapolate over a larger interval in the track momenta for $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ events (especially for the electrons) introduces a larger error on the tracking efficiency correction in this case.

The track-to-cluster association efficiency $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{tca}}`$ includes both the probability that the particle reaching the calorimeter ($`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, $`e^{}`$, or $`\mu ^{}`$) deposits enough energy to be detected, and the probability that the track and cluster are correctly associated during reconstruction. The trigger efficiency $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{trg}}`$ is given by the probability that one of the $`K_S`$ clusters together with the $`K_L`$-crash cluster triggers the event. The overall corrections for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{tca}}`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{trg}}`$, and the time-of-flight identification efficiency are obtained using a high-purity ($`>99.7\%`$) sample of $`K_L\pi e\nu `$, $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events in which the $`K_L`$ decays near the IP and the $`K_S`$ decay generates the trigger. Such $`K_L\mathrm{}3`$-gold events can be selected using track kinematics only, with essentially no recourse to calorimeter information. Independent estimates for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{tca}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{trg}}`$ parameterized in the variables of each track can be obtained from samples of $`\varphi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`K_L\mathrm{}3`$-gold events. For all of these event types, reconstruction is possible whether or not one of the tracks leaves a cluster in the calorimeter. The efficiencies are then parameterized separately for each particle type, and used to weight the MC-generated semileptonic events to obtain an average correction. The results obtained with the two methods agree within errors. The overall efficiency $`ϵ_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\pi \mathrm{e}\nu }`$ for the detection of signal events is $`0.208\pm 0.004`$. The various contributions are separately listed in table 1; for more details see ref. .

In principle, the $`K_L`$-crash identification efficiency cancels out in the ratio of the number of selected $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ and $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events. In practice, since the event $`T_0`$ is obtained from the $`K_S`$ and the $`K_L`$ is recognized by its time of flight, there is a small dependence of the $`K_L`$-crash identification efficiency on the $`K_S`$ decay mode. A correction for this effect is obtained by studying the accuracy of the $`T_0`$ determination in each case. For the case of $`K_S\pi e\nu `$, this study is performed using $`K_L\mathrm{}3`$-gold events in which the topology of the $`K_L\pi e\nu `$ decay is manipulated to reflect the $`K_S`$ decay length distribution, and in which the true $`T_0`$ is unambiguous (both the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ from the $`K_S`$ give the same $`T_0`$). For the case of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, this study is performed using $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, in which the $`K_L`$ decay gives an unambiguous estimate of the event $`T_0`$. Such events can be recognized without knowledge of the event $`T_0`$ a priori. The ratio $`R_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ of the tagging efficiencies for $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ and $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is found to differ from unity by $`2\%`$ (see table 1).

The value for $`\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi e\nu )`$ is obtained by normalizing the number of signal events to the number of $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events in the same data set, correcting for the total selection efficiencies and the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ of tagging efficiencies, and using the present experimental value for $`\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ :

$$\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi e\nu )=\frac{N^{\pi \mathrm{e}\nu }}{N^{\pi \pi }}\times \frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\pi \pi }}{\epsilon _{\mathrm{tot}}^{\pi \mathrm{e}\nu }}\times \frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{tag}}}\times \mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}).$$

We obtain

$$\mathrm{BR}(K_S\pi ^\pm e^{}\overline{\nu }(\nu ))=(6.91\pm 0.34_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm 0.15_{\mathrm{syst}})\times 10^4,$$

in agreement with the expectation from the Standard Model. The contributions to the error in our measurement are given in table 2.

This analysis demonstrates that KLOE can isolate a very pure sample of $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ decays. The overall selection efficiency for $`K_S\pi e\nu `$ decays among $`K_S`$-tagged events is $`0.208\pm 0.004`$, due in large part to the tight fiducial cuts imposed on the decays of interest.

We thank the DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE team for their efforts in maintaining low background running conditions and their collaboration during all data-taking. We also thank F. Fortugno for his efforts in ensuring good operations of the KLOE computing facilities. This work was supported in part by EURODAPHNE, contract FMRX-CT98-0169; by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) contract 06-KA-957; by Graduiertenkolleg ’H.E. Phys. and Part. Astrophys.’ of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Contract No. GK 742; by INTAS, contracts 96-624, 99-37; and by TARI, contract HPRI-CT-1999-00088.


text:
# The conditional tunneling time for reflection using the WKB wave-function

## Abstract

We derive an expression for the conditional time for the reflection of a wave from an arbitrary potential barrier using the WKB wavefunction in the barrier region. Our result indicates that the conditional times for transmission and reflection are equal for a symmetric barrier within the validity of the WKB approach.

In this paper, we deal with the dynamical aspect of scattering, namely, the time delay undergone by a wave in the process of being scattered by a potential. Obviously, this time is related to the actual time of sojourn in the scattering region. For the case of a classical particle, both the times will be one and the same. But it is not obvious that the equality would hold for a wave. This time of sojourn during the scattering is of interest for mesoscopic systems, and has a long and controversial history (See Ref.  for recent reviews). The deformable nature of a wave-packet makes it difficult to accept the Wigner phase ($`\varphi `$) delay time \[$`\tau _w=\mathrm{}(\varphi )/(E)`$\], based on following the motion of a fiducial feature such as the peak on the wave-packet, as causally related to the actual time of sojourn in the spatial region of interest. Hence, several authors have made other proposals for identifying a physically meaningful timescale of interaction of the quantum particle with the scattering potential. These include the quantum clocks that utilize the co-evolution, in a locally applied infinitesimal field / potential, of an extra degree of freedom (such as the spin ) attached to the traversing particle. Even these proposals are not completely free from problems .

One strongly debated issue, among others, has been the conditional scattering time, conditional upon the incoming and outgoing channels. Thus, we have the conditional transmission or reflection time in the one-dimensional case. The case of transmission (tunneling for sub-barrier energies) has been dealt with extensively by several researchers using different methods. There is near unanimous agreement that the traversal time for tunneling across a nearly opaque barrier of width $`L`$ and height $`V_0`$ is given by the Büttiker-Landauer time:

$$\tau _{BL}=\frac{mL}{\mathrm{}\kappa },$$
(1)
where m is the mass of the particle and $`\mathrm{}\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V_0E)}`$. This can, of course, be generalized to an arbitrary potential as an integral over infinitesimally wide rectangular barriers, if the law of addition of scattering times for non-intersecting spatial regions holds. But there is no such universal agreement about the time for reflection. In this paper, we will use the WKB wave-function in the barrier region for a tunneling particle to obtain an expression for the conditional time of reflection from an arbitrary potential. In an earlier work, this approach was successfully used to determine the traversal time in agreement with the Büttiker-Landauer time. Our current work indicates that the conditional time for Reflection is the same as the conditional traversal time for a symmetric barrier within the limits of the WKB approximation.

Let us consider an arbitrary (static) potential $`V(x)`$ as shown in Fig. 1, with the wave at an energy $`E`$ incident from the left. The wave is now partially transmitted to the right with a probability amplitude $`T`$, and partially reflected to the left with a probability amplitude $`R`$. Within the barrier region the wave function $`\psi (x)`$ of the particle is a superposition of growing and decaying real functions (which are purely exponential for a rectangular barrier). The current density at any point, $`j(x)=(\mathrm{}/2im)[\psi ^{}(d\psi /dx)\psi (d\psi ^{}/dx)]`$, is non-zero only due to the complex coefficients differing by a phase, in the superposition of real functions. Now one can associate a total velocity field $`v(x)`$ with the particles, given by $`j(x)=v(x)P(x)`$, where $`P(x)=\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)`$ is the probability density. This turns out to be the same the velocity field obtained in the Bohmian view. Using the WKB wave-function in the barrier region,

$$\psi (x)=\frac{A}{\sqrt{p(x)}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left(_x^a\frac{p(x^{})}{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^{}\right)i\mathrm{exp}\left(_x^a\frac{p(x^{})}{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^{}\right)\right],$$
(2)
where $`p(x)=\sqrt{2m(V(x)E)}`$ and $`A`$ is a complex normalization coefficient, one can evaluate the velocity field $`v(x)`$:

$`v(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x)}{m}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle _x^a}{\displaystyle \frac{p(x^{})}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^{}\right)+\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle _x^a}{\displaystyle \frac{p(x^{})}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^{}\right)\right]^1,`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p(x)}{m}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle _x^a}{\displaystyle \frac{p(x^{})}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^{}\right).`$ (4)
The latter approximation is valid because $`p(x)/\mathrm{}𝑑x1`$ inside the barrier, which is the essence of the WKB approximation.

Now at any point, $`x`$, inside the barrier, the forward (moving to the right) particles would be reflected backwards (to the left) due to the potential barrier extending from $`x`$ to $`a`$ with a probability $`(x)`$ (in this WKB picture there are no multiple scatterings). By noting that the speed at a given point would only depend on the potential at that point, the total velocity field can be decomposed into a forward and a backward velocity field:

$$v(x)=\frac{p(x)}{m}(x)\frac{p(x)}{m}=𝒯(x)\frac{p(x)}{m}.$$
(5)
Now in Eq. (4), the exponential term is nothing but the transmission probability ($`𝒯(x)`$) for the barrier extending from $`x`$ to $`a`$ in the WKB approximation. Hence the forward velocity was identified as $`p(x)/m`$, giving the traversal time as

$$\tau ^{(T)}=_b^a\frac{m}{p(x^{})}𝑑x^{}.$$
(6)
For a rectangular barrier, this reduces to the Büttiker-Landauer time. It should be noted that such an identification of the forward velocity field holds within the WKB picture and might not possible in general. We also point out that the form of $`v(x)`$ in Eq. 5 naturally leads to a simple interpretation in the form of a symmetric statistical composition law for the velocity field without any quantum interference terms.

Now we will give an expression for the conditional reflection time within the WKB picture. The reflection time for tunneling can be defined as a properly weighted sum over the transit time of the particles partially reflected from each point within the barrier as

$$\tau ^{(R)}=_b^a2\left[_b^x\frac{mdx^{}}{p(x^{})}\right]\frac{(x)dx}{_b^a(x)𝑑x}.$$
(7)
In other words, the particle reflected at a point $`x`$ (see Fig. 1) will take a time of $`2_b^xp(x^{})/m𝑑x^{}`$ to go upto the point $`x`$ and back. $`(x)`$ is the (probability) reflection coefficient of the barrier extending from only $`x`$ upto $`a`$, and in the WKB approximation is given by

$$(x)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[2_x^ap(x^{\prime \prime })/\mathrm{}𝑑x^{\prime \prime }\right].$$
(8)
Now Eqs. (7) and (8) constitute the complete expression for the conditional reflection time.

Next, we will proceed to calculate the reflection time for two symmetric potentials (there exists a centre of reflection), viz., a rectangular potential barrier of height $`V_r`$ and width $`L`$, and a parabolic potential barrier $`V(x)=(1/2)\omega ^2x^2`$. For the rectangular barrier, we obtain the reflection delay time as

$$\tau ^{(R)}=\frac{mL}{p_0N}\frac{m\mathrm{}}{p_0^2N}+\frac{2m}{p_0N}(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2p_0})^2\left(1e^{2p_0L/\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(9)
where $`N=[1+\mathrm{}/2p_0L(1e^{2p_0L/\mathrm{}})]`$ and $`p_0=\sqrt{2m(V_rE)}`$. We note that for a sufficiently wide barrier $`p_0L/\mathrm{}1`$, and the reflection time can be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{}/p_0`$. To the zeroeth order, $`\tau ^{(R)}=\tau ^{(T)}=mL/p_0`$, i.e., the reflection time is the same as the transmission time. In the case of the parabolic barrier, the transmission time is $`\tau ^{(T)}=\pi \sqrt{m}/\omega `$ and the reflection time is

$$\tau ^{(R)}=\frac{\pi \sqrt{m}}{\omega }+\frac{2\sqrt{m}}{\omega }_{2E/\sqrt{\omega }}^{2E/\sqrt{\omega }}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^1\left(\frac{\omega x^{}}{2E}\right)(x^{})dx^{}}{_{2E/\sqrt{\omega }}^{2E/\sqrt{\omega }}(x^{})𝑑x^{}}$$
(10)
where

$$(x)=1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi E\sqrt{m}}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2E\sqrt{m}}{\mathrm{}\omega }\left(\frac{\omega x}{\sqrt{2E}}\sqrt{1\omega ^2x^2/2E}+\mathrm{sin}^1(\omega x/\sqrt{2E})\right)\right]$$
(11)
$`(x)1`$ for a reasonably small $`\omega `$ or a broad potential. Then the second part of the expression (10) for $`\tau ^{(R)}`$ is negligible, giving $`\tau ^{(R)}=\tau ^{(T)}`$. For $`(x)<1`$, the reflection time is slightly lesser than the transmission time. Thus within the validity of the WKB approach, the reflection and the transmission times are roughly equal in this case also.

We now discuss the significance of our result for the reflection time for a symmetric barrier by comparing with other known timescales. The Wigner phase delay time is the same for reflection or traversal for a symmetric barrier, and does not distinguish between reflected and transmitted particles. The conditional reflection and traversal times calculated by using a local infinitesimal imaginary potential as a clock can also be shown to be equal for any arbitrary symmetric potential. The spin rotation time ($`\tau _z`$) defined by Büttiker, however, yields different reflection and transmission times in general for any potential (symmetric or otherwise), although the spin precession times $`\tau _y`$ for reflection and transmission are equal. But it should be noted that there is a relation between the z-components of the spin of the transmitted and the reflected waves due to conservation of angular momentum. This makes it difficult to define separate conditional reflection and transmission times using the spin-rotation ($`\tau _z`$).

In conclusion, we have given an expression for the conditional reflection time for barrier tunneling using the WKB wave-function in the barrier region. The conditional reflection time appears to be the same as the conditional traversal time for a symmetric barrier within the validity of the WKB picture.

The authors would like to thank Prof. N. Kumar for stimulating discussions. SAR would like to acknowledge the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar for hospitality during a visit when this work was carried out.


text:
# RX J0806+15: the shortest period binary?

## 1 Introduction

Using data taken using the ROSAT satellite, Israel et al (1999) and Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) found that RX J0806.3+1527 (hereafter RX J0806+15) was modulated on a period of 321.5 sec. Further, the amplitude was 100 per cent with zero X-ray flux for half of the 321.5 sec period. Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) found a $`V`$21 mag object within the X-ray error-box and considered it the most likely optical counterpart (star ‘A’ in their Figure 3). Using the Digital Palomar Survey, Israel et al (1999) did not find an optical counterpart in the $`R`$ band down to $``$20, although they did find a blue object close to the X-ray position in the Automatic Plate Measuring machine catalogue (Irwin, Maddox & McMahon 1994).

Israel et al (1999) suggested that RX J0806+15 was a relatively distant intermediate polar (IP: a weakly magnetic cataclysmic variable) or a nearby isolated neutron star. Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) ruled out the isolated neutron star option based on its soft X-ray spectrum. For all known IPs, none show an X-ray light curve which shows zero flux for half the X-ray period. Indeed, it is difficult (although not impossible) to envisage a IP geometry which would produce this type of X-ray light curve (Cropper et al 1998). For this reason Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) suggested that this option was not likely.

They did however, notice the resemblance of the X-ray folded light curve with that of another ROSAT discovered source RX J1914+24 which has a period of 569 sec. Cropper et al (1998) proposed that this object was a double degenerate polar – an interacting binary consisting of two white dwarfs, one of which is magnetic. In this interpretation, the 569 sec period was the binary orbital period and also the spin period of the magnetic white dwarf. Recently, Wu et al (2002) have proposed that RX J1914+24 is driven by electrical power, while Marsh & Steeghs (2002) and Ramsay et al (2002) have proposed it is a double degenerate Algol system.

We have made optical observations of the field of RX J0806+15 with the goal of identifying the optical counterpart of RX J0806+15 and thereby making progress in understanding the nature of this system.

## 2 Observations

Optical observations were carried out using the 2.5m Nordic Optical Telescope on La Palma on the nights of 14/15 and 15/16 Jan 2002. The instrument was the Andalucia Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (ALFOSC), the detector being a Loral 2048x2048 CCD. Conditions were photometric. The seeing on the first night was moderate ($``$1.1–1.8”), but better on the second ($``$0.9–1.2”). The images were bias-subtracted and flat-fielded in the usual way. On the first night 600 sec exposures were made of the field of RX J0806+15 in $`BVRI`$ bands. A series of shorter (windowed) exposures were also made of the immediate field in $`VI`$ bands. On the second night white light observations were obtained of the immediate field with exposures as low as 20sec, with readout time being a few seconds. Observations of Landolt standard stars (PG 0220+132B, PG 0231+051A/D, 94394, Landolt 1992) were obtained. We used the mean atmospheric extinction co-efficients for La Palma.

## 3 The optical counterpart

We show in Figure 1 the immediate field of RX J0806+15. The analysis of our white light observations (§4) show that the optical counterpart of RX J0806+15 is indeed star ‘A’ as suggested by Burwitz & Reinsch (2001). The magnitude of star A is: $`B=20.9\pm `$0.1, $`V=21.1\pm `$0.1, $`R=21.4\pm 0.1`$ and $`I=21.2\pm `$0.1. It is clearly a blue object. The Hydrogen column density to the edge of the galaxy in the direction of RX J0806+15 is relatively low: $`N_H=2.7\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup>corresponding to $`A_V`$=0.15.

## 4 The light curve

On the night 15/16 Jan we made a series of short exposures in white light: this was a continuous series of observations spanning over 9 hours. The images contained stars ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the chart of Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) and also a star $``$11” to the south of star A - star ‘C’ in Figure 1. Our photometry showed that star B was $`V`$=15.52 (consistent with that found by Burwitz & Reinsch) and $`I`$=14.64. We performed differential aperture photometry between stars A and B and also between stars B and C. There was no significant variation in the differential magnitude between stars B and C. There was, however, a significant variation between star A and star B. We show the resulting light curve in Figure 2. We also obtained light curves for star A in $`VI`$ bands on the first night.

Using the white light data we obtained a power spectrum using the Lomb-Scargle algorithm: a prominent peak is seen at 321.4 sec. We conclude that star A is the optical counterpart of RX J0806+15. To refine the period we use an inversion technique based on Bayesian statistics (Karttunen & Muinonen 1991). This searches a range of periods and assumes that the pulse shape can be modelled using a Fourier expansion of n degrees (we assume n=2). Using this technique we find a period of 321.404$`\pm `$0.044 sec. If we include the $`V`$ band data (covering nearly 8 hours of data taken on Jan 14/15) we determine a period of 321.544$`\pm `$0.014 sec. The power spectra of this combined dataset is shown in Figure 3. This is consistent with the X-ray period of 321.5393$`\pm `$0.0004 sec (or its alias period of 321.5465$`\pm `$0.0004 sec) (Burwitz & Reinsch 2001). Unfortunately, because of the uncertainty in the periods, we cannot co-phase the optical and X-ray data (the X-ray data were taken in 1994 and 1995). We also show in Figure 3 a close-up of the power spectrum between 300 and 360 sec. The spectrum is remarkably clean and free from peaks other than those which can be attributed to the window function.

We folded the white light, $`V`$ and $`I`$ band data on the 321.544 sec period and show them in Figure 4. The white light folded light curve shows an amplitude of 0.30$`\pm `$0.01 mag (using a second order Fourier fit to the folded light curve) and shows an asymmetric light curve with the descent from maximum being more rapid than the rise to maximum. The $`V`$ band folded light curve is similar to the white light curve (amplitude 0.31$`\pm `$0.03 mag). The signal to noise of the $`I`$ band light curve is lower since RX J0806+15 is a relatively blue object. However, there is some evidence that the amplitude of the modulation is larger in $`I`$ than in $`V`$: 0.54$`\pm `$0.12 mag.

We also searched for longer period modulations in our data. We show in the top panel of Figure 5 the power spectrum extending from 1200 sec up to periods of 10000 sec (=2.8hrs) for the white light plus $`V`$ band data. (For periods longer than 10000 sec the power is negligible). This shows a number of peaks, the most prominent being near 4700sec. To make an assessment of significance of these peaks, we show in the middle panel of Figure 5 the power spectrum of the same data set if we randomly reassign the times of the data points using 500 trials. In the lower panel of Figure 5 we show the power of the highest peak lying in the range 4000-6000 sec for each of these trials. We find that in $``$10 of these 500 trials the maximum peaks exceeds or is very close to the actual power determined in the combined white light plus $`V`$ band light curve. Based on this test we find the peak at 4700 sec has a significance of only between 2 and 3$`\sigma `$. We also investigated this further by creating a random light curve by assigning Gaussian random numbers to the time points of the combined white light and $`V`$ band light curve and determining its power spectrum. Again we conclude that although a period close to 4700 sec maybe present in the data, we cannot be certain.

## 5 The location of the optical emission site

From the colours determined in §3, RX J0806+15 is clearly a blue object. However, it is more difficult to reconcile a blue object with having a modulation amplitude greater in the $`I`$ band compared to the $`V`$ band. This contrasts with the double degenerate polar RX J1914+24 which shows a larger variation in $`V`$ compared to $`I`$. There are several possible solutions. In the first, we assume that the optical emission originates on the secondary star and is due to irradiation from X-rays from the primary. If RX J0806+15 was an accreting double degenerate polar, the primary white dwarf would be more massive, and hence smaller in size than the secondary white dwarf. If the heated face of the secondary covered a small fraction of the area, then the variation in the cooler area (larger fraction) of the secondary could be greater than the hotter component.

It is also possible that the X-ray and optical data originate from the same site on the primary. In this case the higher amplitude of the $`I`$ band data could be due to the primary having a magnetic field of sufficient strength to produce cyclotron radiation. A field strength of $``$10MG would emit most strongly at red wavelengths and imply that the spin period of the primary white dwarf was closely synchronised with the binary orbital period. Since we cannot co-phase the optical and X-ray data we cannot distinguish between these scenarios.

## 6 Discussion

We have detected the optical counterpart of RX J0806+15. It has a period (321.5 sec) consistent with that detected in X-rays. There is marginal evidence for a second period at $``$4700 sec: this needs to be tested by a longer series of observations. We now consider the nature of this object.

Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) claimed that RX J0806+15 was unlikely to be a isolated neutron star based on the fact that its X-ray spectrum is very soft. However, they do not show the spectrum, or details of any fits to that spectrum. The softness ratio of RX J0806+15, HR1=–0.67$`\pm `$0.1, is very similar to that of the isolated neutron star RX J0720–31 (ROSAT public archive). We cannot exclude RX J0806+15 being an isolated neutron star based on its X-ray softness ratio. Israel et al (1999) conclude that were RX J0806+15 to be an isolated neutron star then it would have to be $``$10pc distant, based on a blue magnitude of $``$20.5.

If RX J0806+15 was indeed a neutron star at a distance of 10 pc, then we may expect to detect a significant proper motion. To test this, we determined the position of RX J0806+15 using our 600 sec $`V`$ band image using ASTROM (Wallace 1998) (and determining the positions of stars in the immediate field from the USNO A2 catalogue and the APM catalogue) and compared it to the position reported by Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) and the position of the blue star recorded in the APM catalogue (Irwin, Maddox & McMahon 1994) (Table 1). We find that the position determined by us and the APM catalogue agree to within 0.5 arc sec over a time interval of 50 years. In contrast, the isolated neutron star RX J1856-37 has been observed to show a proper motion of 0.33 arc/yr at a distance of 61pc (Walter 2001). At a distance of 10pc it would be expected to show a proper motion of 11.9 arc sec/yr. If RX J0806+15 were an isolated neutron star it would have to have a proper motion very much smaller than that of RX J1856-37. We consider it unlikely that RX J0806+15 is an isolated neutron star.

In the intermediate polar (IP) model, the 321.5 sec period would be associated with the spin period of the accreting white dwarf and the 4700 sec period the binary orbital period. The X-ray softness ratio (which implies a soft X-ray spectrum) would associate it with the soft IPs (like PQ Gem and UU Col) which have similar ratios. However, its X-ray light curve is very atypical for that of an IP. Indeed, Cropper et al (1998) discussed the possibility that RX J1914+24 was an IP. They concluded that an IP interpretation was possible if the binary inclination was close to 90 and heavy (phase dependent) absorption was present, or the soft X-rays were strongly beamed by some (as yet unknown) mechanism. Further, the light curve (Figure 2) shows no sign of flickering or flaring activity as is seen in other IPs. In the PQ Gem the amplitude on the spin period is $``$0.1 and 0.2 mag in $`V`$ and $`I`$ bands respectively. This contrasts with 0.3 and 0.5–0.6 mag in RX J0806+15. We also note the very clean power spectra (Figure 3): IPs show complex power spectra, typically showing a beat period which is not seen in RX J0806+15. For a spin period of 321.5 sec and an orbital period of 4700 sec, we would expect to observe a beat period around 345 sec: this is not seen (Figure 3). Further, no ellipsoidal modulation due to a main sequence secondary is seen and its colour is too blue. We consider the IP model unlikely.

Burwitz & Reinsch (2001) made the suggestion that RX J0806+15 is a double degenerate polar: a close binary system consisting of a magnetic white dwarf which is accreting material from a secondary white dwarf. Indeed, the similarities between RX J0806+15 and RX J1914+24 (which was proposed as the first double degenerate polar by Cropper et al 1998) is striking. The X-ray light curves are very similar: RX J0806+15 has an X-ray period of 321.5 sec, RX J1914+24 569 sec. Both show folded X-ray light curves which have zero flux for approximately half their period and are asymmetric with the rise to maximum being more rapid than their descent. The optical and X-ray light curves of RX J1914+24 are anti-phased, but the uncertainty in the period of RX J0806+15 prevents us from co-phasing these light curves. Although there have been several other suggestions as to the nature of RX J1914+24 (the electric star model of Wu et al (2002) and a double degenerate Algol system (Marsh & Steeghs 2002 and Ramsay et al 2002) they all assume a double degenerate system. Such a system would not show a second period lasting several 1000 sec. In the absence of a convincing second period, we consider the double degenerate model the most likely scenario.

## 7 Summary

In summary, we consider the isolated neutron star scenario to be unlikely. We cannot rule out an IP model if the geometry and the accretion stream absorption was very specific. Since we cannot be certain that there is a second period on a timescale of 4000-5000 sec we cannot at this stage rule out a double degenerate model. The nature of RX J0806+15 therefore, remains open. However, we conclude that the 321.5 sec period marks the rotation period of a white dwarf. If accretion onto the white dwarf is taking place, then the accretion flow appears to show little variation.

## 8 Acknowledgments

The data presented here have been taken using ALFOSC, which is owned by the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (IAA) and operated at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) under agreement between IAA and the NBIfAFG of the Astronomical Observatory of Copenhagen. We also thank the staff of the NOT for their support. PJH is an Academy of Finland research fellow.

Footnote: After this paper was submitted, Israel et al (2002) published a report in an IAU Circular announcing the discovery of optical modulation in star A of Burwitz & Reinsch (2001).