text:
# The peculiar velocity field in a quintessence model

## I Introduction

In the last few years, a new class of cosmological models has been proposed. The more usual cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term is replaced with a dynamical, time dependent component, the quintessence or dark energy, added together with baryons, cold dark matter (CDM), photons and neutrinos. The equation of state of the dark energy is given by $`w_Q\rho _Q/p_Q`$, $`\rho _Q`$ and $`p_Q`$ being, respectively, the pressure and energy density; since $`1w_Q<0`$, it still implies a negative contribution to the total pressure of the cosmic fluid. When $`w_Q=1`$, we recover a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term. One of the more interesting physical realizations of the quintessence is a cosmic scalar field minimally coupled with the usual matter action . Such a field induces the repulsive gravitational force dynamically, allowing to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, as discovered with observations of SuperNovae (SNe) of type Ia .

Together with an accelerated expansion, another experimental fact is the strong evidence of a spatially flat Universe : quintessence could be responsible for the missing energy in a flat Universe with a subcritical matter density.

Since quintessence drives the cosmological expansion at late times, it also influences the growth of structures arisen from gravitational instability. Quintessence clusters gravitationally at very large scales ($`\stackrel{>}{}100`$ Mpc), leaving an imprint on the microwave backgroud anisotropy ; at small scales, fluctuations in the dark energy are damped and do not enter in the evolution equation for the perturbations in the pressureless matter . At the scale we are considering in the following, quintessence behaves as a smooth component: it does not partecipate directly in cluster formation, but it only alters the background cosmic evolution.

In this work, we study the evolution of density perturbations for a general exact solution for quintessence model, found by one of us together with P. Scudellaro (hereafter the RS model) . In Section 2, we present the basic equations of the quintessence models examined in the paper. In Section 3, the linear perturbations equation is solved for the RS potential and the properties of the peculiar velocity field are discussed; in Section 4, the 2dFGRS data are considered. Section 5 is devoted to some final considerations.

## II Model description

We investigate spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic cosmologies filled with two non-interacting components: pressureless matter (dust) and a scalar field $`\phi `$, minimally coupled with gravity. We consider the RS potential,

$$V(\phi )\mathrm{exp}\left\{\sigma \phi \right\},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma ^212\pi \mathrm{G}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. We refer to Rubano & Scudellaro  and Pavlov et al.  for details and a discussion of the general exact solution of the field equations and we present here only what is needed for the present work.***In particular, in Rubano & Scudellaro , it is explained why this potential works, on the contrary of a quite diffuse opinion. It is

$$H=\frac{2(1+2\tau ^2)}{3t_s\tau (1+\tau ^2)},$$
(2)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\frac{1+\tau ^2}{(1+2\tau ^2)^2},$$
(3)
where $`\tau t/t_s`$ is a dimensionless time; $`t_s`$ is a time scale of the order of the age of the Universe; $`H`$ is the time dependent Hubble parameter; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is the pressureless matter density ($`\rho _M`$) in units of the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}=3H^2/8\pi \mathrm{G}`$.

The relation between the dimensionless time $`\tau `$ and the redshift $`z`$ is given by

$$(1+z)^3=\frac{\tau _0(1+\tau _0^2)}{\tau (1+\tau ^2)},$$
(4)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the present value of $`\tau `$. This very simple cosmological model has two free parameters, $`t_s`$ and $`\tau _0`$, or, equivalently, $`H_0`$, the today value of the Hubble parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, the present value of the pressureless matter density. As can be seen from Eqs. (3,4), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ depends only on $`\tau _0`$

We shall compare the results for the above Universe with a flat model with constant equation of state $`w_Q`$ (as well known, this includes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmologies for $`w_Q=1`$). In this case, the redshift dependent Hubble parameter is

$$H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})(1+z)^{3(1+w_Q)}}.$$
(5)
This class of models has three free parameters, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, $`H_0`$ and $`w_Q`$.

## III Perturbation growth and peculiar velocity

For perturbations inside the horizon, the equation describing the evolution of the CDM component density contrast, $`\delta _M\delta \rho _M/\rho _M`$ (for unclustered quintessence) is

$$\ddot{\delta }_M+2H(t)\dot{\delta }_M4\pi \mathrm{G}\rho _M\delta _M=0,$$
(6)
where the dot means derivative with respect to comoving time. In Eq. (6), the relative contribution of dark energy to the energy budget enters into the expansion rate $`H`$. We shall consider Eq. (6) in the matter dominated era, when the radiation contribution is really negligible.

With a RS potential, Eq. (6) reduces to

$$\frac{d^2\delta _M}{d\tau ^2}+\frac{4}{3}\frac{(1+2\tau ^2)}{\tau (1+\tau ^2)}\frac{d\delta _M}{d\tau }\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{\tau ^2(1+\tau ^2)}\delta _M=0.$$
(7)
Equation (7) has two linearly independent solutions, the growing mode $`\delta _+`$ and the decreasing mode $`\delta _{}`$, which can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric function of second type $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$. We get

$$\delta _{}\frac{1}{\tau }_2F_1[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{6};\tau ^2],$$
(8)
and

$$\delta _+\tau _2^{2/3}F_1[\frac{1}{3},\frac{7}{6},\frac{11}{6};\tau ^2].$$
(9)
By comparing Eqs. (8,9) with Eq. (4), we observe that the density contrast, as a function of the redshift, depends on only one parameter, $`\tau _0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. For $`\tau 1`$, Eqs. (8,9) reduce to the standard results

$$\delta _{}\frac{1}{\tau },$$
(10)
and

$$\delta _+\tau ^{2/3}.$$
(11)
For the evolution of the density contrast for quintessence with constant equation of state, we refer to Silveira and Waga .

The linear theory relates the peculiar velocity field $`𝐯`$ and the density contrast by

$$𝐯(𝐱)=H_0\frac{f}{4\pi }\delta _M(𝐲)\frac{𝐱𝐲}{\left|𝐱𝐲\right|^3}d^3𝐲,$$
(12)
where the growth index $`f`$ is defined as

$$f\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\delta _M}{d\mathrm{ln}a};$$
(13)
$`a`$ is the scale factor, $`a=a_0/(1+z)`$, and $`a_0`$ is its present value. For a RS potential, we get

$$f=\frac{2}{3}\frac{(1+2\tau ^2)}{\tau (1+\tau ^2)}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\delta _M}{d\tau }.$$
(14)
The growth index is usually approximated by $`f\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models, $`\alpha 0.55`$; if $`w_Q=2/3`$, $`\alpha 0.56`$; if $`w_Q=1/3`$, $`\alpha 0.57`$ . In Fig. (1), we show the logarithm of $`f`$ as a function of the logarithm of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ for the RS potential. The value $`\alpha 0.57`$ provides a good approximation to the model.

In order to compare the various models, we have to stress that the “right” value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ depends on the model. It is the result of a best fit prodecure on experimental data, i.e. from SN Ia observations. The well known value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}0.3`$ refers only to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. With the same procedure applied to SNe Ia data, the RS potential gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.15_{0.03}^{+0.15}`$ . Due to the large errors, the two results are still marginally compatible, so the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}0.3`$ holds for the RS model too. In the case of a constant $`w_Q1`$, the situation is more complicate, due to the degeneration between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`w_Q`$ . In this preliminary study, we decided to consider only two situations: i) a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, a $`w_Q1`$ and a RS model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.3`$; ii) the same three models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.15`$. As can be seen from Fig. (2), a large variation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ entails a remarkable difference in the growth index also at low redshifts. Even more remarkable is the difference at large redshifts in the case of the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. This suggest that with the deep surveys planned in the future, this approach could provide a constraint independent of SNe Ia .

In Fig. (3), we show the relative variations of RS models from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmologies. For models with the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, the relative variations are quite small and decrease with increasing pressureless matter density. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.3`$, the relative variation is $`\stackrel{<}{}5\%`$; for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.15`$, it is $`\stackrel{<}{}15\%`$.

## IV A first check with observations

Low redshifts have been investigated by the 2dFGRS collaboration . Peculiar velocity distorts the correlation function of galaxies observed in redshift space . In linear theory, the characteristic quadrupole distortion enables to measure the growth index from redshift galaxy catalogs. The 2dFGRS has obtained redshifts for more than $`141,000`$ galaxies with an effective depth of $`z=0.17`$. From a precise measurement of the clustering, a value of $`\beta f/b=0.43\pm 0.07`$ has been determined , where $`b`$ is the bias parameter, connecting the relative density fluctuations of the galaxies and of the total mass. The bias parameter has been measured by computing the bispectrum of the 2dFGRS; it is $`b=1.04\pm 0.11`$ . Combining the measurements of $`\beta `$ and $`b`$, the growth index at $`z=0.17`$ can be estimated: it is $`f(z=0.17)=0.45\pm 0.06`$ . By using the RS potential, from this value of $`f`$ we can obtain an estimate of the today pressureless matter density parameter. We get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=0.18\pm 0.05.$$
(15)
This value is significantly compatible with the estimate from the SN Ia data.

## V Conclusions

The present state of accuracy in observations does not allow to discriminate among the illustrated alternatives.

In our opinion, the above discussion adds another argument in favour of the use of exponential potentials in quintessence cosmology. The strong dependence of the growth index on the model, at high redshifts, suggests that more stringent constraints can be given in the future.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been in part financially sustained by the M.U.R.S.T. grant PRIN2000 “SIN.TE.SI.”.


format: text

text:
# Conduction and cooling flows

## 1 Introduction

The intracluster gas at the centres of many clusters of galaxies has a radiative cooling time of a billion years or less (Peres et al. 1997), suggesting that cooling flows may be operating there (Fabian 1994 and references therein). Chandra has now enabled spatially detailed temperature profiles to be made of such cluster cores and large temperature drops, by up to a factor of three, are commonly seen (Allen et al. 2001a,b,c; Schmidt et al. 2001; Ettori et al. 2002; Johnstone et al. 2002; David et al. 2001; McNamara et al. 2001; Molendi et al. 2001). Results from the high spectral resolution Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) on XMM-Newton also show temperature components down to about one third of the overall cluster virial temperature (Peterson et al. 2001; Tamura et al. 2001; Kaastra et al. 2001; Peterson 2002). It is of great importance, however, that RGS spectra do not show evidence for lines expected from gas cooling at lower temperatures (e.g. from Fe XVII).

This general result means that a simple cooling flow is not operating in cluster cores and has provoked the study of a wide range of possibilities, including absorption of the soft X-rays to mixing or heating of the cooler gas (Peterson et al. 2001; Fabian et al. 2001, 2002; Churazov et al. 2001; Böhringer et al. 2002; Brüggen & Kaiser 2001). If heating is the answer then it has to be distributed over radius and temperature and is not just concentrated at the centre (Johnstone et al. 2002).

Another process which has long been discussed for clusters is thermal conduction ( see e.g. Takahara & Takahara 1979; Tucker & Rosner 1983; Friaca 1986; Böhringer & Fabian 1989; Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986; Bregman & David 1988; Sparks 1992; Narayan & Medvedev 2001; Suginohara & Ostriker 1998). For a multiphase cooling flow to operate conduction has to be suppressed (Binney & Cowie 1981; Fabian 1994; see Chandran & Cowley 1998; Pistinner, Levinson & Eichler 1996; Malyshkin 2001 for possible mechanisms). Some observational evidence for highly suppressed conduction (Ettori & Fabian 2000) comes from the ‘cold fronts’ found in Chandra images of many clusters (Markevitch et al. 2000; Vikhlinin et al. 2001; Mazzotta et al. 2002). The serious problem relevant to cooling flows here is that conduction works best at high temperatures and cooling at low temperatures, so it is difficult to see how they can balance throughout the (observed) range of temperature (Bregman & David 1988; Fabian, Canizares & Böhringer 1994).

More explicitly, for a spherical, stationary, constant pressure, cooling flow the energy equation is

$$\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\frac{5kT}{2\mu }=n^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{}{r}\left(r^2\kappa \frac{T}{r}\right)$$
(1)
where $`n,T,\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\kappa `$ are the gas density, temperature, mean molecular weight, cooling function and thermal conductivity, respectively. If there is no flow ($`\dot{M}`$ = 0) and $`\kappa \kappa _s`$, the Spitzer conductivity ($`\kappa _sT^{5/2}`$), then since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }T^\alpha `$, $`Tr^{2/(11/2\alpha )}`$ (Fabian et al. 1994). So, where bremsstrahlung cooling dominates (above $`T2\mathrm{keV}`$) and $`\alpha 0.5`$, then $`Tr^{0.4}`$ (below $`T1\mathrm{keV}`$, where line cooling dominates and $`\alpha 0.5`$, then $`Tr^{0.3}`$). Such a gradient is similar to those found from the Chandra images (e.g. Johnstone et al. 2002). This in no way proves that conduction operates but encourages further investigation. Narayan & Medvedev (2001) and Gruzinov (2002) have recently noted, using published results on cluster temperatures, that conduction suppressed by a factor of a few below the Spitzer rate will have a significant effect on cluster cooling flows.

Here we carry out a detailed study of the heat influx needed to balance the radiative energy loss in a low temperature cluster (Abell 2199; Johnstone et al. 2002) and a high temperature one (Abell 1835; Schmidt et al. 2001). Rather than test the hypothesis that thermal conduction is sufficient by looking at the temperature gradient at just one radius, we compute the losses and fluxes as a function of temperature and radius, as first carried out by Stewart et al. (1984). Our results show that the heat influx required to balance radiation losses occurs at a rate which is consistent with or below the Spitzer (1962) relation in the outer parts of the core (where the core is taken as the region inside the cooling radius of the cluster), but at a rate above that given by Spitzer in the very centres of the clusters. We also find that if conduction is suppressed by more than a factor of three below the Spitzer rate then heat transfer from hotter gas at large radii is unable to stop a cooling flow from developing.

If conduction is the solution to the problem of cooling flows, then it begs the question of how the cooler gas components originate. If the presence of cooler gas is due to radiative cooling of the hotter gas, then it is not obvious how such cooling has been arrested. Possibly it is due to the introduction of cooler subclusters, the dense cores of which are not thoroughly shocked (Fabian & Daines 1991; Motl et al. 2001).

## 2 The temperature and emission measure profiles used

Abell 2199 and Abell 1835 are relaxed clusters at luminosity distances of 187 Mpc ($`z`$=0.0309) and 1599 Mpc ($`z`$=0.2523), respectively. We assume a cosmology with $`H_0`$=50 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`q_0`$=0.5 throughout.

Deprojected spectrally-determined temperature and density profiles obtained for Abell 2199 by Johnstone et al. (2002) and for Abell 1835 by Schmidt et al. (2001) were used to carry out the calculation. Briefly, photon samples extracted from annuli (eight for Abell 2199 and nine for Abell 1835) around the cluster centre were used to obtain a single (deprojected) temperature and density for each spherical shell by fitting the spectral energy distribution of consecutive annuli with multiple MEKAL (Kaastra & Mewe 1993) plasma models (one mekal model for the outermost annulus, two for the next one in, etc.) absorbed by the PHABS photoelectric absorption model (Balucinska-Church & McCammon 1992). The fitting was carried out using the PROJCT routine in XSPEC (Arnaud 1996). A more detailed description of the deprojection technique is given by Allen et al. (2001b). We note that this approach gives similar results to that of Ettori et al. (2002) when tested on the same cluster. The temperature and emission measure ($`EM`$=$`n^2`$ $`\times `$ $`shell`$ $`volume`$) profiles for each cluster are shown in Figure 1.

## 3 The derivation of $`\kappa `$

The conductivities required to balance radiative losses by conduction of heat from the outer, hotter parts of the clusters into the central regions, where the cooling time is less than the Hubble time, are calculated using the temperature and emission measure profiles shown in Figure 1. Setting $`\dot{M}`$ = 0 in Equation (1) and integrating gives

$$\underset{𝒱}{}n^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)d𝒱=\underset{𝒮}{}\kappa (\mathbf{}T).\mathrm{d}𝓢$$
(2)
where $`𝒱`$ is the volume and $`𝒮`$ the surface area of the X-ray emitting sphere.

As the data are binned into $`m`$ shells, the above equation is approximated to the following sum in order to calculate the conductivity coefficient, $`\kappa _j`$, at the outer boundary of the $`j`$th shell,
For $`j`$: {1 $``$ $`j`$ $``$ $`m`$}

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}EM_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\kappa _j\times \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{\mathrm{\Delta }r}\right)_{(j+1)j}\times 4\pi r_j^2$$
(3)
where $`EM_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is the rate of energy loss from the $`i`$th shell, $`r_j`$ is the radial distance to the outer boundary of the $`j`$th shell and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{(j+1)j}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{(j+1)j}`$ are the temperature difference and radial distance between the centres of consecutive shells, respectively.

Models were fitted to the temperature profiles in order to calculate the temperature gradient between shells. This ensures that the temperature always decreases towards the cluster centre and enables us to handle the uncertainties in our calculation. Taking the temperature difference between consecutive data points does not always provide meaningful results since several of the error bars overlap, allowing the possibility of negative temperature gradients and zero gradients, the latter consequence leading to infinite error bars on the computed conductivity values.

The cooling function was evaluated using MEKAL (with an abundance relative to solar of 0.4) and the conductivity values computed using Equation (3) plotted against the temperature given by the model at $`r_j`$. Only shells lying within the cooling radius of the cluster were used to compute $`\kappa `$; $`r_{cool}`$ $``$ 150kpc for Abell 2199 (Johnstone et al. 2002) and $`r_{cool}`$ $``$ 200kpc for Abell 1835 (Schmidt et al. 2001). The results were compared with the conductivity–temperature relation given by Spitzer (1962).

The thermal conductivity of a completely ionized gas in a space free from magnetic fields and for which the ions are all of one kind (hydrogen) is given by Spitzer (1962) as

$$\kappa _s=\frac{1.84\times 10^5T^{\frac{5}{2}}}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1$$
(4)
where ln $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm (see Cowie & McKee 1977). The accuracy of this equation does not exceed 5-10 per cent (see Spitzer & Härm 1953). For electron densities and temperatures appropriate to the clusters considered, ln $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $``$ 37, and

$$\kappa _s5.0\times 10^7T^{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{K}^1$$
(5)
In a plasma with magnetic fields the conductivity may be reduced by a factor of three or more below the Spitzer value (Narayan & Medvedev 2001; Malyshkin 2001).

Simple power law fits to the deprojected data are shown in Figure 1 ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$ $``$ 6.6 for Abell 2199 and $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ $``$ 2.3 for Abell 1835). Using these models we find conductivity values which scatter around the Spitzer curve (see Figure 2). However, the reduced chi-square value of the fit to the temperature profile of Abell 2199 is unacceptably high. We therefore looked for a model which provided a better reduced chi-square for both cluster profiles.

The temperature profiles were modelled using a function of the form

$$T_r=T_0+T_1\left[\frac{\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^\eta }{1+\left(\frac{r}{rc}\right)^\eta }\right]$$
(6)
where $`T_r`$ is the temperature at a radial distance $`r`$ from the cluster centre. Allen et al. (2001b) use this model as a reasonable universal fit to projected temperature profiles of six cooling flow clusters, including Abell 1835. We adopt it here for the deprojected temperature profiles as a smooth fitting function. $`T_0`$, $`T_1`$, $`r_c`$ and $`\eta `$ are free parameters determined using chi-square fitting.

The best fit models to the temperature data are shown in Figure 1. For Abell 2199, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=3.1 ($`kT_0`$=1.6 keV, $`kT_1`$=2.7 keV, $`r_c`$=30.1 kpc, $`\eta `$=1.8) and for Abell 1835, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.1 ($`kT_0`$=3.6 keV, $`kT_1`$=5.5 keV, $`r_c`$=59.3 kpc, $`\eta `$=4.1). The probabilities of exceeding the chi-square values are 0.02 and 0.35 for Abell 2199 and Abell 1835, respectively. Although the fit to Abell 2199 is only marginally acceptable, this function provides much improved reduced chi-square values over the power law fits.

The physical motivation for using these models must also be considered. Both clusters contain radio sources and as such are not expected to have temperature distributions which are smoothly increasing functions of radius. It is likely that the profiles are time-dependent, undergoing fluctuations from a smooth curve during radio outbursts lasting $``$ 107 years. Since conduction must operate on timescales $``$ 109 years in order to successfully offset cooling, this calculation requires the time-averaged cluster profiles. We reason that as the functional form used here is a fair representation of several cooling flow clusters, it is a plausible time-averaged model. It is certainly more physically realistic than the power law models since it has a vanishing gradient both at large and small radii. We proceed using this function and take caution when analysing the results for Abell 2199.

Conductivity values and corresponding 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties were found using Monte Carlo simulations. Ten thousand random temperature profiles consistent with the data were generated and fitted using a chi-square minimization routine. The median conductivity and temperature value at each radius are plotted in Figure 2, with the central 68 per cent of each distribution providing the error bars. The emission measure errors are negligible in comparison.

In both clusters we find conductivity values which are less than a factor of three below the Spitzer curve in the outer regions and which lie above the curve in the innermost regions. The latter result shows that conduction at the full Spitzer rate is insufficient to balance cooling in the centres of Abell 2199 and Abell 1835. Whether the higher conductivity required for the hottest, outermost points is important depends on the age of the cluster. We used the temperature difference given by the model between shell centres, rather than the derivative at the outer boundary of each shell, so as not to rely on the model too rigorously. It is reassuring that simple power law fits to the data confirm the requirement for conduction at a rate greater than the Spitzer rate in the lowest temperature regions.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown for Abell 2199 and Abell 1835 that heat conduction at a rate close to the Spitzer rate is sufficient to balance cooling in the outer regions of the core. However, if conductivity is suppressed below the Spitzer rate by more than a factor of three, as is possible in a plasma with a tangled magnetic field, heating by conduction merely reduces, but cannot prevent cooling. This result is clearly dependent on the value of $`h`$ = $`H_0/100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, since $`\kappa `$$``$$`h^1`$. Thus the lowest value we find for $`\kappa `$ at about one third the Spitzer rate drops to one fifth that rate if $`h=0.75`$. (In principle, if we can accurately predict the value of $`\kappa `$ and can assume that conduction balances radiative cooling then we have a new method for determining $`H_0`$).

Towards the innermost regions conduction at the full Spitzer rate is unable to offset cooling, implying that, in the absence of an additional heat source, a small cooling flow will operate in the central (10-20 kpc), cooler parts of the cluster cores. We consider this likely, given the possibility that the solutions to the energy equation (1) are unstable (Fabian et al. 1994). Observationally, many of the Chandra and RGS limits allow for a small but significant flow (e.g. McNamara et al. 2000; David et al. 2001; Allen et al. 2001a,b; Peterson et al. 2001; Peterson 2002), which can supply the observed star formation and optical nebulosities (Johnstone, Fabian & Nulsen 1987; Heckman et al. 1989; Allen 1995; Cardiel et al. 1998; Crawford et al. 1999) and cold gas (Edge 2001 and references therein). We note that the radius of the inner region where the required conductivity exceeds the Spitzer value coincides with the apparent break in the $`\dot{M}`$ profiles found from a cooling flow analysis of the data (Schmidt et al. 2001; Johnstone et al. 2002).

Given the opposing temperature dependences of conduction and cooling, further work is required to show whether initially isothermal regions can develop the large, central temperature gradients observed. The cooler gas may be a remnant of earlier subclusters, the dense cool gas cores of which have only partially merged with the main cluster. The situation is time-dependent. The cold fronts first reported by Markevitch et al. (2000) and the transonic motion of some of the gas (Vikhlinin et al. 2001) are evidence for this scenario. Presumably conduction is highly suppressed across a moving front, due to organised magnetic fields, but may rapidly set in at the rear when the gas is decelerated. A radial field will, of course, be optimal for conduction. Such a field could be the consequence of a cooling inflow (Bregman & David 1988).

Much further work on a wider range of clusters is required to test the conduction hypothesis. It will be most interesting if a simple physical process such as conduction is responsible for limiting the total cooled gaseous mass of the largest galaxies. It will also be interesting to investigate whether conduction is operating in the interstellar medium of elliptical galaxies (Saito & Shigeyama 1999), thereby explaining why they have very short radiative cooling times at their centres, yet little evidence for cooling flows.

## 5 Acknowledgements

LMV acknowledges support from PPARC. ACF & SWA thank the Royal Society for support.


text:
# Transmit Classical and Quantum Information Secretly

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭}`$ This note presents a practical quantum cryptography protocol for transmitting classical and quantum information secretly and directly.

First, let’s consider the transmission of classical message. The protocol is:

1. Alice prepares n bits for transmission:

$$a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_n,$$
(1)
and chooses

$$\{\phi _{Ai}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(2)
randomly from a K-element set

$$\{\alpha _k=\frac{k\pi }{K},k=0,1,\mathrm{},K1\}$$
(3)
by means of local random number sources.

2. Alice prepares n single-photons, the i-th be in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A0}=(a_i1)|H+a_i|V,$$
(4)
where the $``$ is the plus in $`F_2`$; then changes the polarization directions of photons separately and get

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A1}=(a_i1)|\phi _{Ai}+a_i|\phi _{Ai}+\frac{\pi }{2};$$
(5)
then sends these photons to Bob one by one.

3. Bob chooses

$$\{\phi _{Bi}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(6)
randomly independently from the K-element set (3) by means of local random number source, and changes the polarization directions of photons separately as below:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B1}=(a_i1)|\phi _{Ai}+\phi _{Bi}+a_i|\phi _{Ai}+\phi _{Bi}+\frac{\pi }{2};$$
(7)
then Bob sends back these photons to Alice.

4. Alice changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A2}=(a_i1)|\phi _{Bi}+a_i|\phi _{Bi}+\frac{\pi }{2};$$
(8)
then sends them to Bob again.

5. Bob changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B2}=(a_i1)|H+a_i|V;$$
(9)
then measures the photons in bases $`\{|H,|V\}`$ one by one and gets the message (1).

Now let’s consider the secret transmission of quantum information. It is obviously that the changes needed are trivial. The protocol becomes:

1. Alice chooses n qubits for transmission:

$$|\phi _1,|\phi _2,\mathrm{},|\phi _n,$$
(10)
and chooses

$$\{\phi _{Ai}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(11)
randomly from a K-element set

$$\{\alpha _k=\frac{k\pi }{K},k=0,1,\mathrm{},K1\}$$
(12)
by means of local random number sources.

2. Alice prepares n single-photons, the i-th be in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A1}=|\phi _i+\phi _{Ai};$$
(13)
sends these photons to Bob one by one.

3. Bob chooses

$$\{\phi _{Bi}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(14)
randomly from the K-element set (3) by means of local random number source, and changes the polarization directions of photons separately as below:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B1}=|\phi _i+\phi _{Ai}+\phi _{Bi};$$
(15)
then sends back these photons to Alice.

4. Alice changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A2}=|\phi _i+\phi _{Bi};$$
(16)
then sends them to Bob again.

5. Bob changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B2}=|\phi _i;$$
(17)
then he gets the message (10).

Because $`\phi _{Ai},\phi _{Bi}`$are chosen from set (3) randomly and independently, Eve cannot get any information from simple intercept/resend attack. Unfortunately, These two protocols cannot defend man in the middle(of quantum channel only) attack, even though there is an authenticated classical channel. To overcome this problem, Alice and Bob need to share $`\{\phi _{Ci},i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$secretly before communication. Then, For example, the second protocol becomes:

1. Alice chooses n qubits for transmission:

$$|\phi _1,|\phi _2,\mathrm{},|\phi _n,$$
(18)
and chooses

$$\{\phi _{Ai}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(19)
randomly from a K-element set

$$\{\alpha _k=\frac{k\pi }{K},k=0,1,\mathrm{},K1\}$$
(20)
by means of local random number sources.

2. Alice prepares n single-photons, the i-th be in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A1}=|\phi _{Ci}+\phi _i+\phi _{Ai};$$
(21)
then sends these photons to Bob one by one.

3. Bob chooses

$$\{\phi _{Bi}|i=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}$$
(22)
randomly from the K-element set (3) by means of local random number source, and changes the polarization directions of photons separately:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B1}=|\phi _{Ci}+\phi _i+\phi _{Ai}+\phi _{Bi};$$
(23)
then sends them back to Alice.

4. Alice changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{A2}=|\phi _{Ci}+\phi _i+\phi _{Bi};$$
(24)
then sends them to Bob again.

5. Bob changes the polarization direction of the photons again and gets:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_i_{B2}=|\phi _i;$$
(25)
then he gets the message (18).

The authentication information $`\{\phi _{Ci},i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ can be used repeatedly under the protection of continuously changed local random numbers $`\{\phi _{Ai},\phi _{Bi},i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ .

C.H.Bennett, et al.,J.Cryptography(1992)5:3-28


text:
# A Very Forward Proton Spectrometer for H1Talk presented at LISHEP 2002, Session C: Workshop on Diffractive Physics, February 4-8, 2002, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

## Introduction

The observation during the first running period of HERA (1992-2000) of events with a large rapidity gap in the hadronic final state bib:hera\_lrgobs , which are attributed to diffractive dissociation of (virtual) photons, led to a renewed interest in the study of diffraction and its underlying dynamics. In particular, the expectation is that the reconciliation of approaches based on Regge phenomenology on the one hand and on quantum chromodynamics (QCD) on the other hand will lead to a better understanding of QCD in the limit of small scales and/or high parton densities.

Conclusions drawn from measurements of the inclusive cross section bib:hera\_inclxsec  have been confirmed by studies of the properties of the hadronic final state of diffractive virtual photon dissociation, covering inclusive properties like event shapes and particle spectra bib:hera\_inclhfs , semi-inclusive jet and open charm production bib:hera\_semihfs  and exclusive vector meson production bib:hera\_exclvm . The main results of these analyses are the establishment of a transition from soft to hard diffraction, an interaction dynamics dominated by the presence of gluons and parton densities adhering to DGLAP equations.

Although the experimental results on diffraction from the HERA-I running period are abundant, they suffer from major limitations. The bulk of diffractive events are selected using a rapidity gap criterion yielding large systematic errors due to the less well known efficiencies of forward detectors and due to theoretical uncertainties on the double dissociation background. Results are also still statistically limited, especially when requiring the presence of jets, charmed particles or heavy vector mesons. Finally, for the majority of the detected events, the scattered proton momentum is not measured, thereby limiting the study of the distributions of momentum transfer $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ and azimuthal scattering angle $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$.

During the 2000/2001 shutdown, both the HERA accelerator bib:hera\_upgrade  and the H1 detector have been upgraded, yielding an increase in luminosity by a factor of 5 and improving triggering capabilities for jets and heavy quarks. As explained below, the high luminosity regime also necessitates an efficient trigger for diffractive interactions. A Very Forward Proton Spectrometer (VFPS) has therefore been proposed bib:vfps\_proposal  which will provide a clean selection of diffractive events by tagging the scattered proton. In addition, it will become possible to measure the proton momentum and thus extract the full set of kinematic variables $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$.

### The H1 Forward Proton Spectrometer

The H1 Collaboration already operated Roman Pot detectors during the HERA-I running period. These are, however, located much closer to the central H1 detector and have limited acceptance for diffractively scattered protons (i.e. with $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.01}$}`$).

Two horizontal stations are positioned at 60 and 80 m from the interaction point and exploit large scattering angles to separate diffractive protons from the nominal beam. They have an acceptance, integrated over $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$, of only a few percent over a wide range of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ (see also Tab. 3). Two vertical stations are located at 81 and 90 m from the interaction point. Here, a vertical dipole magnet is used to separate protons with large energy losses from the nominal beam. The acceptance is high at large $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.05}$}`$) where, in addition to pure pomeron exchange, also reggeon exchange is expected to contribute.

This Forward Proton Spectrometer (FPS) bib:fps\_detector  has nevertheless yielded interesting physics results bib:h1\_fps , albeit based on a limited number of events (see Tab. 1). Even when scaling the number of events to the total expected luminosity of the HERA-II running period for which the FPS will be operational ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{350}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{pb}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}`$), a high statistics analysis of diffractive deep-inelastic scattering is not possible with the present detector set-up. The FPS will continue to be operated during the HERA-II running period.

### Triggering Diffractive DIS at HERA-II

The bulk of diffractive DIS data accumulated during the first running period of the HERA accelerator was obtained using an inclusive trigger strategy. Like for inclusive DIS, the trigger for diffractive DIS events was based on the presence of a substantial energy deposit in the backward calorimeter (SPACAL). The selection of diffractive events was applied off-line using a rapidity gap criterion.

With the commissioning of HERA-II the luminosity is expected to increase by a factor 5 while the proton beam current will increase by a factor 2. Inclusive triggers will be disabled or heavily pre-scaled to keep the total trigger rate acceptable. In order to save diffractive events, an additional trigger requirement beyond the inclusive SPACAL trigger mentioned above is therefore necessary. Moving the off-line rapidity gap selection to the trigger level is unfeasible because of large uncertainties in the efficiency calculation of such a trigger and unstable background conditions. Moreover, while the rate reduction would be considerable for diffractive DIS events, estimates show that the rate reduction from a rapidity-gap trigger for beam-gas and photoproduction background events is marginal bib:newman\_thesis .

The best solution is a trigger based on a scattered proton tag. It has been estimated that, despite the large distance (220 m) of the VFPS from the H1 detector, it is still possible to use VFPS information at the first trigger level. Such a VFPS trigger, used in combination with the inclusive SPACAL trigger, would decrease the rate of background and physics triggered events by approximately a factor 175, yielding an acceptable trigger rate of 1 Hz.

Note that the upgraded central H1 detector already allows to directly trigger on open charm, jets or heavy vector mesons. But also in this case the VFPS can help to keep trigger conditions as loose as possible and to lower the rate, especially for dijet production at low $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}`$.

## The Very Forward Proton Spectrometer

The search for an optimal location for the VFPS was guided by the need for a large acceptance for protons with an energy loss of around 1%. Figure 1 shows the trajectories of protons with $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.01}$}`$ and different values of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ together with the beam envelope multiplied by 12 and the location of magnet elements. The “diffractive beam” leaves the nominal beam envelope horizontally at a drift segment around 220 m. The Roman Pots will therefore approach the beam horizontally (down to a distance of 5 mm) from inside the HERA ring, exploiting the spectrometer effect of the HERA bend.

The location at 220 m downstream of the H1 interaction point is in the cold (super-conducting) section of the HERA ring. A horizontal bypass therefore needs to be built for the helium and superconductor lines, so that the Roman Pot detectors can operate at room temperature and freely approach the proton beam.

### Detectors

The VFPS detectors are similar to the ones used in the FPS. Two VFPS Roman Pot stations, approximately 4 m apart, will be equipped with two scintillating fibre detectors each, sandwiched between trigger planes. One such fibre detector measures two space coordinates perpendicular to the beam. The two-fold structure within one Roman Pot stations allows to suppress background hits by selecting forward going tracks.

The scintillating fibres are staggered as shown in Fig. 2. A diffractive proton (parallel to the beam axis) hits five consecutive fibres which are all connected to a position-sensitive photo-multiplier through the same light guide, yielding on average 8.2 photo-electrons and a 99.4 % detection efficiency. The staggered fibre properties are listed in Tab. 2. The spatial resolution in real beam conditions has been estimated experimentally by a test run using prototype detectors installed in the FPS bib:fps\_testrun .

### Simulation Studies

In order to determine the optimal detector location as well as the acceptances and resolutions, proton trajectories have been simulated using a linear beam transport method for the description of the HERA beam optics. In such an approach, the position ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$), slope ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$) and energy deviation ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{b}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}}`$) of a proton at an arbitrary position along the beam line is related to the position ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$), slope ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$) and energy deviation ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$) at the interaction point and the kinematic variables ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$) of the diffractive interaction through a set of matrix equations:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{c}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{11}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{21}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{22}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left[}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{c}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\xi }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{c}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right]}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}$$
(1)
Here $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{11}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{21}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{22}$}}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ are matrix elements depending on the beam optics which describe, to first order, the effect of varying the initial proton position, slope or energy deviation. A similar equation holds for the vertical coordinate $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}`$; the motion of the proton in the horizontal and vertical planes are therefore independent.

In principal, this approach is valid for a beam-line consisting of only dipole and quadrupole magnets since sextupole and higher order magnets will introduce non-linearities and correlations between the horizontal and vertical planes.

In addition to the above calculations, non-linear corrections have been applied and found to be important. These include non-linear effects in the dependence of the energy deviation, the effect of sextupole magnets and the proper description of magnet offsets and tilts w.r.t. to the nominal proton trajectory.

#### Acceptance

A detailed simulation of the beam pipe shape and apertures has been included in the calculation of the VFPS acceptances. The acceptances are calculated for an approach of the detectors to the nominal beam of 12 times the beam width and with an additional safety margin of 3 mm for the so-called coasting beam. This coasting beam consists of particles that have leaked out of the RF buckets and that are therefore no longer accelerated. They travel around the proton ring until they hit one of the collimators. The coasting beam can attain the 1 mA level and can potentially cause a substantial background in the VFPS, although these particles are mostly out of time. Calculations by the HERA machine group have shown that a safety margin of 3 mm would be enough to stay clear of the coasting beam. It is however still possible that this margin can be lowered in real beam conditions.

The acceptance range of the VFPS compared to the acceptance of the horizontal and vertical FPS are listed in Tab. 3 and shown in Fig. 3.

#### Resolution

For the reconstruction of kinematic variables describing the diffractive proton ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$) one has to take into account the mapping of these variables onto the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$-$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}`$-$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ planes as displayed in Fig. 4.

This is achieved by minimizing a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ defined as:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{r}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{o}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}$$
(2)
where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}`$ are the coordinates measured by the VFPS detectors, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ are the coordinates calculated as a function of the kinematic variables using the beam optics and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}`$ is a covariance matrix containing the beam covariance and the fibre detector resolution.

Typical resolutions of the reconstructed kinematic variables $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ are shown in Fig. 5. In general the resolutions are dominated by the beam covariance, although there is still some sensitivity to the fibre detector resolution. The $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ resolution is competitive with the reconstruction of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ by the central H1 detector. Furthermore, it will be possible to measure approximately 4 bins in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ and 15 bins in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$.

#### Alignment

The alignment concerns the relative positioning of the VFPS detectors w.r.t. the nominal proton beam. The distance between the detectors and the beam varies not only due to the Roman Pot movement, which is accurately controlled ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{m}}$}`$), but also because the beam position itself may vary between luminosity runs or even within one run. In order to exclude any systematic bias due to the detector position, a time-dependent calibration procedure is necessary. One possible method is to exploit the forward kinematic peak in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}`$ together with the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ measurement from the central H1 detector. In such a procedure another $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ minimization is performed with:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\chi }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{a}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{l}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{.}$}$$
(3)
The sensitivity of the forward kinematic peak in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}`$ to a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{100}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{m}}$}`$ offset is shown in Fig. 6 (left). Figure 6 (right) shows the calibrated offsets as a function of the number of events used in the calibration procedure. From this one can conclude that an alignment precision of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{100}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{m}}$}`$ is feasible.

As an additional cross-check, alternative fits can be performed relying on e.g. the kinematic variables calculated from fully reconstructed elastic $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\rho }$}`$ meson production events.

### Expected Results

A total integrated luminosity of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{350}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{pb}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}`$, corresponding to three years of HERA-II running with a 50 % VFPS operation efficiency, is assumed throughout the following discussion on expected physics results

#### Inclusive Diffraction

The VFPS will provide an excellent test of hard scattering factorization (i.e. the factorization of the cross section into DGLAP-governed parton density functions and partonic cross sections) bib:collins\_diff\_qcdfact . Even taking into account the rather narrow acceptance window in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$, it will be possible to make an accurate measurement of the structure function $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ at fixed $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ in bins of, or integrated over, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$. By measuring $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ as a function of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ it will also be possible to test Regge factorization (i.e. the factorization of the cross section into a factor depending only on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{t}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{|}$}`$ and another factor depending only on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}`$bib:reggefact .

The estimated event yields are listed in Tab. 4 and imply very small statistical errors. Because the scattered proton is directly detected, no systematic errors due to double dissociation background have to be taken into account. Moreover, the uncorrelated systematic errors are expected to approach the level obtained in the measurement of the inclusive structure function $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ (a few %). This is because systematic errors associated to the VFPS are common to all data points and thus will result in a global normalization uncertainty. If the effect of the coasting beam can be minimized, two separate bins in $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ can be studied. Note, however, that in the case of semi-inclusive studies of jets or charm, the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}`$ or mass requirement excludes the lower $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ bin, regardless of the coasting beam situation. A preview of expected results on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}`$ is shown in Fig. 7.

#### Hadronic Final States

The study of hadronic final states provides an independent cross-check of the conclusions reached by the analysis of the structure function using the same experimental data (and systematic uncertainties).

The analysis of open charm production promises to resolve a conflict between results based on 1996/97 data and a prediction by the RAPGAP Monte Carlo bib:rapgap  based on a partonic pomeron picture using the parton density function obtained from the measurement of the inclusive structure function. The 1996/97 measurement was however limited to $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{46}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}`$ events while the analysis of the full HERA-I data sample will only increase this amount by a factor 3 at most. The HERA-II expectation using the VFPS is 380 events. About half of all diffractive $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}`$ events which can be detected by H1 will have proton tag from the VFPS.

The analysis of diffractive jet electroproduction is still statistically limited in some areas of phase space for 2-jet production and certainly for 3-jet production (only 2500 2-jet and 130 3-jet events were analysed by H1). The HERA-II expectation using the VFPS is 22900 dijet events.

Figure 8 shows the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}`$ distribution of charm and dijet electroproduction events observable in H1.

Another unresolved issue stems from a comparison of HERA and Tevatron results regarding diffractive dijet (photo-) production. Its resolution could provide an insight in the breaking of QCD factorization in hadron-hadron interactions. Using the H1 Electron Taggers located at 6 and 40 m meters from the interaction point on the outgoing electron side, events with different hadronic centre-of-mass energies ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}`$) are selected, allowing to vary the contributions of direct and resolved photons entering the diffractive interaction. About 20000 (1400) events are expected to be collected at $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{140}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{275}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}$}`$, respectively.

#### Azimuthal Asymmetry

With a measurement of the azimuthal scattering angle it becomes possible to gain information on the diffractive cross section for longitudinally polarized photons. The interference between the longitudinal and transverse contributions and between the two different transverse contributions give rise to azimuthal asymmetries bib:phiasym :

$$\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{cos}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{cos}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}$$
(4)
where the polarization parameter $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}`$ is a function of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}`$ only and is very close to unity throughout most of the measurable kinematic range. $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ is the angle between the proton and electron scattering planes.

The ZEUS Collaboration announced a preliminary result on the asymmetry measured with their Leading Proton Spectrometer: $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.049}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pm }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.058}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{stat}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.009}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.056}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{syst}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$, with $`\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\sigma }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{d}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{cos}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ bib:zeus\_lps .

Since the precision on the electron $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ obtained from SPACAL is extremely good, the resolution on $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ is entirely determined by the VFPS. The expectation is that a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}`$ distribution with 15 bins can be obtained with 10,000 events in each bin. This would also allow to measure the asymmetry as a function of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}`$ or $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$. Strong variations as a function of these variables are expected, as the higher twist longitudinal photon induced cross section is predicted to dominate at large $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}`$ and small $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$.

#### Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

The study of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) process, i.e. the hard diffractive scattering of a virtual photon off the proton ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{p}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}`$) provides access to the skewed parton densities, which are generalizations of the familiar parton distributions of deep-inelastic scattering, but include parton momentum correlations.

An analysis of DVCS based on data collected by H1 in 1997 yielded only 25 events with $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{8}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ (out of a total of 100 events with $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$)<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1With the HERA-II upgrade the inner SPACAL has been removed so that the acceptance is now limited to $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$Q$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$2$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$>$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$8$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\mathrm{GeV}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$2$}`$.. The expectation for the HERA-II running period is to collect 3600 DVCS events in the same $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ range. The VFPS extends the accessible kinematic range toward low $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{W}$}`$ and low $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Q}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$, doubling the number of events that can be triggered by the central H1 detector alone.

## Conclusion

It has been shown that the VFPS is mandatory to effectively trigger on diffractive events during the HERA-II running period. Without this device it would not be possible anymore to study inclusive diffractive scattering, but also in the semi-inclusive and exclusive channels, the VFPS allows to enlarge the accessible kinematic range and to keep trigger condition as unbiased as possible.

The VFPS will have a very good acceptance in a limited window around $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{x}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{P}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.01}$}`$, while the resolution on the reconstructed proton momentum is sufficient to allow exciting physics analyses.

The VFPS will be inserted in the HERA machine in early 2003 and will collect data until 2006.


text:
# References

THE SOURCES OF SUPERGRAVITY
Vyacheslav A. Soroka***E-mail: vsoroka@kipt.kharkov.ua

Institute of Theoretical Physics
National Science Center
”Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology”
310108 Kharkov, Ukraine

## Abstract

Recollections on how the basic concepts and ingredients of supergravity were formulated by Dmitrij V. Volkov and the present author in 1973-74.

When I was an undergraduate student at the Kharkov State University in 1965 my advisor Dmitrij Vasilyevich Volkov gave me a task to learn and to study the problem of quantization of the spin 3/2 field interacting with other fields. There was a problem with constructing selfconsistent theories for the interacting fields with high spins and to find the methods for quantization of such theories. In particular, Johnson and Sudarshan (1961) encountered the inconsistency under quantization of the spin 3/2 field minimally interacting with the external electromagnetic field. At that time I was a starting physicist and did not know the theories with high spins. So, I had to learn two formalisms for description of the spin 3/2 field: Bargman-Wigner and Rarita-Schwinger. By the way, from the paper of Rarita and Schwinger (1941) I learned and memorized for the future a remarkable fact that a free massless spin 3/2 field in their formalism possesses a gauge invariance with a spinor parameter. I also learned Schwinger’s quantum dynamical principle within the framework of which Johnson and Sudarshan had tried to quantize the spin 3/2 field.

At that time we had no success in quantization of the spin 3/2 fields interacting with other fields. As became clear later on, the problem in that formulation had no solutions at all. But it was elucidated only after the discovery of supergravity theory in which the problem was naturally solved. So, a solution of the problem came to a deadlock and I was forced to postpone it and switched my activity to the derivation of sum rules following from the algebra of fields which had been introduced by Kroll, Lee, Weinberg and Zumino (1967). Since the algebra of fields is based on the gauge theory, I learned the beautiful Yang-Mills theory, and the papers by Utiyama (1956) and Kibble (1961) devoted to the gauge theories with different gauge groups, including, in particular, the gauge space-time symmetries connected with gravity.

Meanwhile Volkov (1969) simultaneously with Callan, Coleman, Wess and Zumino (1969) developed a general method for constructing Lagrangians for the Goldstone particles in the case of an arbitrary spontaneously broken internal symmetry group. Later he extended this method to the case of the spontaneously broken symmetries including the Poincaré group as a subgroup (1971, 1973).

Then Gol’fand and Likhtman (1971) introduced a super-Poincaré group in connection with a parity violation problem in quantum field theory. Shortly, and independently of them, Volkov formulated the existence problem for the fermionic Goldstone particles with spin 1/2. A successful solution of this problem led Volkov together with Akulov to the discovery of the extended super-Poincaré group (1972).

After that Volkov stated the idea of gauging the super-Poincaré group, and suggest I try to realize it. I accepted the suggestion with great enthusiasm, and we started. Then my earlier experience concerning the formalisms for high spin fields and gauge theories was very suitable and useful. We decided to consider the spontaneously broken extended super-Poincaré gauge group in order to study the Higgs effect for the Goldstone particles with spin 1/2 which had been recently introduced. Under this investigation very interesting and important features were revealed  .

* First of all, the real gauge fields with spin 3/2 were introduced as graviton superpartners. This fact was very unusual for those times, because till then the gauge fields possessed only integer spins. The graviton superpartners with spin 3/2 were later called the gravitino fields.
* Secondly, the extended super-Poincaré gauge group gives a principle possibility for the nontrivial unification of gravity with the interactions based on the internal symmetries.
* Thirdly, the Higgs effect for the Goldstone particles with spin 1/2, later called the super-Higgs effect, essentially differs from the Higgs effect for the Goldstone particles with spin 0. It results in not only the gravitinos becoming massive, but also the space-time changes its own metric and topological properties: a nonzero cosmological constant appears.

We have written down our action as a sum of five invariant terms with arbitrary constants before them. These terms contain respectively: the Einstein–Cartan action for gravity, a kinetic term for the gravitino fields, a mass term of the gravitinos, a cosmological term and a term for the Yang–Mills fields with spin 1.

Thus, we see that the main notions and ingredients of supergravity were formulated in our papers .

Soon after and independently Wess and Zumino (1974) introduced a four-dimensional superconformal group generalizing the group of two-dimensional supersymmetric transformations found earlier in the dual models by Ramond, Neveu, Schwarz, Gervais and Sakita (1971). Then Wess and Zumino proposed a supersymmetric model (1974) which appeared to be renormalizable.

The main results of our works were used afterwards as starting points for the development of supergravity in the works by Ferrara, Freedman, van Nieuwenhuizen  and Deser, Zumino . In particular, accepted in Ref. 4 transformation rules of the vierbein, used for the graviton description, and gravitinos coincide with ours. Explicit use of nonzero torsion, found in supersymmetric theories by us  and Zumino , also essential simplified the derivation of supergravity in Ref. 4. Moreover, as Volkov explained , pure N = 1 supergravity  can be deduced from our theory  with a special choice of the constants of our invariant terms.

The notions of superspace, introduced by Akulov and Volkov (1972), and superfields, proposed by Salam and Strathdee (1974), were used by Arnowitt, Nath and Zumino in 1975 to initiate a superfield approach to supergravity. In order to overcome the drawbacks they found at their first step in this direction, we  undertook, simultaneously with Zumino , the development of the superspace approach to supergravity. By generalizing to superspace Cartan’s methods in differential geometry, we revealed a nonzero torsion of superspace in the supersymmetric theories and found that the true homogeneous holonomy group for the superspace in supergravity is the Lorentz group. These two points are part of the basis of any version of supergravity.

Let me also mention our construction in the superfield formulation of a version of N = 1 supergravity in the linear approximation with the so-called new minimal set of auxiliary fields , which we had found earlier than the old minimal set that was obtained by Ferrara, van Nieuwenhuizen, Stelle and West (1978).

So, I recalled the steps in supergravity which had been performed in our works in 1973-1977.

As the complete list of papers on the theme of my reminiscence is very huge and essentially exceeds this note, I refer only to our works and to those very closely related to them. A very extensive list of references concerning the development of supergravity can be found in Ref. 9. This list contains also our papers , however, the references to the latter are omitted in the text of this review.

To finish my note, I want to cite a very surprising (for me) appraisal of supersymmetry given by Yuri Abramovich Gol’fand during the Conference ”Supersymmetry-85” at the Kharkov State University in 1985. He said that supersymmetry did not justify his hopes to find a generalization of the Poincaré group such that every its representation includes particles of different masses. So, Gol’fand and Likhtman had missed their aim, but had instead found supersymmetry, every representation of which contains fields of different spins. Maybe, somebody will succeed in their original aim too, or maybe both aims at once. Time will show.

In conclusion I would like to thank the organizers of this Symposium for the opportunity to present my recollections concerning the creation of the main ideas of supergravity at its early stages, which are usually not illuminated.


text:
# Fine-structure diagnostics of neutral carbon toward HE~0515-4414 Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla or Paranal Observatories under programme ID 066.A-0212

## 1 Introduction

The standard Friedmann cosmology predicts that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) increases linearly with the redshift $`z`$ as

$$T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}(z)=T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}(0)(1+z).$$
(1)
The present-day CMBR temperature has been ascertained by the Cosmic Background Explorer FIRAS instrument to be $`T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}(0)=2.725`$ K (Mather et al., 1999). In recent years several attempts have been made to infer the CMBR temperature at higher redshifts from the relative population of C i (and C ii) fine-structure levels observed in damped Lyman $`\alpha `$ (DLA) systems (Ge et al., 1997, 2001; Roth & Bauer, 1999; Srianand et al., 2000). The principal problem in this inference is the presence of additional sources of excitation. In particular, collisional excitation and fluorescence induced by the local UV radiation field are competing processes. A recent study of Silva & Viegas (2002) shows the possibility to assess the physical conditions in QSO absorbers from the observation of fine-structure absorption lines.

This study provides a fine-structure diagnostics of C i toward the quasi-stellar object HE 0515-4414 ($`z=1.73`$, $`B=15.0`$) discovered by the Hamburg/ESO Survey (Reimers et al., 1998). The observed fine-structure absorption lines (and a large number of additional metal lines) are associated with a DLA system at $`z=1.15`$ (de la Varga et al., 2000). We infer the physical conditions in the DLA system and demonstrate that the CMBR is only a minor source of the observed fine-structure excitation.

## 2 Observations

HE 0515-4414 was observed during ten nights between October 7, 2000 and January 3, 2001, using the UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) installed at the second VLT Unit Telescope (Kueyen). Thirteen exposures were made in the dichroic mode using standard settings for the central wavelenghts of 3460/4370 Å in the blue, and 5800/8600 Å in the red. The CCDs were read out in fast mode without binning. Individual exposure times were 3600 and 4500 seconds, under photometric to clear sky and seeing conditions ranging from 0.47 to 0.70 arcseconds. The slit width was 0.8 arcseconds resulting in a spectral resolution of about 55 000 in the blue and slightly less in the red.

The raw frames were reduced at Quality Control Garching using the UVES pipeline Data Reduction Software (Ballester et al., 2000). Finally, the individual vacuum-barycentric corrected spectra were co-added resulting in an effective signal-to-noise ratio typically better than 100 (up to 130 for the parts of the spectrum considered in this study).

## 3 Absorption line analysis

The observed spectral flux $`F`$ is the convolution of the instrumental profile $`P`$ with the product of the background continuum $`C`$ and the absorption term:

$$F(\lambda )=P(\lambda ^{})C(\lambda \lambda ^{})\mathrm{exp}[\tau (\lambda \lambda ^{})]d\lambda ^{}.$$
(2)
The instrumental profile is approximated by a normalized Gaussian defined by the spectral resolution of the instrument. The background continuum is locally approximated by a linear combination of Legendre polynomials of up to second order. Assuming pure Doppler broadening, the optical depth is modeled by a superposition of Gaussian functions:

$$\tau (\lambda )=\underset{i}{}g_i(\lambda ),$$
(3)
where

$$g_i(\lambda )=\frac{e^2}{4\epsilon _0mc}\frac{N_if_i\lambda _i}{\sqrt{\pi }b_i}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(c\frac{\lambda /(1+z_i)\lambda _i}{\lambda _ib_i}\right)^2\right]$$
(4)
with $`\lambda _i`$, $`f_i`$, $`z_i`$, $`b_i`$ and $`N_i`$ denoting the rest wavelength, the oscillator strength, the redshift, the line broadening velocity and the column density of a single line, respectively. Each C i absorption component is modeled by a superposition of Doppler profiles with identical redshifts and widths. Additionally, the particular lines originating on the same fine-structure level are restricted to have identical column densities. This simultaneous fine-structure treatment ensures the physical consistency of our analysis. The weak absorption features between the 3P23P2 and 3P13P1 lines seen in Fig. 1 are modeled by a superposition of three artificial Doppler profiles.

Our model is defined by 24 strongly correlated parameters: six parameters to model the background continuum, 17 parameters to model the optical depth, and the spectral resolution of the instrument. In order to find the optimal set of parameter values, we minimize the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic following an adaptive evolution strategy recently proposed by Hansen & Ostermeier (2001).

The atomic line data used in this analysis are collected in Table 1.

## 4 Results and discussion

### 4.1 Model parameters

The optimized values and formal confidence limits of the model parameters for both C i absorption components are collected in Table 2. The total column density of C i is $`\mathrm{log}N=13.79\pm 0.01`$ for the major and $`\mathrm{log}N=13.36\pm 0.01`$ for the minor component. These values are consistent with the total column density $`\mathrm{log}N=13.90\pm 0.04`$ reported by de la Varga et al. (2000) for the non-separated C i absorption components.

Figure 1 reveals a saturated narrow structure in the 3P0 line profiles of the major absorption component. This problem can be tackled indirectly by correcting the apparent optical depth (Savage & Sembach, 1991; Jenkins, 1996), but the correction procedure is established for particular synthetic data only and may not be applicable in general. Instead, we tackle the problem of saturated narrow structure directly by testing our analytical procedure with synthetic data similar to the observed spectrum. The tests confirm that our analytical procedure correctly recovers the narrow structure in the 3P0 line profiles if the saturation is moderate. Presuming stronger saturation gives rise to observed fine-structure populations being far away from statistical equilibrium.

The optimized value of the spectral resolution of the instrument $`R=\mathrm{54\hspace{0.17em}600}\pm 800`$ matches the spectral resolution of the individual exposures.

### 4.2 Physical conditions

The ground state of the carbon atom consists of the 2s22p2 3P0,1,2 fine-structure triplet levels. In DLA systems, the excited levels of the ground state triplet are populated principally by three competing processes: direct photoexcitation by the CMBR, fluorescence induced by the local UV radiation field, and collisional excitation by hydrogen atoms (Bahcall & Wolf, 1968). Given the physical conditions, the relative population of fine-structure levels is determined by solving the system of statistical equilibrium equations. In order to calculate the solution, we use the PopRatio program package recently developed by Silva & Viegas (2001). The package provides a Fortran 90 source code and an up to date compilation of atomic data for C i (and C ii, O i, Si ii).

The equilibrium equations are established presuming the CMBR temperature follows Eq. (1) and the local UV input equals the scaled generic galactic radiation field. The direct photoexcitation rates by the CMBR at $`z=1.15`$ are $`R_{01}=\mathrm{4.3\hspace{0.17em}10}^9`$ s-1 and $`R_{02}=\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ s-1, while fluorescence (the PopRatio package considers 108 UV transitions) induced by the generic galactic UV radiation field (Gondhalekar et al., 1980) yields UV pumping rates of $`R_{01}=\mathrm{3.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ s-1 and $`R_{02}=\mathrm{2.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ s-1. The H i collision rates at the kinetic temperature $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=100`$ K are $`q_{01}=\mathrm{3.8\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ cm3 s-1 and $`q_{02}=\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ cm3 s-1. We point out that the UV pumping rates will exceed the direct photoexcitation rates if the local UV input exceeds the generic galactic radiation field by more than a factor of twelve.

If the absorbing medium is homogenous, the relative population of excited and ground fine-structure levels matches the corresponding column density ratios, $`X_{1,2}=N_{1,2}/N_0`$. Consequently, if the column densities $`N_{0,1,2}`$ are regarded as independent random observables with density functions $`p_{0,1,2}(N_{0,1,2})`$, $`X_{1,2}`$ are random observables with cumulative distribution functions

$$F(X_{1,2})=_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{N_0X_{1,2}}p_0(N_0)p_{1,2}(N_{1,2})dN_{1,2}dN_0.$$
(5)
Deriving the cumulative distribution functions with respect to $`X_{1,2}`$ yields the density functions

$$p(X_{1,2})=_0^{\mathrm{}}p_0(N_0)p_{1,2}(N_0X_{1,2})N_0dN_0.$$
(6)
In order to infer the physical conditions in each observed C i absorber, we define $`p_{0,1,2}(N_{0,1,2})`$ by the requirement that $`\mathrm{log}N_{0,1,2}`$ are normally distributed with mean values and standard deviations matching the optimized values collected in Table 2. Then, we calculate the equilibrium population $`X_{1,2}`$ for a grid of physical conditions and evaluate the joint density function

$$p(X_1,X_2)=p(X_1)p(X_2).$$
(7)
Contour diagrams of the joint density functions obtained in this way are shown in Fig. 2, considering a kinetic temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=100`$ K. Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that the CMBR is only a minor source of the observed fine-structure excitation. Considering the 0.01 contour line (i.e. the boundary of the 99.7 percent confidence region if the distribution were normal), the upper limit on the UV energy density in the major (minor) C i absorber is 100 (50) times the galactic UV energy density. The upper limit on the H i number density is 110 cm-3 (50 cm-3). The upper limit on the thermal pressure of 11 000 cm-3 K (5000 cm-3 K) exceeds the median pressure in galactic C i absorbers (Jenkins & Tripp, 2001) by a factor of four (two). A similar analysis considering a kinetic temperature of $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=1000`$ K (see Fig. 3) yields upper limits of 41 cm-3 (21 cm-3) and 41 000 cm-3 K (21 000 cm-3 K). If the CMBR is completely excluded from the analysis, the limits increase by less than 20 percent.

If we integrate the joint density function with respect to the H i number density and the relative UV energy density, we obtain the marginal probability density of the kinetic temperature. The marginal density function cannot rule out any kinetic temperature in the range $`40\mathrm{K}T_{\mathrm{kin}}1000\mathrm{K}`$, but indicates that in both C i absorbers a kinetic temperature of about $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}=240`$ K is the most probable. The corresponding contour plot is shown in Fig. 4.

### 4.3 Excitation temperature

If the absorbing medium is homogenous, the excitation temperature is defined (via the Boltzmann equation) by the ratio of column densities

$$\frac{N_j}{N_i}=\frac{g_j}{g_i}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{E_{ij}}{kT_{ij}}\right].$$
(8)
The energies of the first and second excited ground state fine-structure levels in C i relative to the ground level are $`E_{01}=16.4`$ cm-1 and $`E_{02}=43.4`$ cm-1. Now considering the optimized column density values listed in Table 2, we obtain three different excitation temperatures for each C i absorber (see Table 3). These excitation temperatures are considerably higher than the CMBR temperature predicted by Eq. (1), $`T_{\mathrm{CMBR}}(1.15)=5.9`$ K. The magnitude and diversity of the excitation temperatures reveals that the CMBR is not the principal source of the fine-structure excitation. Moreover, the excitation temperatures in the minor absorber are systematically lower, indicating completely different physical conditions.

The fine-structure excitation temperatures derived in this and in previous studies considering higher redshifts are compared in Fig. 5.

## 5 Conclusions

Our theoretical calculations of the relative population of the ground state fine-structure levels in C i clearly demonstrate that the CMBR is only a minor source of the observed fine-structure excitation. The ratios of the observed column densities suggest that the C i absorbing medium is either very dense or exposed to very intense UV radiation. The upper limit on the local UV energy density is 100 times the galactic UV energy density, while the upper limit on the H i number density is 110 cm-3. Whether flourescence induced by the local UV radiation field or collisional excitation by hydrogen atoms is the more important process cannot be concluded yet.

We also observe absorption lines of molecular hydrogen associated with the DLA system. The observed rotational population is strongly inversed, indicating not only collisonal but also radiative excitation. Therefore, the kinetic temperature of the absorbing medium can only be determined in a multilevel population analysis. This analysis is in progress and will possibly unravel the physical processes giving rise to the observed fine-structure population.

###### Acknowledgements.

We kindly acknowledge A. I. Silva and S. M. Viegas for providing their PopRatio program package for the public. We also thank N. Hansen for sending us a manuscript and for providing us with helpful detailed information about his evolution strategy. This research has been supported by the Verbundforschung of the BMBF/DLR under Grant No. 50 OR 9911 1.