text:
# Supersymmetric Dark Matter and Recent Experimental Constraints

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is not only indispensable in constructing consistent string theories, but it also seems unavoidable at low energies ($`1\mathrm{TeV}`$) if the gauge hierarchy problem is to be resolved. Such a resolution provides a measure of the supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_{SUSY}𝒪(1\mathrm{TeV})`$. There is indirect evidence for such a low-energy supersymmetry breaking scale, from the unification of the gauge couplings Kelley  and from the apparent lightness of the Higgs boson as determined from precise electroweak measurements, mainly at LEP EW . Furthermore, such a low energy SUSY breaking scale is also favored cosmologically, provided that $`R`$-parity is conserved. The spectrum of $`R`$-conserved SUSY models contain a stable, neutral particle, identifiable with the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$), referred to as the LSP Hagelin . Such a particle is an ideal candidate for the Dark Matter (DM) in the Universe. The latest data from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation anisotropies cmb  not only favour a flat ($`k=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$), inflationary Universe, but they also determine a matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh_0^20.15\pm 0.05`$. Subtracting from this the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh_0^20.02`$, and the rather tiny neutrino density, one gets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}h_0^2=0.13\pm 0.05`$ for the DM density.

Assuming that all DM is supersymmetric due to LSP, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, one can combine the cosmological bound with other presently available constraints from particle physics, such as the lower bound on the mass of the Higgs bosons ($`m_h113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$) provided by LEP LEP  and the recent results from the BNL E821 experiment E821  on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon ($`\delta \alpha _\mu =26(16)\times 10^{10}`$). The latter is the updated bound after the correction of a sign error in the hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution kino  to $`g_\mu 2`$.

We find that the updated $`g_\mu 2`$ bound does not put severe constraints on the parameter space of the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM) new , especially in the $`1.5\sigma `$ region of this bound, in contrast to the previous situation LS ; LNSd2 . Nevertheless this new situation does not seem to affect significantly the potential of discovering SUSY at future direct DM searches.

## 2 Neutralino relic density

In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime the neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$) pair annihilation through $`s`$-channel pseudo-scalar Higgs boson ($`A`$) exchange, leads to an enhanced annihilation cross sections reducing significantly the relic density Drees . The importance of this mechanism, in conjunction with the recent cosmological data which favour small values of the DM relic density, has been stressed in LNS ; LNSd . The same mechanism has been also invoked Ellis  where it has been shown that it enlarges the cosmologically allowed regions. In fact cosmology does not put severe upper bounds on sparticle masses, and soft masses can be in the TeV region, pushing up the sparticle mass spectrum to regions that might escape detection in future planned accelerators. Such an upper bound is imposed, however, by the ($`g_\mu 2`$) E821 data and has been the subject of intense phenomenological study the last year ENO ; g-2 ; Leszek ; LS ; LNSd2 ; Kneur . As was mentioned above, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{A}{}b\overline{b}`$ or $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ channel becomes the dominant annihilation mechanism. In fact by increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the mass $`m_A`$ decreases, while the neutralino mass remains almost constant, if the other parameters are kept fixed. Thus $`m_A`$ is expected eventually to enter into the regime in which it is close to the pole value $`m_A=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, and the pseudo-scalar Higgs exchange dominates. It is interesting to point out that in a previous analysis of the direct DM searches LNSd , we had stressed that the contribution of the $`CP`$-even Higgs bosons exchange to the LSP-nucleon scattering cross sections increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Therefore in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region one obtains the highest possible rates for the direct DM searches. Similar results are presented in Ref. Kim .

For the correct calculation of the neutralino relic density in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region, an unambiguous and reliable determination of the $`A`$-mass is required. The details of the procedure in calculating the spectrum of the CMSSM can be found elsewhere LS ; LNSd2 . Here we shall only briefly refer to some subtleties which turn out to be essential for a correct determination of $`m_A`$. In the CMSSM, $`m_A`$ is not a free parameter but is determined once the other parameters are given. $`m_A`$ depends sensitively on the Higgs mixing parameter, $`m_3^2`$, which is determined from minimizing the one-loop corrected effective potential. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the derivatives of the effective potential with respect the Higgs fields, which enter into the minimization conditions, are plagued by terms which are large and hence potentially dangerous, making the perturbative treatment untrustworthy. In order to minimize the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ corrections we had better calculate the effective potential using as reference scale the average stop scale $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}`$ scale . At this scale these terms are small and hence perturbatively valid. Also for the calculation of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson mass all the one-loop corrections must be taken into account. In particular, the inclusion of those of the neutralinos and charginos yields a result for $`m_A`$ that is scale independent and approximates the pole mass to better than $`2\%`$ KLNS . A more significant correction, which drastically affects the pseudo-scalar mass arises from the gluino–sbottom and chargino–stop corrections to the bottom quark Yukawa coupling $`h_b`$ mbcor ; wagner ; BMPZ ; arno . The proper resummation of these corrections is important for a correct determination of $`h_b`$ eberl ; car2 , and accordingly of the $`m_A`$. In calculating the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ relic abundance, we solve the Boltzmann equation numerically using the machinery outlined in Ref. LNS . In this calculation the coannihilation effects, in regions where $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$ approaches in mass the LSP, which is a high purity Bino, are properly taken into account.

After the correction of the error in the sign of the hadronic light-by-light contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$, actually there is no $`2\sigma `$ disagreement between the experimental value and the Standard Model prediction. There is still an $`1\sigma `$ discrepancy, and one can also study the $`1.5\sigma `$ bound. If we are going to attribute this discrepancy to SUSY the $`\mu >0`$ case is relevant. In addition the $`\mu <0`$ case is not favoured by the recent $`bs\gamma `$ data.

In the panels shown in figure 1 we display our results by drawing the cosmologically allowed region $`0.08<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}h_0^2<0.18`$ (dark green) in the $`m_0,M_{1/2}`$ plane for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ equal to $`50`$ and $`55`$ respectively. Also drawn (light green) is the region $`0.18<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}h_0^2<0.30`$. In the figures shown we used for the top, tau and bottom masses the values $`M_t=175\mathrm{GeV},M_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_b(m_b)=4.25\mathrm{GeV}`$. The remaining inputs are shown on the top of each panel. The solid red mark the region within which the supersymmetric contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon falls within the E821 range $`\alpha _\mu ^{SUSY}=(26\pm 16)\times 10^{10}`$. The dashed red line marks the boundary of the region when the more relaxed lower bound $`1.5\sigma `$ value of the E821 range. Along the blue dashed-dotted lines the light $`CP`$-even Higgs mass takes values $`113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ (left) and $`117.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ (right) respectively. The line on the left marks therefore the recent LEP bound on the Higgs mass LEP . Also shown is the chargino mass bound $`104\mathrm{GeV}`$. The shaded area (in red) at the bottom of each figure, labelled by TH, is theoretically disallowed since the light stau is lighter than the lightest of the neutralinos. From the displayed figures we observe that for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ up to $`50`$ the cosmological data put an upper bound on the parameter $`m_0`$. However, there is practically no such upper bound for the parameter $`M_{1/2}`$, due to the coannihilation effects Ellis  which allow for $`M_{1/2}`$ as large as $`1700\mathrm{GeV}`$ within the narrow coannihilation band lying above the theoretically disallowed region.

For large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, see the right panel of figure 1, a large region opens up within which the relic density is cosmologically allowed. This is due to the pair annihilation of the neutralinos through the pseudo-scalar Higgs exchange in the $`s`$-channel. As explained before, for such high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the ratio $`m_A/2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ approaches unity and the pseudo-scalar exchange dominates yielding large cross sections and hence small neutralino relic densities. In this case the lower bound put by the $`g_\mu 2`$ data cuts the cosmologically allowed region which would otherwise allow for very large values of $`m_0,M_{1/2}`$.

For the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =55`$ case, close the highest possible value, and considering the lower bound on the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment $`\alpha _\mu ^{SUSY}10\times 10^{10}`$ and values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}h_0^2`$ in the range $`0.13\pm 0.05`$, we find that the point with the highest value of $`m_0`$ is (in GeV) at $`(m_0,M_{1/2})=(950,300)`$ and that with the highest value of $`M_{1/2}`$ is at $`(m_0,M_{1/2})=(600,800)`$. The latter marks the lower end of the line segment of the boundary $`\alpha _\mu ^{SUSY}=10\times 10^{10}`$ which amputates the cosmologically allowed stripe. For the case displayed in the right panel of the figure 1 the upper mass limits put on the LSP, and the lightest of the charginos, stops and the staus are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<287,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+}<539,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}<1161,m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}<621`$ (in $`\mathrm{GeV}`$). Allowing for $`A_00`$ values, the upper bounds put on $`m_0,M_{1/2}`$ increase a little and so do the aforementioned bounds on the sparticle masses. Thus it appears that the prospects of discovering CMSSM at a $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$, are not guaranteed. However in the allowed regions the next to the lightest neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$, has a mass very close to the lightest of the charginos and hence the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ subsequently decaying to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }+l^+l^{}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }+2\mathrm{jets}`$, is kinematically allowed for such large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, provided the energy is increased to at least $`\sqrt{s}=900\mathrm{GeV}`$. It should be noted however that this channel proceeds via the $`t`$-channel exchange of a selectron and it is suppressed due to the heaviness of the exchanged sfermion.

The constraints put by the $`1.5\sigma `$ $`g_\mu 2`$ bound are extremely weak, especially for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as the $`\alpha _\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ LNW . Actually the $`1.5\sigma `$ region lies in the border line of LHC nath .

## 3 Direct Dark Matter searches

We turn now to study the impact of the $`g_\mu 2`$ measurements and of the Higgs mass bound $`m_h>113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ on the direct DM searches. For this reason we are using a random sample of 40,000 points in the region $`|A_0|<1\mathrm{TeV}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <55`$, $`M_{1/2}<1.5\mathrm{TeV}`$, $`m_0<1.5\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`\mu >0`$.

In figure 2 we plot the scalar $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$-nucleon cross section as function of the LSP mass, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. On the top of the figure the shaded region (in cyan colour) is excluded by the CDMS experiment cdms . The DAMA sensitivity region (coloured in yellow) is also plotted dama . Diamonds ($``$) (in green colour) represent points which are both compatible with the E821 data $`\alpha _\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}=(26.0\pm 16.0)\times 10^{10}`$ and the cosmological bounds for the neutralino relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}h_0^2=0.13\pm 0.05`$. The crosses ($`\times `$) (in red colour) represent the rest of the points of our random sample. Here the Higgs boson mass bound, $`m_h>113.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ has been properly taken into account. From this figure it is seen that the points which are compatible both the ($`g_\mu 2`$) E821 and the cosmological data (crosses) yield cross sections of the order of $`10^{10}`$ pb and the maximum value of the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is about $`350\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In figure 3 we don’t impose the constraints stemming from $`g_\mu 2`$ data, therefore due to the coannihilation processes the cosmologically acceptable LSP mass can be heavier than $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is worth noticing that that imposing the $`g_\mu 2`$ bound the lowest allowed $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$-nucleon cross section increases by about one order of magnitude, from $`10^{11}`$ pb to $`10^{10}`$ pb. Considering the $`\mu >0`$ case, it is important that using the cosmological bound for the DM alone, one can put a lower bound on $`\sigma _{scalar}10^{11}`$. This fact is very encouraging for the future DM direct detection experiments Klapdor . Unfortunately this is not the case for $`\mu <0`$, where the $`\sigma _{scalar}`$ can be very small, due to an accidental cancellation between the sfermion and Higgs boson exchange processes. However, as discussed before, this case is not favoured by $`bs\gamma `$ data. Similar results are presented in Ref. Keith .

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have combined recent high energy physics experimental information, like the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon measured at E821 Brookhaven experiment and the light Higgs boson mass bound from LEP, with the cosmological data for DM. Especially for the $`g_\mu 2`$ bound we have used the revised value taking into account the correct sign in the hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution. We studied the imposed constraints on the parameter space of the CMSSM and hence we assessed the potential of discovering SUSY, if it is based on CMSSM, at future colliders and DM direct searches experiments. The use of the $`1\sigma `$ $`g_\mu 2`$ bound can guarantee that in LHC but also in a $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=1200\mathrm{GeV}`$, CMSSM can be discovered. The $`1.5\sigma `$ bound is rather weak, resulting to a very heavy sparticle spectrum, especially for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Actually this bound lies in the border line of LHC. The effect of these constraints is also significant for the direct DM searches. For the $`\mu >0`$ case, even ignoring the $`g_\mu 2`$ bound, we found that the minimum value of the spin-independent $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$-nucleon cross section attained is of the order of $`10^{11}`$ pb.

Acknowledgements
A.B.L. acknowledges support from HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and HPRN-CT-2000-00149 programmes. He also thanks the University of Athens Research Committee for partially supporting this work. D.V.N. acknowledges support by D.O.E. grant DE-FG03-95-ER-40917. V.C.S. acknowledges support by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the EU programme IHP under contract HPMFCT-2000-00675. The authors thank the Academy of Athens for supporting this work.


format: text

text:
# Gamma-Ray Bursts - a Primer For Relativists

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-Ray bursts - GRBs, short and intense bursts of $`\gamma `$-rays arriving from random directions in the sky were discovered accidentally more than thirty years ago. During the last decade two detectors, BATSE on CGRO and BeppoSAX have revolutionized our understanding of GRBs. BATSE has demonstrated  that GRBs originate at cosmological distances in the most energetic explosions in the Universe. BeppoSAX discovered X-ray afterglow. This enabled us to pinpoint the positions of some bursts, locate optical  and radio  afterglows, identify host galaxies and measure redshifts to some bursts .

The high energy release and the rapid time scales involved suggested very early that GRBs might be associated with relativistic compact objects. The discoveries of BATSE and BeppoSAX confirmed these expectations. These observations have established the Fireball model demonstrating that GRBs are the most relativistic objects known so far:

* GRBs involve macroscopic ultrarelativistic flows with Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$.
* GRBs involve accretion onto a newborn compact object, most likely a black hole. GRBs are the birth cries of these black hole.
* GRBs could emit significant amounts of gravitational radiation; both in the process of the formation of the black hole and during the acceleration of the matter to relativistic velocities.
* GRB can serve as beacon lights that would help us to explore the high redshift universe.

I review, here, our understanding of GRBs, emphasizing, as appropriate for this conference, their relativistic nature. I begin in with a very brief exposition of the properties of GRBs. I continue in section 3 with a short exposition of the Fireball model (see  for details), focusing on realization that GRBs must involve ultrarelativistic motion and on the observational proofs of such motion. In 4 I summarize the implication of the Fireball model to the “inner engines” and showing their association with black holes. I also discuss the possible progenitors of GRBs. In section 5 I discuss GRBs as sources of Gravitational radiation. I will not discuss here how GRBs could be used to explore the early high z universe and I refer the reader to recent reviews  on this issue. Concluding remarks, predictions and open questions are discussed in section 6.

## 2 Gamma Ray Bursts Observations

Gamma-Ray Bursts are short and intense bursts of soft gamma-rays, arriving from random directions in the sky. Most observational features of GRBs are nicely summarized in various reviews see e.g. . Some of the basic features of the prompt burst are:

* The bursts originate from cosmological distances and arrive from random directions in the sky.
* The overall observed fluences range from $`10^4`$ergs/cm2 to $`10^7`$ergs/cm2 (the lower limit depends of course on the characteristic of the detectors and not on the bursts themselves). This corresponds to isotropic emission of $`10^{53}`$ergs. However, we know today that most GRBs are narrowly beamed and the corresponding energies are around $`10^{51}`$ergs .
* The spectrum is non thermal. The energy flux peaks at few hundred keV and there is a long high energy tail extending in cases up to GeV.
* The duration of the bursts ranges from less than 0.01sec to more than 100sec. GRBs are divided to short ($`T<2`$sec) and long ($`T>2`$sec) according to their duration.
* The light curves show rapid variability, at times on scales less than 10msec.
* The present local rate of long observed GRBs is $`2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$ . The rate of GRBs seems to follow the star formation rate, namely this rate was higher by a factor of 10 at $`z>2`$. The rate will of course be higher by a factor $`2/\theta ^2`$, if GRBs are beamed with an opening angle $`\theta `$.
* The rate of short bursts is uncertain. There are indications that short bursts are weaker than long ones and hence the observed short bursts are nearer to us that the long ones . The best estimate so far suggests that all short bursts are at $`z<0.5`$. So far afterglow was not detected from any short burst and there is no redshift measurement to any short burst hence there is no independent confirmation of this estimate. Given about 250 short bursts per year and assuming that they all come from within $`z<0.5`$ we find that the current rate of observed short bursts, $`R_{isoshort}=2\times 10^8\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$, is about ten times larger than the rate of long GRBs.

Until 1997 there where no known counterparts to GRBs in other wavelengths. On Feb 28 1997 the Italian-Dutch satellite BeppoSAX detected x-ray afterglow from GRB 970228. The exact position given by BeppoSAX led to the discovery of optical afterglow . Radio afterglow was detected in GRB 970508 . By now more than thirty x-ray afgterglows have been observed. About half of these have optical and radio afterglow and in many of those the host galaxy has been discovered and in a dozen or so cases their redshift has been measured. The observed redshifts range from 0.46 to a record of 4.5.

## 3 Ultra-Relativistic Motion and the Fireball Model

### 3.1 The Compactness Problem and Ultra-Relativistic Motion

The need for ultrarelativistic motion in GRBs arise from the conflict between the large energy released, the short time scale and the non thermal spectrum. With a fluence of $`10^6`$ergs/cm2 and a cosmological distance $`10^{28}`$cm the energy of GRBs is $`10^{51}`$ergs. This energy is released within a few seconds. Using the usual causality limit on the size of an object, $`R`$, given a variability time scale, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, $`Rc\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ to estimate the density of photons one finds that the optical depth for pair production $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ would be $`10^{15}`$ (Piran, 1999). Such a source cannot emit the observed nonthermal spectrum.

Already in 1975 Ruderman  pointed out that relativistic effects could eliminate this problem. First if the source is moving relativistically with a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ towards us than the usual causality limit is replaced by: $`Rc\mathrm{\Delta }T/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. Additionally if the source is moving towards us the observed photons have been blue shifted. At the source they have lower energy which would be insufficient for pair production. Together this leads to a decrease in the estimated optical depth by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2+2\alpha }`$, where $`\alpha 2`$ is the spectral index, namely the exponent of the photon number distribution. Various estimates , of the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ based on the compactness problem lead to comparable values, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$, (see  for a critical review). Today we have independent direct observational evidence for such ultra-relativistic motion.

### 3.2 The Fireball Model

While we don’t expect celestial objects to roam around at ultra-relativistic velocities one can imagine spherical explosions or jets in which matter is ejected from a central source ultra-relativistically. This leads us to the Fireball model.

The Fireball model asserts that GRBs are produced when the kinetic energy (or Poynting flux) of a relativistic flow is dissipated by shocks. These shocks accelerate electrons and generate strong magnetic fields. The relativistic electrons emit the observed $`\gamma `$-rays via synchrotron or Synchrotron-self Compton. There are two variants of this model: The External Shocks model  assumes that the shocks are between the relativistic flow and the surrounding circumstellar matter. The Internal Shocks model  assumes that the flow is irregular and the shocks take place between faster and slower shells within the flow. The rapid time variability seen in most GRBs cannot be produced by external shocks . This leaves internal shocks as the only viable model for the production of the GRB. As internal shocks do not dissipate all the kinetic energy, the remaining energy will be dissipated later by interaction with the surrounding matter and produce an afterglow. This leads us to the Internal-External shocks model . According to this model Internal shocks are responsible for the GRB while external shocks produce the longer lasting afterglow (see Fig. 1). The shocks occur at relatively large distances ($`10^{13}10^{14}`$cm for internal shocks and $`10^{14}10^{18}`$cm for external shocks) from the source that generates the relativistic flow. The observed radiation from the GRB or from the afterglow reflects only the conditions within these shocks. We have only indirect information on the nature of the “inner engines”.

Fig. 1 depicts a schematic picture of the Internal-External shocks model. An inner engine produces an irregular wind. The wind varies on a scale $`\delta t`$ and its overall duration is $`T`$. The variability scale $`\delta t`$ corresponds to the variability scale observed in the GRB light curve  thus, $`\delta t1`$ sec. Internal shocks take place at $`R\delta t\mathrm{\Gamma }^2310^{14}\mathrm{cm}(\delta t/1sec)(\mathrm{\Gamma }/100)^2`$. External shocks become significant at $`10^{16}`$cm (see  for details). Initially, there is also a short lived reverse shock that propagates into the ejecta. This reverse shock is responsible to the prompt optical emission observed in GRB990123 that we discuss later

The forward shock propagates into the surrounding matter producing the afterglow. It turns out to a blast wave that is well described by the Blandford-McKee self similar solution. The theory of the afterglow is well understood . Blandford and McKee have worked out (already in the seventies!) the theory of an adiabatic relativistic blast wave. This is the relativistic analog of the well known Sedov-Taylor solution. Electrons are accelerated to relativistic velocities by the shocks and their interaction with the magnetic field leads to synchrotron radiation. This provides an excellent model for the observed emission . Overall we have a simple theory characterized by five parameters: the total energy, $`E_0`$, the ambient density, $`n_0`$, the ratio of the electrons and magnetic fields energy density to the total energy density, $`ϵ_e`$, $`ϵ_B`$ and the exponent of the electrons’ energy distribution function $`p`$. An additional sixth parameters, the exponent of the circumstellar density distribution, $`n`$, arises in cases when the external matter density is inhomogeneous ($`\rho r^n`$). Most notable is $`n=2`$ corresponding to a pre-GRB wind expected in some models . This rather simple theory predicts a robust relations between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ the exponents describing the flux as a function of frequency, $`F_\nu t^\alpha \nu ^\beta `$. At the high frequencies, above the cooling frequency, we have (for $`n=0`$), $`\alpha =(3p2)/4`$ and $`\beta =p/2`$.

### 3.3 Observations of Relativistic Motion

The radio afterglow observations of GRB 970508 provided the first verification of relativistic motion. The radio light curve (in 4.86Ghz) varied strongly during the first month. These variations died out later. Even before this transition Goodman  interpreted these variations as scintillations. The observation of a transition after one month enabled Frail et al.,  to estimate the size of the afterglow at this stage as $`10^{17}`$cm. It immediately follows that the afterglow has expanded relativistically. Additionally, the source is expected to be optically thick in radio  leading to a $`\nu ^2`$ rising spectrum at these frequencies. The observed flux from the source enables us (using the black body law) to estimate the size of the source. As predicted the radio spectrum increases like $`\nu ^2`$. The size estimated with this method agrees  with the one derived by the scintillations estimate implying as well a relativistic motion.

The radio emission from GRB970508 showed relativistic motion in its afterglow. However, these observations took place one month after the burst and at that time the motion was only “mildly” relativistic with a Lorentz factor of order a few. Are there “direct” observations for the ultrarelativistic motion that exists earlier?

In Jan 23 1999 ROTSE recorded six snapshots of optical emission from GRB990123 . Three of those were taken while the burst was still emitting $`\gamma `$-rays. The other three snapshots spanned a couple of minutes after the burst. The second snapshot, taken 70sec after the onset of the burst corresponds to a 9th magnitude signal. A comparison of these optical observations with the $`\gamma `$-rays and X-rays light curves (see e.g. ) shows that the optical emission does not correlate with the $`\gamma `$-rays pulses. The optical photons and the $`\gamma `$ rays are not emitted by the same photons .

How can one explain this flash? The collision between the ejecta and the surrounding medium produces two shocks. The outer forward shock propagates into the ISM. This shock develops later into the self similar Blandford-McKee  blast wave that drives the afterglow. A second shock, the reverse shock, propagates into the flow. This reverse shock is short lived. It dies out when it runs out of matter as it reaches the inner edge of the flow. While it is active, it is a powerful source of energy. Comparable amounts of energy are dissipated by the forward and by the reverse shocks . Sari and Piran  predicted (just a few month before GRB990123) that this reverse shock will produce an intense (brighter than 11th magnitude) prompt optical flash.

The observations of an optical flash demonstrated a relativistic motion with $`\gamma 200`$ during the burst. There are three independent estimates of the Lorentz factor at the time that the ejecta hits first the ISM . First the time delay between the GRB and the optical flash suggests $`\mathrm{\Gamma }200`$. The ratio between the emission of the forwards shock (x-rays) and the reverse shock (optical) gives another estimate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }70`$. Finally the fact that the maximal synchroton frequency of the reverse shock was below the optical band led to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }200`$. The agreement between these three crude and independent estimates is reassuring.

### 3.4 Jets, Beaming and Energetics

With redshift measurements it became possible to obtain exact estimates of the total energies involved. While the first burst GRB970508 required a modest value of $`10^{51}`$ergs, the energies required by other bursts were alarming, $`3\times 10^{53}`$ergs for GRB981226 and $`4\times 10^{54}`$ergs for GRB990123, and unreasonable for any simple compact object model. These values suggested that the assumed isotropic emission was wrong and GRBs are beamed. Significant beaming would of course reduce, correspondingly the energy budget.

Beaming was suggested even earlier as it arose naturally in some specific models. For example the binary neutron star merger has a natural funnel along its rotation axis and one could expect that any flow would be emitted preferably along this axis. The Collapsar model, in which the GRB is produced during the collapse of a massive star, also requires beaming. Only a concentrated beamed energy could drill a whole through the stellar envelope that exists in this model.

Consider a relativistic flow with an opening angle $`\theta `$. As long as $`\theta >\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ the forwards moving matter doesn’t “notice” the angular structure and the hydrodynamics is “locally” spherical . The radiation from each point is beamed into a cone with an opening angle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. It is impossible to distinguish at this stage a jet from a spherical expanding shell. When $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ the radiation starts to be beamed sideways. At the same time the hydrodynamic behaviour changes and the material starts expanding sideways. Both effects lead to a faster decrease in the observed flux, changing $`\alpha `$, the exponent of the decay rate of the flux to: $`\alpha =p/2`$. Thus we expect a break in the light curve and a new relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ after the break . The break is expected to take place at $`t_{jet}6.2(E_{52}/n_0)^{1/3}(\theta /0.1)^{8/3}`$hr . The magnitude of the break and the time of the transition are different if the jet is expanding into a wind with $`r^2`$ density profile . Recently numerical simulation  have shown that the break appears in a more realistic calculations, even though the numerical results suggest that the analytical model developed so far are probably too simple.

GRB980519 had unusual values for $`\alpha =2.05`$ and $`\beta =1.15`$. These values do not fit the ”standard” spherical afterglow model111A possible alternative fit is to a wind (n=2) model but with a unsual high value of $`p=3.5`$. However, these values are in excellent agreement with a sideway expanding jet . The simplest interpretation of this data is that we observe a jet during its sideway expansion phase (with $`p=2.5`$). The jet break transition from the spherical like phase to this phase took place shortly after the GRB and it was not caught in time. The light curves of GRB990123 shows, however, a break at $`t2`$days . This break is interpreted as a jet break, corresponding to an opening angle $`\theta 5^o`$. Another clear break was seen in GRB990510 .

The brightest bursts, GRB990123 and GRB980519 gave the first indications for jet like behaviour . This suggested that their apparent high energy was due to the narrow beaming angles. A compilation of more bursts with jet breaks suggests that all bursts have a comparable energy $`10^{51}`$ergs and the variation in the observed energy is mostly due to the variation in the opening angles $`\theta `$ .

### 3.5 Variability, Internal Shocks and a “NO GO Theorem”

According to the internal shocks model the observed light curve corresponds to the temporal activity of the “inner engine” . Further indication for this understanding arise from the observations that the distribution of pulse width and pulse separations are similar and that pulse widths are correlated with the intervals preceding of following them .

These results imply that there must be two different time scales operating within the “inner engine”. The short time scale is the variability time scale. The duration of the observed burst corresponds to the time that the “inner engine” is active. This time scale is up to 5 orders of magnitude longer then the short, variability scale. This leads us to a NO GO Theorem. One cannot produce a variable GRB by a single explosion in which all the energy is released at once. This NO GO theorem rules out dozens of GRB models (such as evaporating black holes, vaccum instability, transition from a neutron star to a strange star etc…) which involve sudden energy release.

## 4 Black Holes, the Inner Engines and GRB Progenitors

The Fireball model tells us how GRBs operate. However, it does not answer the most interesting astrophysical questions: what produces them and how? I turn to this issues now.

GRBs must involve compact objects. There is no other way to extract so much energy, $`10^{51}`$ergs, so quickly. We have seen earlier that the temporal behaviour puts some stronger limits on the source. The short time scale, which is as short as a few ms, also suggest that we are dealing with a compact object. The long duration of the bursts shows that the source must be active much longer than its dynamical time scale. This suggests that GRBs arise due to accretion and this time scale is the duration of the accretion process. The energy involved requires a massive ($`0.10.2m_{}`$) disk. Such a massive disk can form only as debris during the formation of the compact object itself. With such a massive disk the most likely compact object is therefore a newborn black hole. A black hole is also the natural consequence of the two most common progenitors: Collapsars and neutron star mergers.

Accretion is needed to produce the two different time scales, and in particular the prolonged activity. A massive ($`0.1m_{}`$) disk is required because of the energetics. We expect that such a massive disk can form only simultaneously with the formation of the compact object. This leads to the conclusions that GRBs accompany the formation of black holes. This model is supported by the observations of relativistic (but not as relativistic as in GRBs) jets in AGNs, which are powered by accretion onto black holes. This system is capable of generating collimated relativistic flows even though we don’t understand how.

An important alternative to accretion is Usov’s model  in which the relativistic flow is mostly Poynting flux and it is driven by the magnetic and rotational energies of a newborn rapidly rotating neutron star. However this model seems to fall short by an order of magnitude of the energy required. Additionally, there is no indication of the slowing down pattern (that would be expected in such a case) in the light curves of GRBs.

### 4.1 GRB progenitors

Several scenarios could lead to a black hole - massive accretion disk system. This could include mergers (NS-NS binaries , NS-BH binaries  WD-BH binaries , BH-He-star binaries ) and models based on “failed supernovae” or “Collapsars” . Narayan et al.  have recently shown that accretion theory suggests that from all the above scenarios only Collapsars could produce long bursts and only NS-NS (or NS-BH) mergers could produce short bursts.

Additional indications on the astrophysical nature of the sources arise from afterglow observations. One has to use these clues with care. Not all GRBs have afterglow (for example, so far afterglow was not detected from any short burst) and it is not clear whether these clues are relevant to the whole GRB populations. These clues seem to suggest a GRB-SN connection:
$``$ SN association: Possible association of GRB980425 with SN98bw  and possible SN signatures in the afterglows of GRB970228  and GRB980326 .
$``$ Iron lines: have been observed in some x-ray afterglows . Any model explaining them requires a significant amounts of iron at rest near those GRBs.
$``$ Association with Star formation: GRBs seem to follow the star formation rate. GRB are located within star forming regions in star forming Galaxies .
$``$ GRB distribution: GRBs are distributed within galaxies. There is no evidence for GRBs kicked out of their host galaxies  as would be expected for NS-NS mergers .

All these clues point out towards a SN/GRB association and towards the Collapsar model. However, the situation is not clear cut. The association of GRB980425 with SN98bw is uncertain. There are alternative explanations to the bumps in the afterglows of GRB970228 and GRB980326 . Iron is produces in Supernovae. But there is no simple explanation what is iron at rest doing around the GRB (A model that explains the formation of iron lines requires that the supernova took place several month before the burst . This would be incompatible with the reported SN bumps which coincide with the GRB). One should bear in mind that association with star formation and the distribution of GRBs within galaxies indicates that GRB stellar progenitors are short lived. This is compatible with massive stars. However, one cannot rule out a short lived binary NS population  which would mimic this behaviour.

We stress that there are some indication that seem incompatible with the SN association:
$``$ No Windy Afterglow: No evidence for a wind (n=2) in any of the afterglow light curves. Such winds are expected from massive progenitors. Furthermore, most fits for the afterglow parameters show low ambient density .
$``$ No Jets: Some GRBs don t show evidence for a jet or have very wide opening angles , this would be incompatible with the Collapsar model.

## 5 Gravitational Radiation from GRBs

The appearance of relativistic nonspherical (jets) motion and the association with black holes suggests that GRBs are be potential sources of gravitational radiation. There are two phases in which gravitataional radiation can arise in GRBs. First from the process that lead to the formation of the black hole and second from the fireball process itself.

I consider first gravitational radiation that arises before the GRB, as part of the formation of the “inner engine”. Here I consider the two main progenitors candidates: Collapsar and neutron star mergers.

### 5.1 Mergers

I consider here both binary neutron star mergers and black hole-neutron star mergers under the single category of mergers. These sources are the “canonical” sources of gravitational radiation emission. Both LIGO and VIRGO aim in detecting these sources. Specifically the goal of these detectors is to detect the characteristic“chirping” signals arising from the in-spiraling phase of these events. The possibility of detection of such signals has been extensively discussed (see e.g. ) and we won’t repeat this here. Such events could be detected up to a distance of $`20`$Mpc with LIGO I and up to $`300600`$Mpc with LIGO II.

The detection of the chirping merger signal is based on fitting the gravitational radiation signal to pre-calculated templets. Kochaneck and Piran  suggested that the detection of a merger gravitational radiation signal would requite a lower S/N ratio if this signal coincides with a GRB. This could increase somewhat the effective sensitivity of LIGO and VIRGO to such events.

It is expected that mergers (either binary neutron star or a black hole-neutron star mergers) produce the short GRBs (see ). Considering the isotropic rate of short GRBs estimated earlier we find that there should be one short burst per year within $`450`$Mpc. This is just at the sensitivity level of LIGO II. As already mentioned it is not clear if short GRBs are beamed. If they are beamed, with the same beaming factor as long GRBs we should expect several hundred mergers events per a single observed burst. This would put one merger event per year at $`80\theta _{0.1}^2`$Mpc.

The corresponding distances to long GRBs are much longer. The nearest (long) GRB detected within a year would be a t 1Gpc. This is far beyond the sensitivity of even LIGO II. Beaming puts the nearest (long) event much nearer, at $`135\theta _{0.1}^2`$Mpc, well within the sensitivity of LIGO II. However, this burst would be, most likely, directed away from us and won’t be observed as a GRB. Still a GRB that is beamed away from us is expected to produce an “orphan” afterglow and the gravitational radiation signal could trigger a search for this afterglow.

### 5.2 Collapsars

The Collapsar model  is based on the collapse of the core of a massive star to a black hole surrounded by a thick massive accretion disk. The accretion of this disk onto the black hole, is accompanied by the acceleration of ultra relativistic jets along the rotation axis and powers the GRB. The jets first have to punch a hole in the stellar envelope. The GRB forms only after the jets have emerged from the envelope. Due to the relatively long time that it takes for the jets to punch a hole in the envelope it is expected that Collapsars can produce only long bursts.

As far as gravitational radiation is concerned this system is very similar to a regular supernova. Rotating gravitational collapse has been analyzed by Stark and Piran . They find that the gravitational radiation emission emitted in a rotating collapse to a black hole is dominated by the black hole’s lowest normal modes, with a typical frequency of $`20c^3/GM`$. The total energy emitted is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{GW}=ϵMc^2=\mathrm{min}(1.410^3\mathrm{a}^4,ϵ_{\mathrm{max}})\mathrm{Mc}^2,$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the dimensionless specific angular momentum and $`ϵ_{max}`$ is a maximal efficiency which is of the order $`\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^4`$. The expected amplitude of the gravitational radiation signal, $`h`$, would be of the order of $`\sqrt{ϵ}GM/c^2d`$ where $`d`$ is the distance to the source. Even LIGO II won’t be sensitive enough to detect such a signal from a distance of 1Gpc or even from 100 Mpc. Furthermore, this signal would be rather similar to a supernova gravitational radiation signal. As regular supernovae are much more frequent it is likely that a supernova gravitational radiation signal would be discovered long before a Collapsar gravitational radiation signal.

### 5.3 Gravitational Radiation Emission from the GRB Itself

I turn now to examine the gravitational radiation that would arise from the GRB process itself. According to the fireball model the “inner engine” accelerates a mass of $`M=E/\mathrm{\Gamma }c^2`$ to a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The most efficient generation of gravitational radiation could take place here during the acceleration phase, in which the mass is accelerated to a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To estimate this emission we follow Winberg’s  analysis of gravitational radiation emitted from a relativistic collision between two particles.

I consider the following simple toy model. Two particles at rest with a mass $`M`$ are accelerated instantly at $`t=0`$ to a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and energy $`E`$. Conservation of energy requires that some (actually most) of the rest mass was converted to kinetic energy during the acceleration and the rest mass of the accelerated particle is $`m=E/\mathrm{\Gamma }=M/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using the formalism developed by Weinberg  to estimate the gravitational radiation generated in particle collisions, we calculate the gravitational radiation emitted by this system. Prior to the acceleration the two particles has momenta $`m_0(1,0,0,0)`$. After the acceleration the particles’ momenta is $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,\pm \stackrel{}{\beta })`$. The energy emitted per unit frequency per unit solid angle in the direction at an angle $`\alpha `$ relative to $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ is:

$$\frac{dE}{d\mathrm{\Omega }d\omega }=\frac{GM^2\beta ^2}{c\pi ^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )}{(1\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\beta ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )^2}\right].$$
(2)
The result is independent of the frequency, implying that the integral over all frequency diverges. This nonphysical divergence arises from the nonphysical assumption that the acceleration is instantaneous. In reality this acceleration takes place over a time $`\delta t`$, which is of order 0.01sec. This would produce a cutoff $`\omega _{max}2\pi /\delta t`$ above which Eq. 2 is not valid. The angular distribution found in Eq. 2 is dissppointing. The EM emission from the ultrarelativistic source is beamed forwrds into a small angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, enhancing the emission in the forwards direction by a large factor ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$). We find here that the gravitational radiation from this relativistic ejecta is spread rather uniformly in almost all $`4\pi `$ directions. Instead of beaming we have “anti-beaming” with no radiation at all emitted within the forward angle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ along the direction of the relativistic motion.

Integration of the energy flux over different directions yields:

$$\frac{dE}{d\omega }=\frac{GM^2}{c\pi ^2}[2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+1+\frac{(14\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\beta }ArcTang(\beta )].$$
(3)
As expected the total energy emitted is proportional to $`m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. Further integration over frequencies up to the cutoff $`2\pi /\delta t`$ yields:

$$E\frac{2GM^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{c\pi \delta t}.$$
(4)
In reality the situation is much more complicated than the one presented here. First, the angular width of the emitted blobs is larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. The superposition of emission from different directions washes out the no emission effect in the forward direction. Additionally according to the internal shocks model the acceleration of different blobs go on independently. Emission from different blobs should be combined to get the actual emission. Both effects reduce the effective emission of gravitational radiation and makes the above estimate an upper limit to the emission that is actually emitted.

The gravitational signal is spread in all directions (apart from a narrow beam along the direction of the relativistic motion the GRB). It ranges in frequency from $`0`$ to $`f_{max}100`$Hz. The amplitude of the gravitational radiation signal at the maximal frequency, $`f_{max}100`$Hz, would be: $`h(GM\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/c^2d)`$. For typical values of $`E=M\mathrm{\Gamma }=10^{51}`$ ergs, $`\delta t=0.01`$ sec and a distance of $`500Mpc`$, we find $`h.5\times 10^{25}`$. This is far below the sensitivity of planned gravitational radiation detectors. Even if we consider a burst which is ten times nearer this ”direct” gravitational radiation signal would still be undetectable.

## 6 Conclusions, Predictions and Open Questions

There is an ample observational support For the Fireball model. Still there are many open questions. The most interesting ones, from the point of view of this conference is how does the black hole based, inner engine, operate. What is the energy source. How does it convert the energy to ultra-relativistic flow and how does it collimate the flow to narrow jets. These interesting issues might be related to the Blandford-Znaek mechanism of extracting energy from a rotating black hole via magnetic processes . It is a unique challenge to relativists to explore the electrodynamics of black hole and determine under what conditions this process can operate effectively.

We know how GRBs are produced. We are less certain what produces them. We can trace backwards the evolution at the source from the observations of the emitting regions to an accretion disk - black hole system. The traces from this point backwards are less clear. Theoretical considerations  suggest that only Collapsars can produce the disk-black hole systems needed for long bursts while only NS-NS (or possibly NS-BH) mergers can produce the systems needed for short bursts. These conclusions are supported by afterglow observations that suggest SN/GRB association for the long burst population. However, the picture is far from clear yet.

## Acknowledgments

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


text:
# Veech surfaces associated with rational billiards

## 1. The objects

### 1.1. Polygons

We consider billiards in Euclidean (plane) polygons. A polygon is called rational if the angles made by its sides are all rational in unit $`\pi `$. (Note concerning non simply connected polygons: this condition is not only for adjacent sides.) A rational billiard is a billiard in a rational polygon. All billiards in this paper are rational.

A triangle is determined by its angles up to a scaling factor. Thus the parameter space for rational triangles is discrete. This is not the case for other polygons.

We denote by $`\mathrm{T}(a,b,c)`$ the triangle $`(\frac{a\pi }{d},\frac{b\pi }{d},\frac{c\pi }{d})`$ where $`a,b,c𝐍^{}`$ and $`d=a+b+c`$. This notation is unique if we require $`\mathrm{gcd}(a,b,c)=1`$ and $`abc`$.

A triangle is acute if all its angles are acute, right if it has a right angle, obtuse if it has an obtuse angle.

A triangle is equilateral if its three angles are equal, isosceles if two of its angles are equal, scalene otherwise.

### 1.2. Translation and half-translation surfaces

A translation structure on a surface is an atlas on this surface with finitely many punctures, whose transition functions are translations. A surface which admits a translation structure is called a translation surface.

A half-translation structure on a surface is an atlas on this surface with finitely many punctures, whose transition functions are translations possibly composed with a central symmetry. A surface which admits a half-translation structure is called a half-translation surface.

A translation surface is a particular case of a half-translation surface. A half-translation surface is not a translation surface in general. But from a half-translation surface one can always obtain a translation surface by a branched double cover.

There is a correspondance between translation surfaces and Abelian differentials, and between half-translation surfaces and quadratic differentials.

### 1.3. Surfaces associated with a rational billiard

#### Translation surface

There is a classical construction of a translation surface from a rational billiard (see \[FoxKsh36, KtkZml75\]). Starting with a polygon with angles $`(m_i/n_i)\pi `$, and letting $`N=\mathrm{lcm}(n_i)`$, to each vertex of the polygon correspond $`N/n_i`$ singular points on the surface with multiplicity $`m_i`$ (cone points with angle $`m_i2\pi `$ or, in other words, zeros of order $`m_i1`$ of the Abelian differential).

#### Half-translation surface

One can consider a reduced construction in order to obtain a half-translation surface. Starting with a polygon with angles $`(m_i/n_i)(\pi /2)`$, and letting $`N=\mathrm{lcm}(n_i)`$, to each vertex of the polygon correspond $`N/n_i`$ singular points on the surface with multiplicity $`m_i/2`$ (cone points with angle $`m_i\pi `$ or, in other words, zeros of order $`m_i2`$ of the quadratic differential).

#### Comparison

Both constructions are the same if the classical $`N`$ is odd. Otherwise the translation surface is a branched double cover of the half-translation surface.

#### Remark

For each $`k`$ we can construct a “$`1/k`$-translation” surface, endowed with a differential of order $`k`$. In particular, it is a flat surface with cone type singularities, whose angles are multiples of $`2\pi /k`$. The information for cone points can be obtained from angles of the polygon as above, by expressing them in unit $`\pi /k`$.

In particular, the minimal construction consists in gluing just two copies of the initial polygon.

However, translation and half-translation surfaces (or Abelian and quadratic differentials) play a distinguished role because there is an action of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝐑)`$ on the space of these surfaces (or of these differentials).

### 1.4. Veech group

On a translation surface we can consider affine diffeomorphisms (diffeomorphisms on the surface punctured at its singularities, that are affine in the charts of the translation structure, and extend to a homeomorphism of the whole surface). The derivatives (or linear parts) of these diffeomorphisms form a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}^\pm (2,𝐑)`$. If we consider only those diffeomorphisms which preserve orientation, we get a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝐑)`$.

For half-translation surfaces we work modulo $`\mathrm{Id}`$ so that we obtain subgroups of $`\mathrm{PSL}^\pm (2,𝐑)`$ or $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐑)`$.

We call Veech group the subgroup of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐑)`$ obtained for the translation surface with only non-removable singularities (those that correspond to zeros of the Abelian differential).

#### Triangle groups

We denote by $`\mathrm{}(p,q,r)`$ the $`(p,q,r)`$-triangle group. See \[Brd83\] for more information about these groups. This notation really refers to a conjugation class of subgroups of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐑)`$. Note that the class of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐙)`$ is $`\mathrm{}(2,3,\mathrm{})`$.

#### Lattice property

A surface has the lattice property (or Veech property) if its Veech group has finite covolume in $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐑)`$. A polygon is said to have the lattice property if its associated translation surface does.

The lattice property is interesting in that it implies good ergodic properties, namely the Veech dichotomy: in each direction the flow is either periodic or uniquely ergodic.

## 2. The results

In this section we review polygons (mainly triangles) known to have or not to have the lattice property. We begin with the arithmetic examples, those that are the closest to the basic example of the square. We then move to regular polygons, and then to right and acute triangles for which the Veech property is characterized. For scalene triangles, only partial answers are known.

### 2.1. Arithmetic case

> The translation surface associated with the billiard in a rectangle, in a right isosceles triangle, in an equilateral triangle or in the $`(\pi /6,\pi /3,\pi /2)`$ triangle is a flat torus. Its Veech group is $`\mathrm{}(2,3,\mathrm{})`$.

In the following subsections we always skip the torus case.

Gutkin and Judge proved the following in \[GutJdg96, GutJdg00\].

> A translation surface has an arithmetic (conjugate to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,𝐙)`$) Veech group if and only if it is (translation) tiled by a Euclidean parallelogram, or in other words if it is a (translation) cover of a one-punctured flat torus.

### 2.2. Regular polygons

All regular polygons have the lattice property.

The Veech group of the translation surface associated with the regular $`n`$-gon for $`n5`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{}(2,n,\mathrm{})`$. Its index can be given as follows \[Vch92\]. Let $`\epsilon (n)=\mathrm{gcd}(2,n)`$, let $`N=n/\epsilon (n)`$, let $`\sigma (n)=\mathrm{gcd}(4,n)`$.

Let $`\omega (n)=n{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}p|n\\ p\text{ prime}\end{array}}{}}(1+1/p)`$. Then the index is $`\frac{\omega (N)}{\omega (\sigma (N))}\epsilon (n)`$.

### 2.3. Right triangles

> A right triangle has the lattice property if and only if its smallest angle is $`\pi /n`$ for some $`n4`$.
>
> For $`n5`$, the Veech group of the corresponding translation surface is $`\mathrm{}(2,n,\mathrm{})`$ if $`n`$ is odd, and $`\mathrm{}(m,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ if $`n=2m`$.

Vorobets showed that the condition is sufficient and gave the corresponding Veech group \[Vrb96, section 4\]. Kenyon and Smillie showed that the condition is necessary \[KenSmi00, section 6\].

### 2.4. Acute triangles

#### 2.4.1. Isosceles

> An acute isosceles triangle has the lattice property if and only if its apex angle is $`\pi /n`$ for some $`n3`$.
>
> For $`n4`$, the Veech group of the associated translation surface is $`\mathrm{}(n,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$.

Showing that the condition is sufficient reduces to the right triangle case by an unfolding construction, see \[Vrb96, section 5\] or \[GutJdg00\]. Kenyon and Smillie showed that the condition is necessary \[KenSmi00, section 6\]. The Veech group was given for an example in \[EarGrd97\], and for the general case in \[HbtSch00\].

#### 2.4.2. Scalene

> An acute scalene triangle has the lattice property if and only if it is one of the exceptional triangles
>
> $$(\frac{2\pi }{9},\frac{\pi }{3},\frac{4\pi }{9}),(\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{\pi }{3},\frac{5\pi }{12}),(\frac{\pi }{5},\frac{\pi }{3},\frac{7\pi }{15}).$$
>
> The Veech groups of the associated translation surfaces are
>
> $$\mathrm{}(9,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),\mathrm{}(6,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),\mathrm{}(15,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$

$`\mathrm{T}(3,4,5)`$ appeared in \[Vch89\], $`\mathrm{T}(3,4,5)`$ and $`\mathrm{T}(3,5,7)`$ in \[Vrb96\]; $`\mathrm{T}(2,3,4)`$ first appeared in \[KenSmi00\] where Kenyon and Smillie conjectured that the three mentioned triangles were the only lattice examples amongst all rational acute triangles, and gave a proof with a bound on the common denominator of the angles (10000). Puchta made this bound useless \[Pch01\]. Hubert and Schmidt gave the precise Veech groups \[HbtSch01\].

### 2.5. Obtuse triangles

Ward \[Wrd98\] defines sharp triangles of type $`(\frac{\pi }{m},\frac{p\pi }{m},\frac{q\pi }{m})`$ with $`p<q`$ and $`4pm`$, and proves the following.

> A sharp triangle with $`p`$ or $`m`$ odd has the lattice property if and only if $`p=1`$ (in which case it is isosceles).

#### 2.5.1. Isosceles

The following result is due to Veech.

> The obtuse isosceles triangle with two angles $`\pi /n`$ for $`n5`$ has the lattice property. The Veech group of the associated translation surface is $`\mathrm{}(2,n,\mathrm{})`$ if $`n`$ is odd, and $`\mathrm{}(m,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ if $`n=2m`$.

Hubert and Schmidt \[HbtSch00\] show that the lattice property is lost in this example if we mark the points that come from the vertices of angle $`\pi /n`$ of the triangle.

#### 2.5.2. Scalene

Examples by Vorobets \[Vrb96\] and Ward \[Wrd98\] show that among obtuse triangles with two angles of type $`\pi /n`$ and $`\pi /m`$, some have the lattice property and some do not.

In particular they studied those triangles with angles $`\pi /2n`$ and $`\pi /n`$.

> For $`n4`$, the triangle $`(\frac{\pi }{2n},\frac{\pi }{n},\frac{(2n3)\pi }{2n})`$ has the lattice property. The Veech group of the associated surface is $`\mathrm{}(3,n,\mathrm{})`$.

Vorobets proved the lattice property, Ward \[Wrd98, Theorem A\] identified the precise Veech group.

Vorobets shows that the triangles $`\mathrm{T}(1,3,8)`$ and $`\mathrm{T}(2,3,7)`$ do not have the lattice property. For $`\mathrm{T}(1,3,8)`$, it also follows from Ward’s sharp triangles criterion.

### 2.6. Final comments

Other polygons that have been studied include rectangles, squares with a wall, rhombi, L-shaped polygons.

Rational billiards were the primary source of examples for Veech surfaces. They furnished discrete series and some isolated examples, but in all this only gave a finite number of examples in each genus. Other techniques recently provided infinitely many examples in genus two \[Clt, Mcm\].

Samuel Lelièvre
Irmar, Campus de Beaulieu, Université de Rennes 1, 35042 Rennes, France
Telephone: (+33) 223 23 58 55 Fax: (+33) 223 23 67 90
E-mail: samuel.lelievre@univ-rennes1.fr
Web page: http://www.maths.univ-rennes1.fr/~slelievr/