text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of a second kind of light would be a multi-dimensional scientific revolution. It would shake the foundations of modern physics in many ways. It would be experimental evidence of physics beyond the standard theory of particle physics. The standard theory includes the Weinberg-Salam theory from 1967/1968 and quantum chromodynamics from 1973. The observation would require not only that the theory of quantum electrodynamics formulated in 1948/1949 has to be extended. It would challenge also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated in 1927/1928. Furthermore, the new kind of light would violate the relativity principle of special relativity from 1905 and would require a symmetrization of Maxwell’s equations from 1873.

In the second chapter, I will review the ideas which led to my model of magnetic monopoles. The third chapter suggests an experiment to verify the second kind of electromagnetic radiation. In the fourth chapter, I will present the mathematical formalism. The fifth chapter deals with a possible observation of the second kind of electromagnetic radiation by August Kundt in 1885. In the sixth chapter, I will list the many and far-reaching consequences, if this radiation will be confirmed by future experiments.

## 2 The Model

The existence of the second kind of light was predicted theoretically. It can be understood by the following argumentation.

In 1948/1949 Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman introduced quantum electrodynamics. It is the quantum field theory of electric and magnetic phenomena. This theory has one shortcoming. It cannot explain why electric charge is quantized, i.e. why it appears only in discrete units.

In 1931 Dirac  introduced the concept of magnetic monopoles. He has shown that any theory which includes magnetic monopoles requires the quantization of electric charge.

A theory of electric and magnetic phenomena which includes Dirac monopoles can be formulated in a manifestly covariant and symmetrical way if two four-potentials are used. Cabibbo and Ferrari in 1962  were the first to formulate such a theory. It was examined in greater detail by later authors . Within the framework of a quantum field theory one four-potential corresponds to Einstein’s electric photon from 1905 and the other four-potential corresponds to Salam’s magnetic photon from 1966 .

In 1997 I have shown that the Lorentz force between an electric charge and a magnetic charge can be generated as follows . An electric charge couples via the well-known vector coupling with an electric photon and via a new type of tensor coupling, named velocity coupling, with a magnetic photon. This velocity coupling requires the existence of a velocity operator.

For scattering processes this velocity is the relative velocity between the electric charge and the magnetic charge just before the scattering. For emission and absorption processes there is no possibility of a relative velocity. The velocity is the absolute velocity of the electric charge just before the reaction.

The absolute velocity of a terrestrial laboratory was measured by the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation was detected in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson, its dipole anisotropy was detected in 1977 by Smoot, Gorenstein, and Muller . The mean value of the laboratory’s absolute velocity is 371 km/s. It has an annual sinusoidal period because of the Earth’s motion around the Sun with 30 km/s. It has also a daily sinusoidal period because of the Earth’s rotation with 0.5 km/s.

According to my model from 1997  each process that produces electric photons does create also magnetic photons. The cross-section of magnetic photons in a terrestrial laboratory is roughly one million times smaller than that of electric photons of the same energy. The exact value varies with time and has both the annual and the daily period.

As a consequence, magnetic photons are one million times harder to create, to shield, and to absorb than electric photons of the same energy.

The electric-magnetic duality is:

| electric charge |  | magnetic charge |
| --- | --- | --- |
| electric current |  | magnetic current |
| electric conductivity |  | magnetic conductivity |
| electric field strength |  | magnetic field strength |
| electric four-potential |  | magnetic four-potential |
| electric photon |  | magnetic photon |
| electric field constant |  | magnetic field constant |
| dielectricity number |  | magnetic permeability |

The refractive index of an insulator is the square root of the product of the dielectricity number and the magnetic permeability. Therefore it is invariant under a dual transformation. This means that electric and magnetic photon rays are reflected and refracted by insulators in the same way. Optical lenses cannot distinguish between electric and magnetic photon rays.

By contrast, electric and magnetic photon rays are reflected and refracted in a different way by metals. This is because electric conductivity and magnetic conductivity determine the reflection of light and they are not identical. The electric conductivity of a metal is several orders larger than the magnetic conductivity.

## 3 How to Verify the Magnetic Photon Rays

The easiest test to verify/falsify the magnetic photon is to illuminate a metal foil of thickness $`1,\mathrm{},100\mu `$m by a laser beam (or any other bright light source) and to place a detector (avalanche diode or photomultiplier tube) behind the foil. If a single foil is used, then the expected reflection losses are less than 1%. If a laser beam of the visible light is used, then the absorption losses are less than 15%. My model  predicts the detected intensity of the radiation to be

$$f=r(v/c)^4$$
(1)
times the intensity that would be detected if the metal foil were removed and the laser beam would directly illuminate the detector. Here

$$v=v_{sun}+v_{earth}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi t/T_e)\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{ec})+v_{rotation}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi t/T_{rot})\mathrm{cos}(\phi _{eq})$$
(2)
is the absolute velocity of the laboratory. The absolute velocity of the Sun as measured by the dipole anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation is

$$v_{sun}=(371\pm 0.5)\text{km/s}.$$
(3)
The mean velocity of the Earth around the Sun is

$$v_{earth}=30\text{km/s}.$$
(4)
The rotation velocity of the Earth is

$$v_{rotation}=0.5\text{km/s}\mathrm{cos}(\phi ).$$
(5)
The latitude of the dipole with respect to the ecliptic is

$$\phi _{ec}=15^{}.$$
(6)
The latitude of the dipole with respect to the equator (declination) is

$$\phi _{eq}=7^{}.$$
(7)
The latitude of the laboratory is

$$\phi =48^{}$$
(8)
for Strassbourg and Vienna and $`\phi =43^{}`$ for Madison. The sidereal year is

$$T_e=365.24\text{days}.$$
(9)
A sidereal day is

$$T_{rot}=23\text{h}56\text{min}.$$
(10)
The zero point of the time, $`t=0`$, is reached on December 9 at 0:00 local time. The speed of light is denoted by $`c`$. The factor for losses by reflection and absorption of magnetic photon rays of the visible light for a metal foil of thickness $`1,\mathrm{},100\mu `$m is

$$r=0.8,\mathrm{},1.0.$$
(11)
To conclude, my model  predicts the value $`f10^{12}`$. Two experiments have been tried to confirm this prediction. The first one was tried in Vienna/Austria in February 2002. The second one was done in Madison/Wisconsin in March 2002. Both experiments yielded the value $`f10^{15}`$. The result is not yet conclusive as background effects such as stray light cannot yet be excluded with certainty. If the result turns out to be correct, then it has to be explained why it is roughly 1000 times smaller than my prediction.

One possibility is that the prediction $`f10^{12}`$ is strictly valid only for free charges. However, in condensed matter we have interactions of light with the electromagnetic field instead of interactions with free particles. In particle physics, too, we often do not have free charges. For example, the emission of synchrotron radiation occurs when the charged particles are within an external field. This means that the particles are off the mass shell. Here, too, the velocity coupling does not refer to the velocity of a charged particle. This is because the velocity of a particle which is not on the mass shell is not defined. The velocity coupling rather describes the velocity of the entire system, i.e. the centre of mass velocity of the particle and the field. Usually, this velocity is non-relativistic.

Another possibility is that the magnetic photon model has to be modified. Other versions of the magnetic photon model were suggested by Singleton  (where the magnetic photon has nonzero rest mass) and Carneiro  (where all interactions occur via vector coupling and where the photon propagator is more complicated).

## 4 Formalism

Let $`J^\mu =(P,𝐉)`$ denote the electric four-current and $`j^\mu =(\rho ,𝐣)`$ the magnetic four-current. The well-known four-potential of the electric photon is $`A^\mu =(\mathrm{\Phi },𝐀)`$. The four-potential of the magnetic photon is $`a^\mu =(\phi ,𝐚)`$. Expressed in three-vectors the symmetrized Maxwell equations read,

$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`P`$ (12)
$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`\rho `$ (13)
$`\times 𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`𝐣_t𝐁`$ (14)
$`\times 𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`+𝐉+_t𝐄`$ (15)
and the relations between field strengths and potentials are

$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t𝐀\times 𝐚`$ (16)
$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _t𝐚+\times 𝐀.`$ (17)
The Lagrangian for a spin 1/2 fermion field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of rest mass $`m_0`$, electric charge $`Q`$, and magnetic charge $`q`$ within an electromagnetic field can be constructed as follows. By using the tensors

$`F^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu `$ (18)
$`f^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`^\mu a^\nu ^\nu a^\mu `$ (19)
the Lagrangian of the Dirac fermion within the electromagnetic field reads,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }m_0\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (20)
$`Q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }A_\mu q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }a_\mu +Q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }a_\mu +q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }A_\mu .`$
By using the Euler-Lagrange equations we obtain the Dirac equation

$$(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu m_0)\mathrm{\Psi }=(Q\gamma ^\mu A_\mu +q\gamma ^\mu a_\mu Q\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu a_\mu q\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu A_\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(21)
By introducing the four-currents

$`J^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`Q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ (22)
$`j^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }Q\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\sigma ^{\mu \nu }u_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }`$ (23)
the Euler-Lagrange equations yield the two Maxwell equations

$`J^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\nu F^{\nu \mu }=^2A^\mu ^\mu ^\nu A_\nu `$ (24)
$`j^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\nu f^{\nu \mu }=^2a^\mu ^\mu ^\nu a_\nu .`$ (25)
Evidently, the two Maxwell equations are invariant under the $`U(1)\times U^{}(1)`$ gauge transformations

$`A^\mu `$ $``$ $`A^\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (26)
$`a^\mu `$ $``$ $`a^\mu ^\mu \lambda .`$ (27)
Furthermore, the four-currents satisfy the continuity equations

$$0=_\mu J^\mu =_\mu j^\mu .$$
(28)
The electric and magnetic field are related to the tensors above by

$`E^i`$ $`=`$ $`F^{i0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon ^{ijk}f_{jk}`$ (29)
$`B^i`$ $`=`$ $`f^{i0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon ^{ijk}F_{jk}.`$ (30)
Finally, the Lorentz force is

$$K^\mu =Q(F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \varrho \sigma }f_{\varrho \sigma })u_\nu +q(f^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \varrho \sigma }F_{\varrho \sigma })u_\nu ,$$
(31)
where $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \varrho \sigma }`$ denotes the totally antisymmetric tensor.

## 5 Possible Observation of Magnetic Photon Rays

In Strassbourg in 1885, August Kundt  passed sunlight through red glass, a polarizing Nicol, and platinized glass which was covered by an iron layer. The entire experimental setup was placed within a magnetic field. With the naked eye, Kundt measured the Faraday rotation of the polarization plane generated by the transmission of the sunlight through the iron layer. His result was a constant maximum rotation of the polarization plane per length of $`418,000^{}`$/cm or $`1^{}`$ per 23.9nm. He verified this result until thicknesses of up to 210nm and rotations of up to $`9^{}`$.

In one case, on a very clear day, he observed the penetrating sunlight for rotations of up to $`12^{}`$. Unfortunately, he has not given the thickness of this particular iron layer he used. But if his result of a constant maximum rotation per length can be applied, then the corresponding layer thickness was $`290`$nm.

Let us recapitulate some classical electrodynamics to determine the behavior of light within iron. The penetration depth of light in a conductor is

$$\delta =\frac{\lambda }{2\pi \gamma },$$
(32)
where the wavelength in vacuum can be expressed by its frequency according to $`\lambda =1/\sqrt{\nu ^2\epsilon _0\mu _0}`$. The extinction coefficient is

$$\gamma =\frac{n}{\sqrt{2}}\left[1+\left(1+\left(\frac{\sigma }{2\pi \nu \epsilon _0\epsilon _r}\right)^2\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2},$$
(33)
where the refractive index is $`n=\sqrt{\epsilon _r\mu _r}`$. For metals we get the very good approximation

$$\delta \left(\frac{1}{\pi \mu _0\mu _r\sigma \nu }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(34)
The specific resistance of iron is

$$1/\sigma =8.7\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }\text{m},$$
(35)
its permeability is $`\mu _r1`$. For red light of $`\lambda =630`$nm and $`\nu =4.8\times 10^{14}`$Hz we get the penetration depth

$$\delta =6.9\text{nm}.$$
(36)
Only a small fraction of the sunlight can enter the iron layer. Three effects have to be considered. (i) The red glass allows the penetration of about $`\epsilon _150\%`$ of the sunlight only. (ii) Only $`\epsilon _2=2/\pi 64\%`$ of the sunlight can penetrate the polarization filter. (iii) Reflection losses at the surface of the iron layer have to be considered. The refractive index for electric photon light is given by

$$\overline{n}^2=\frac{n^2}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\sigma }{2\pi \epsilon _0\epsilon _r\nu }\right)^2}\right).$$
(37)
For metals we get the very good approximation

$$\overline{n}\sqrt{\frac{\mu _r\sigma }{4\pi \epsilon _0\nu }}.$$
(38)
The fraction of the sunlight which is not reflected is

$$\epsilon _3=\frac{2}{1+\overline{n}}=\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{\mu _r\sigma /(4\pi \epsilon _0\nu )}}$$
(39)
and therefore $`\epsilon _30.13`$ for the system considered. Taken together, the three effects allow only $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _34\%`$ of the sunlight to enter the iron layer.

The detection limit of the naked eye is $`10^{13}`$ times the brightness of sunlight provided the light source is pointlike. For an extended source the detection limit depends on the integral and the surface brightness. The detection limit for a source as extended as the Sun (0.5 diameter) is $`l_d10^{12}`$ times the brightness of sunlight. If sunlight is passed through an iron layer (or foil, respectively), then it is detectable with the naked eye only if it has passed not more than

$$(\mathrm{ln}(1/l_d)+\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon _3))\delta 170\text{nm}.$$
(40)
Reflection losses by haze in the atmosphere further reduce this value.

Kundt’s observation can hardly be explained with classical electrodynamics. Air bubbles within the metal layers cannot explain Kundt’s observation, because air does not generate such a large rotation. Impurities, such as glass, which do generate an additional rotation, cannot completely be ruled out as the explanation. However, impurities are not a likely explanation, because Kundt was able to reproduce his observation by using several layers which he examined at various places.

Quantum effects cannot explain the observation, because they decrease the penetration depth, whereas an increment would be required.

The observation may become understandable if Kundt has observed a second kind of electromagnetic radiation, the magnetic photon rays. I predict their penetration depth to be

$$\delta _m=\delta (c/v)^25\text{mm}.$$
(41)
To learn whether Kundt has indeed observed magnetic photon rays, his experiment has to be repeated.

## 6 Consequences

The observation of magnetic photon rays would be a multi-dimensional revolution in physics. Its implications would be far-reaching.

(1) The experiment would provide evidence of a second kind of electromagnetic radiation. The penetration depth of these magnetic photon rays is roughly one million times greater than that of electric photon light of the same wavelength. Hence, these new rays may find applications in medicine where X-ray and ultrasonic diagnostics are not useful. X-ray examinations include a high risk of radiation damages, because the examination of teeth requires high intensities of X-rays and genitals are too sensible to radiation damages. Examinations of bones and the brain may also become possible.

(2) The experiment would confirm the existence of a new vector gauge boson, Salam’s magnetic photon from 1966. It has the same quantum numbers as Einstein’s electric photon, i.e. spin of one, negative parity, zero rest mass, and zero charge.

(3) A positive result would provide evidence of an extension of quantum electrodynamics which includes a symmetrization of Maxwell’s equations from 1873.

(4) The experiment would provide indirect evidence of Dirac’s magnetic monopoles from 1931 and the explanation of the quantization of electric charge. This quantization is known since Rutherford’s discovery of the proton in 1919.

(5) My model describes both an electric current and a magnetic current, even in experimental situations which do not include magnetic charges. This new magnetic current has a larger specific resistance in conductors than the electric current. It may find applications in electronics.

(6) Dirac noticed in 1931 that the coupling constant of magnetic monopoles is much greater than unity. This raises new questions concerning the perturbation theory, the renormalizability, and the unitarity of quantum field theories.

(7) The intensity of the magnetic photon rays should depend on the absolute velocity of the laboratory. The existence of the absolute velocity would violate Einstein’s relativity principle of special relativity from 1905. It would be interesting to learn whether there exist further effects of absolute motion.

(8) The supposed non-existence of an absolute rest frame was the only argument against the existence of a luminiferous aether. If the absolute velocity does exist, we have to ask whether aether exists and what its nature is.

(9) When in 1925 Heisenberg introduced quantum mechanics, he argued that motion does not exist in this theory. This view is taken also in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated in 1927/1928 by Heisenberg and Bohr. The appearance of a velocity operator in my model challenges this Copenhagen interpretation. Mathematically, the introduction of a velocity (and force) operator means that quantum mechanics has to be described not only by partial but also by ordinary differential equations.

(10) Magnetic photon rays may contribute to our understanding of several astrophysical and high energy particle physics phenomena where relativistic absolute velocities appear and where electric and magnetic photon rays are expected to be created in comparable intensities.

(11) Finally, the other interactions may show similar dualities. The new dual partners of the known gauge bosons would be the magnetic photon, the isomagnetic W- and Z-boson, and the chromomagnetic gluons. In 1999 I argued that the dual partner of the graviton would be the tordion . This boson has a spin of three and is required by Cartan’s torsion theory from 1922 which is an extension of Einstein’s general relativity from 1915.


format: text

text:
# Dynamics of the breakdown of granular clusters

## I introduction

Dissipation of kinetic energy during inelastic collisions in gaseous granular systems has profound consequences SWINNEY ; MUZZIO . One of the most spectacular ones is formation of spatial inhomogeneities GOLD , which drastically contrast with a uniform distribution of molecules or atoms whose dynamics is essentially elastic.

Some time ago Schlichting and Nordmeier presented a simple experiment which demonstrates some consequences of inelasticity of granular systems SCHLICH . They used a container separated into two equal compartments by a wall which has a narrow horizontal slit at a certain height. The container is filled with balls (plastic or metallic) and subjected to vertical shaking. For vigorous shaking the balls distribute equally between two compartments. However, when the shaking is sufficiently mild, a nonsymmetric distribution occurs. In such a case the compartment with majority of balls, due to numerous inelastic collisions, is effectively cooler than the other one. Consequently, less balls are leaving this compartment which stabilizes such an asymmetric distribution of balls. To explain this experiment, Eggers derived a phenomenological equation for the flux $`F(n)`$ of balls leaving a given compartment EGGERS

$$F(n)=Cn^2\mathrm{exp}(Bn^2).$$
(1)
In the above equation $`n`$ is the concentration of balls in a given urn and $`B`$ and $`C`$ are constants which depend on the properties of balls, typical sizes of the system and of parameters of shaking (the constant $`C`$ may be eliminated by an appropriate redefinition of the time scale). In agreement with experiment, eq. (1) predicts for sufficiently large $`B`$ unequal distribution of balls. The above experiment was repeated in the case when the number of compartments $`L`$ was greater than two by van der Meer et al. MEER1 . In such a case formation of unequal distribution of balls is accompanied by strong hysteresis which is in agreement with theoretical analysis MEER2 . Moreover, certain aspects of these phenomena for $`L=2`$ were approached using hydrodynamic equations BREY .

Recently, van der Meer et al. examined the case of $`L>2`$ further MEER3 . In particular, they studied dynamics of configurations (clusters) starting from all balls localized in a single compartment. Using a theoretical model based on eq. (1), they have shown that when shaking is strong enough such a cluster breaks down and diffuses with the anomalous diffusion exponent 1/3 (in the following we refer to this model as MWL). For less vigorous shaking, the cluster remains relatively stable and only after some time it abruptly breaks down. Some of their predictions were confirmed experimentally.

In the framework of the MWL model it is rather difficult to include the effect of fluctuations. Such fluctuations might originate due to for example a finite number of balls and especially close to critical points they might play an important role. In an attempt to take such effects into account a generalization of Ehrenfest’s EHREN  urn model was recently examined in the case $`L=2`$ LIPDROZ . Relative simplicity of the model allows for a detailed study of its various characteristics.

The motivation of the present paper is to re-examine the breakdown of granular clusters using the urn model in the case $`L>2`$. In section II we define the model and present its steady-state phase diagram for $`L=3`$. We also argue that, in analogy to the Potts model in the mean-field limit, there are no continuous transitions for $`L>2`$. In section III we examine dynamics of the breakdown of clusters in a similar way as van der Meer et al. MEER3 . Although qualitatively our results are similar to theirs, in our model the diffusion of the cluster is normal with the exponent 1/2. Moreover, we calculate the size dependence of the lifetime of a cluster $`\tau `$ and show that at the limits of stability it scales as $`N^{1/3}`$. In section IV we present a modified version of the urn model which in the steady state reproduces the flux (1). The diffusion of the broken down cluster is then shown to be anomalous with exponent $`1/3`$, as it was already found MEER3 . It was suggested that essential features of the MWL model are independent on the precise form of the flux (1), as long as it has a single hump MEER3 . On the contrary, our results show that at least the diffusion exponent depends on some details of the flux and not only on its qualitative shape (in our models the flux is also a single hump function). Section V contains our conclusions.

## II Model and its steady-state properties

Our model is a straightforward generalization of the two-urn case LIPDROZ : $`N`$ particles are distributed between $`L`$ urns and the number of particles in $`i`$-th urn is denoted as $`N_i`$ ($`_{i=1}^LN_i=N`$). Urns are connected through slits sequentially: $`i`$-th urn is connected with $`(i1)`$-th and $`(i+1)`$-th. Moreover, periodic boundary conditions are used, i.e., first and $`L`$-th urns are connected. Particles in a given urn (say $`i`$-th) are subject to thermal fluctuations and the temperature $`T`$ of this urn depends on the number of particles in it as:

$$T(n_i)=T_0+\mathrm{\Delta }(1n_i),$$
(2)
where $`n_i`$ is a fraction of the total number of particles in a given urn ($`n_i=N_i/N`$) and $`T_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are positive constants. Equation (2) is the simplest function which reproduces the fact that due to inelastic collisions between particles, their effective temperature decreases as their number in a given urn increases. Next, we define the dynamics of the model as:

1. One of the $`N`$ particles is selected randomly.
2. With probability $`\mathrm{exp}[1/T(n_i)]`$ the selected particle is placed in a randomly chosen neighboring urn, where $`i`$ is the urn of a selected particle.

The above rules implies that the flux of particles leaving $`i`$-th urn is, up to a proportionality constant, given by

$$F(n_i)=n_i\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{T(n_i)}\right],$$
(3)
where $`T(n_i)`$ is defined in (2). Let us notice that the flux (3), similarly to (1), is a single hump function. Having an expression for the flux we can write the equations of motion as:

$$\frac{dn_i}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}F(n_{i1})+\frac{1}{2}F(n_{i+1})F(n_i),$$
(4)
where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$. Steady-state properties of this model can be obtained using similar analysis as in the $`L=2`$ case LIPDROZ  or as for $`L>2`$ but with fluxes given by eq. (1MEER2 . The results of this analysis in the $`L=3`$ case are presented in Fig. 1. In region I and II the symmetric phase ($`n_1=n_2=n_3=1/3`$) is stable. The continuous line in Fig. 1, which locates the limit of stability of this phase, is given by the following equation:

$$T_0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{3}}\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{3}.$$
(5)
This equation has a very similar form to the corresponding equation in the $`L=2`$ case LIPDROZ . Asymmetric solution, where one of the urns has the majority of balls and remaining two urns have only a small equal fraction of balls ($`n_1>n_2=n_3`$), is stable in region II and III. The line separating regions I and II can be determined only numerically as a solution of a transcendental equation, similarly to the $`L=2`$ case LIPDROZ . There is also a third type of solution where two urns contain majority of balls and the third urn has only a small fraction of them ($`n_1=n_2>n_3`$). Such a solution, which has saddle-like stability, exists only in region III. Similar solutions can be found for the MWL model MEER1 ; MEER2 .

An important, qualitative difference with the case $`L=2`$, is that regions I and III are always separated by region II where both symmetric and asymmetric solutions are stable, hence the tricritical point is located at the origin $`T_0=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. It means that a phase transition between these two phases is always accompanied by hysteresis effects. On the other hand in the $`L=2`$ case continuous transitions are possible, which are not accompanied by hysteresis LIPDROZ . Such a behaviour is actually in agreement with experimental data and with MWL model MEER1 .

Has this qualitative difference a more general explanation or is it rather a coincidental property? In our opinion, absence of continuous transitions for $`L>2`$ is a generic property of such systems and at least to some extent could be understood. First, let us notice that the phase transition for $`L=2`$ is a manifestation of the spontaneous symmetry breaking in the system: in certain regime one of the two identical urns is preferentially filled with balls. Such a situation resembles the phase transition in the $`S=1/2`$ Ising model, where below certain temperature the up-down symmetry is broken and the system acquires spontaneous magnetization HUANG . Actually, this analogy can be confirmed more quantitatively. We have shown that for $`L=2`$ and at the critical point the probability distributions has the same moment ratios as in the Ising model in dimension $`d`$ greater than the so-called upper critical dimension ($`d>4`$LIPDROZ2 . Let us notice, that in our model balls are selected randomly which means that this is essentially a mean-field model. Moreover, our model is a dynamical, spaceless model, contrary to the Ising model, which is a lattice equilibrium model. The fact that such different models have some similarities shows that as far as the critical behaviour is concerned what really matters is symmetry. In both cases this is the $`Z_2`$ symmetry which is broken below the critical point.

Pushing this analogy further, we expect that for $`L>2`$ the phase transition in our model should be similar to the phase transition of the $`L`$-state Potts model above the critical dimension WU . In the $`L`$-state Potts model at sufficiently low temperature one of the $`L`$ symmetric ground states is preferentially selected. However, it is well-known that above the upper critical dimension and for $`L>2`$ there are only discontinuous transitions in the Potts model WU . Consequently, the transition in the urn model, and most likely in related models which preserves $`Z_L`$ symmetry of compartments, should be discontinuous.

Let us notice that one can easily break the symmetry of the compartments e.g., changing the boundary conditions, which in our analogy introduces some asymmetry in the Potts model. It is possible that in such a case the system effectively will become similar to the $`L=2`$ system and will exhibit a continuous transition. Finally, we expect that for $`L>3`$ the phase diagram should be topologically similar to the one for $`L=3`$ shown in Fig. 1.

## III Dynamical properties of cluster configurations

In the present section we study certain dynamical properties of cluster configurations. We used Monte Carlo simulation. Since it is rather straightforward, we omit a more detailed description of the numerical implementation of the dynamical rules of our model. Initially, we place all balls in one urn and examine its subsequent evolution. If the parameters $`T_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are such that the system is in region I then such a cluster is unstable and after some time due to fluctuations it breaks down and balls spread throughout all urns. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 which shows the concentration of balls in the urn in which the balls were initially placed. Let us notice that (i) the breakdown is relatively abrupt and during the evolution up to the breakdown the concentration of balls only slightly decreases; (ii) upon approaching the line separating regions I and II the lifetime of the cluster $`\tau `$ increases.

Since in region II the asymmetric state has an infinite lifetime it means that $`\tau `$ must diverge upon approaching this region. This behaviour is seen in Fig. 3. In addition to the three-urn case we also made analogous measurements of $`\tau `$ for $`L=5`$ and 7 and the results are also shown in Fig. 3. Let us notice that results presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are similar to those obtained by van der Meer MEER3 , although they are parametrized by a different variable.

The limit of stability of the asymmetric phase can be regarded as a critical point. Thus, we expect that exactly at this point e.g., the lifetime $`\tau `$ has a power-law divergence $`\tau =N^z`$, and $`z>0`$. Such a behaviour is shown in Fig. 4. From the slope of the straight line, which is a least-square fit to our data we estimate $`z=0.32(3)`$. Let us notice that in the two-urn model at the limits of stability $`\tau `$ exhibits a very similar divergence LIPDROZ . In the case $`L=2`$ more precise calculations were possible strongly suggesting that $`z=1/3`$ which is also consistent with the present three-urn model result. Let us emphasize that because in our model the number of balls is finite, we can study size dependent quantities as shown in Fig. 4. Such calculations would not be possible for models solely based on steady-state equations.

Finally, let us examine the breakdown of a cluster in the many-urn case $`L1`$. In such a case a continuous approach to the MWL model shows that after breaking down, the cluster diffuses with the anomalous exponent $`1/3`$ MEER3 . Results of our simulations are shown in Fig. 5. From these data we conclude that spreading of a cluster occurs with the ordinary exponent 1/2 rather than anomalously. Ordinary diffusion in our model can be also easily explained analytically applying basically the same continuous approach as used in MEER3 . In this approach the set of equations of motion (4) is transformed into a partial differential equation. Then, one immediately realizes that the linear term in front of the exponent in eq. (3) leads to the ordinary diffusion equation. On the other hand, the anomalous diffusion of MWL model can be traced back to the quadratic (in $`n`$) term in the flux in eq. (1). This quadratic term is related with two-particle collisions MEER3 .

## IV The pair model

One can easily construct urn models for which the expression for the flux will have a different form. In particular, redefining the effective temperature (2) and drawing each time a pair of balls we obtain an urn model with the flux of exactly the same form as eq. (1). This dynamics takes into account some of the two particles correlations. It allows us to recover some properties of the MWL model and establish further results.

The model, which we call a pair model, is similar to the previously described one, except that its dynamics is now defined as:

1. Two different balls are selected randomly.
2. If and only if the two balls are in the same urn, with probability $`\mathrm{exp}[Bn_i^2]`$ the selected balls are placed in the same randomly chosen neighboring urn, where $`i`$ is the urn of the selected particles.

One can easily see that the probability that two randomly selected balls belong to the $`i`$-th urn is given as $`\frac{N_i}{N}\frac{N_i1}{N1}`$, which for $`N\mathrm{}`$ becomes $`n_i^2`$. Multiplying $`n_i^2`$ with the transition probability $`\mathrm{exp}[Bn_i^2]`$ we obtain that the flux in the pair model is proportional to eq. (1). It means that as far as the steady-state properties are concerned, the pair model is equivalent to the MWL MEER1 ; MEER2 . In particular for $`L=2`$ one easily obtains the critical value $`B=4`$ for the continuous transition between the symmetric ($`B<4`$) and asymmetric phase ($`B>4`$). For $`L=3`$ one obtains two critical points $`B_1=6.552703411\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_2=9`$. The first one can only be determined numerically. Similarly to Fig. 1, for $`B<B_2`$ the symmetric solution is stable whereas for $`B>B_1`$ the asymmetric solution stable. In the interval $`B[B_1,B_2]`$ both symmetric and asymmetric solutions are stable, which is the interval showing hysteresis with respect to the driving parameter $`B`$.

Qualitatively the dynamical properties of cluster configurations in the pair model are similar to those described in previous section. In particular for $`L=3`$ and $`B=B_1`$, the average lifetime of a cluster $`\tau `$ as a function of the number of balls $`N`$ once more shows a power-law divergence $`\tau =N^z`$, with $`z=0.31(3)`$ suggesting that $`z=1/3`$. It shows a certain universality of this exponent with respect to different dynamical rules.

Finally, Fig. 6 shows the diffusion of the broken down cluster. Since the asymptotic slope of our data is very close to 1/3 we conclude that in this case the diffusion is anomalous, as already predicted by van der Meer et al. who used the continuous approach MEER3 .

The pair model and the model examined in the previous section exhibit qualitatively similar behaviour for most of the physical quantities. The main difference is the diffusion: it is anomalous in the pair model and ordinary in model examined in the previous section. It would be desirable to experimentally examine the nature of diffusion in such systems.

## V Conclusions

We examined two $`L>2`$ versions of the $`L`$-urn model of compartmentalization of vibrated sand. Our models qualitatively recover experimental findings and previous steady-state calculations. In addition, our models take into account fluctuations caused by the finite number of balls. Using symmetry properties, we related them with high-dimensional Potts model and argued that for $`L>2`$ phase transitions in such systems should be discontinuous. Although several quantities exhibit qualitatively a similar behaviour for the two different versions of the model, there are important differences too. In particular, these models predict a different diffusion of a broken-down cluster, which could be either ordinary or anomalous. It shows that the type of diffusion is very sensitive to dynamical rules of the model, and consequently, to the form of the flux.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the project OFES 00-0578 ”COSYC OF SENS”.


text:
# THE WHITE DWARF COOLING SEQUENCE OF THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER MESSIER 4Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with proposal GO-8679

## 1 Introduction

Globular clusters have been the fundamental laboratories for tests of stellar structure theories ever since the work of Sandage (1953). A by-product of such studies is an age determination for the cluster which is of cosmogonical interest by virtue of the large value. The study of the main sequence and giant branches has become a detailed and quantitative field (Stetson, Vandenberg & Bolte 1996; Sarajedini, Chaboyer & Demarque 1997) and the ages thus determined offer a lower limit to the age of the Universe. In contrast, the study of the white dwarfs in globular clusters has progressed much more slowly. Their low luminosities hampered early searches (Richer 1978; Ortolani & Rosino 1986; Richer & Fahlman 1988; Paresce, De Marschi & Ramoniello 1995; Elson et al. 1995). Richer et al. (1995; 1997) reported the first detection of a significant globular cluster white dwarf population in the cluster M4. Here we report the first results of a very deep exposure of the outer field of that study, allowing both the detection of very faint white dwarfs and the removal of background stars and galaxies by virtue of the cluster proper motion.

The motivation for this work is severalfold. The contemporaneous and chemically homogeneous nature of the cluster sample makes it an excellent laboratory to study the physics of white dwarf cooling, just as it has been for main sequence and giant stars. The determination of an age from the white dwarf luminosity function is particularly attractive because it allows a direct comparison, using the same method, between the cluster and the Galactic disk. Furthermore, the internal physics of white dwarfs is considerably different from that of main sequence stars. In particular, the sensitivity of the atmospheric models to metallicity is expected to be unimportant as all elements heavier than helium sink under the influence of the high white dwarf gravity. Thus, a comparison of ages determined from white dwarf and main sequence models offers an excellent test of systematic model uncertainties.

Finally, the continuing interest in the existence of a halo white dwarf population makes the cluster white dwarfs useful as templates to guide searches for similarly old white dwarfs which could potentially contribute to the Galactic dark matter.

## 2 The Cluster White Dwarf Sequence

The data are drawn from Hubble Space Telescope exposures of M4 in programs GO 5461 (cycle 4) and GO 8679 (cycle 9) and are described in detail in the preceding paper, Richer et al. (2002). The photometric solutions are performed by the method of profile fitting. The deep second epoch is used to fix the position centroid for cluster members. The position (in the cluster frame of reference) is then held fixed when determining the magnitude in the (shallower) first epoch data. This allows the detection and measurement of much fainter objects than in Richer et al. (1997). The final sample consists of objects that have been detected in at least three data sets (where the four possible sets are the V and I data at each of the two epochs). Completeness corrections were determined using artificial star tests and require that the added stars be recovered within 0.5 pixels of their original positions and within 0.5 magnitudes of their original input magnitude.

The entire cluster white dwarf cooling sequence is shown in Figure 1. The resulting V-band luminosity function is shown in Figure 2. Also shown is the disk white dwarf luminosity function from Liebert, Dahn & Monet (1988), using the improved photometry of Leggett, Ruiz & Bergeron (1998) and a V-band distance modulus of 12.51. This diagram provides the clearest and most direct evidence of a significant age difference between the Galactic disk and the Galactic halo cluster M4, predicated only on the assumption that white dwarfs cool as they age. While this may not surprise many astronomers, until now such evidence has been remarkably unconvincing (e.g. Carraro, Girardi & Chiosi 1999). While (halo) globular cluster ages have been estimated at $`>10`$ Gyr (Chaboyer et al. 1998; Cassisi et al. 1999; Caretta et al. 2000; Thompson et al. 2001) for some time, age estimates (ignoring, for the moment, white dwarf-based estimates, to which we shall return) for the local Galactic thin disk range from 8-15 Gyr (Ng & Bertelli 1998; Jimenez, Flynn & Kotonova 1998; Liu & Chaboyer 2000; Binney, Dehnen & Bertelli 2000).

Another striking aspect of the M4 luminosity function is the sharp rise in the number counts from $`V26.5`$ to $`V27.5`$. This is the expected characteristic behaviour of the white dwarf population resulting from a single burst of star formation (e.g. Hansen 2001) and is to be contrasted with the more gradual rise and turnover at the faint end expected from a more extended period of star formation.

## 3  Comparison with the models

To obtain a quantitative measure of this age difference, we must turn to theoretical models of white dwarf cooling. A complete parameter study is beyond the scope of a Letter, but we may obtain a first estimate by using the current default set of models. It is also important that we redo the age estimate for the local white dwarfs with the same models and in the same way in order to be consistent.

We shall assume models with carbon/oxygen cores, using the mixtures of Segretain & Chabrier (1993). We shall assume a chemical composition uniform in layers (‘onion-skin model’) due to gravitational sedimentation, with helium surface layers of mass $`M_{\mathrm{He}}10^2M_{\mathrm{wd}}`$. We will consider models both with no surface hydrogen layers and with a hydrogen mass fraction of $`10^4`$ on the surface. The main sequence ages are taken from the models of Hurley, Pols & Tout (2000) and the white dwarf models from Hansen (1999). The main sequence-white dwarf mass relation is that of Wood (1992).

The significant difference in the calculation of the cluster and disk luminosity functions is the choice of initial mass function and star formation history. The star formation rate in the Galactic disk is assumed to be constant and the IMF is assumed to be Salpeter (slope $`\alpha `$=2.35). For M4, we have assumed the star formation is a single burst and the mass function (in the white dwarf progenitor range) slope is $`\alpha `$=1.05, based on comparing the white dwarf number count with the main sequence counts in our field (see Richer et al. 2002). The derived age is not sensitive to the value of $`\alpha `$ in the range 0.7 to 1.1.

The other potentially significant uncertainty is the fraction ($`f_H`$) of white dwarfs that cool with hydrogen atmospheres versus those that cool with helium atmospheres. For the local Galactic disk, this fraction is estimated to be $`f_H0.5`$–0.7 (Sion 1984; Greenstein 1986; Bergeron, Ruiz & Leggett 1997). However, the origin of this dichotomy is not well understood (see Bergeron, Ruiz & Leggett 1997), so we will fit for two parameters in our luminosity function, $`f_H`$ and $`T_{gc}`$, the age. The result is shown in Figure 3. We find an age of $`T_{gc}=12.7\pm 0.7`$ Gyr (2$`\sigma `$), or a lower limit of 12 Gyr. The age determination is not sensitive to $`f_H`$ as long as $`f_H>0.5`$. This is easily understood because helium atmosphere white dwarfs cool very rapidly after ages $`5`$ Gyr and the best-fit pure helium atmosphere luminosity functions are a very poor fit to the data. As noted above, the artificial star tests used to determine the incompleteness fraction incorporated constraints on both positional recovery and magnitude accuracy. However, the formal error bars do not include systematic model uncertainties beyond the most important one (the parameter $`f_H`$). These will be addressed in a future publication. Figure 4 shows a direct comparison between the data and three theoretical luminosity functions (multiplied by the estimated incompleteness function) for ages of 10, 12.5 and 15 Gyr.

The error budget in most globular cluster age determinations is dominated by the distance uncertainty (e.g. Bolte & Hogan 1995). We shall discuss the influence of this in detail in a subsequent publication, but we note that we have used the distance and reddening determined by Richer et al. (1997) using subdwarf main sequence fitting. Preliminary investigations show that changes of 0.2 magnitudes in the distance modulus (in either direction) do not change the lower bound of the age determination, although the value of the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic (which is $`1`$ per degree of freedom for our best fit models) does become worse. We attribute this robustness to the fact that we are fitting the complete cooling function, rather than trying to identify a particular localised feature.

We have performed the same kind of analysis (allowing the fraction $`f_H`$ to vary) on the Galactic disk luminosity function of Liebert, Dahn & Monet (1988) but using the improved photometry of Leggett, Bergeron & Ruiz (1998). The resulting disk age is $`7.3\pm 1.5`$ Gyr. The low age is consistent with the fact that the faintest luminosity bins are dominated by helium atmosphere white dwarfs, which cool faster than hydrogen atmosphere dwarfs (for a detailed discussion see Hansen 1999). It is also worth noting that the age will increase if the Luyten survey is incomplete at the faint end. Recent tests indicate that this is not a concern (Monet et al 2000). This result suggests a significant age difference between the formation of the stellar halo of the Galaxy and of the formation of the stars in the local Solar neighbourhood.

We should note that two other determinations of the Galactic disk luminosity function (Oswalt et al. 1996; Knox et al. 1999) produce a more gradual cutoff than the Liebert et al. sample, and consequently lead to larger ages (8 – 12 Gyr). However, the objects in these samples do not have published individual atmospheric composition determinations. The resultant uncertainty in the bolometric corrections allows a large range of age estimates. Thus we favour the luminosity function of Leggett et al. (1998) in our age determination.

## 4 Discussion

We find an age for the globular cluster M4 of $`12.7\pm 0.7`$ Gyr using the white dwarf cooling sequence and the models of Hansen (1999). This method is completely independent of the main sequence turnoff age method, which yields an average age of $`13.2\pm 1.5`$ Gyr for the metal poor globular clusters (Chaboyer 2001). Our age for M4 is also in excellent agreement with a third very different stellar chronometer, namely the nuclear decay measurements of uranium and thorium, which yields $`12.5\pm 3`$ Gyr for a metal-poor halo star (Cayrel et al. 2001).

Using the same method and models on the Liebert et al. (1988) and Leggett et al. (1998) data for the Galactic disk yields a local disk age $`7.3\pm 1.5`$ Gyr. This implies a delay $`>3`$ Gyr between the formation of the Galactic halo and the stars of the local Solar neighbourhood. Liu & Chaboyer (2000) find a similar age difference between the local metal-rich Hipparcos stars and the thick disk globular cluster 47 Tuc.

To place these results in a cosmogonical context, we note that calculations of the self-regulated gravitational settling of an initially hot protodisk show delays of 4-6 Gyr before stars begin to form in a true thin disk (Burkert, Truran & Hensler 1992). Thus, our results find a natural explanation in this picture, where the globular clusters accompany the formation of the Galactic halo, infalling gas settles into a hot, extended protodisk which produces a lower level of star formation for several Gyr until the gas has cooled sufficiently to form a true thin disk and begin star formation in earnest. It is the latter population which we then identify with the local white dwarf luminosity function.

This expectation can also be translated into cosmological terms by asking at what redshift we expect true disk galaxies to form? We will adopt the current best fit (flat) cosmological model in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_0=70\mathrm{kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The total age is then 14 Gyr, which is consistent with the prompt formation of M4 at $`3\sigma `$. At $`1\sigma `$, we find a delay of at least 0.9 Gyr, and the best fit age of 12.7 Gyr suggests formation at $`z6`$. For the Galactic disk, an age $`<9`$ Gyr requires formation at $`z<1.5`$. Current observations are approaching this limit (Vogt et al. 1997; Van Dokkum & Stanford 2001) and the evidence for large velocity widths in quasar absorption line studies (Prochaska & Wolfe 1997) would exceed it, although there are other potential explanations in this case (Wolfe & Prochaska 2000). In this scenario then, the epoch ($`z3`$) marked by the appearance of starbursting galaxies and galactic outflows (e.g. Shapley et al. 2001; Frye, Broadhurst & Benitez 2001) is associated with the intermediate period in which the hot protogalactic disk is cooling and forming stars, and before true ‘thin disk’ star formation begins (this may also be the epoch of bulge formation).

It is interesting to speculate whether the high velocity white dwarf sample of Oppenheimer et al. (2001) is the missing white dwarf population from this intermediate epoch. There is considerable debate about whether it is indeed a halo sample as originally claimed (Oppenheimer et al. 2001; Koopmans & Blandford 2001) or a thick disk tracer (Reid, Sahu & Hawley 2001). Hansen (2001) has also argued that the age distribution suggests a more extended star formation history than the short burst expected from a true halo population. In the latter case, the luminosity function should look quite similar to that of M4 (modulo differences in the IMF). In particular, the sharp rise of the M4 data at the same point as the disk LF starts to fall off illuminates the need to go well beyond the limits of the disk LF before making quantitative estimates of the halo white dwarf fraction.

RMR & MS acknowledge support from proposal GO-8679, and BH from a Hubble Fellowship HF-01120.01, which were provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. MR also acknowledges the hospitality of the University of British Columbia, where some of this research was done. The research of HBR & GGF is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. HBR extends his appreciation to the Killam Foundation and the Canada Council through a Canada Council Killam Fellowship. BKG acknowledges the support of the Australian Research Council through its Large Research Program A00105171.


text:
# A Gamma-Ray Burst Trigger Toolkit

## 1 Introduction

The goal of the next generation of gamma-ray burst missions such as Swift and EXIST is to detect and localize the largest number of bursts possible. This will be accomplished both by increasing the detector’s effective area or decreasing its background, and by increasing the sensitivity of the trigger system. Increasing the sensitivity through hardware can be expensive, often requiring a larger and heavier detector. However, increasing the sensitivity through a more sophisticated trigger is relatively inexpensive, particularly with the availability of more powerful flight-qualified CPUs. But different triggers respond to different burst properties, and the relevant question which I address is how much fainter are the bursts at threshold for the more sophisticated triggers relative to the previous generation of triggers. I reference different triggers to a fiducial trigger; normalizing the detection rate for this fiducial trigger permits estimates of the detection rate for proposed detector and triggers systems. However, the actual detection rate will depend on the burst population, which will be unknown in unexplored regions of parameter space; consequently an estimate of a proposed detector’s capabilities should state the assumed burst population.

In a count rate trigger, the detector triggers if the number of counts accumulated over a given energy band $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ increases by a statistically significant amount over the expected number of background counts. The expected number of background counts is calculated by accumulating counts over non-burst time intervals. Current triggers (e.g., for HETE-II and Swift) estimate trends in the background, which improves the accuracy of the background determination, but does not increase the sensitivity. The trigger threshold can be converted into the burst’s peak flux (photons s-1 cm-1) using the Instrument Response Function (IRF) and a typical burst spectrum. A more sophisticated trigger may result in a nominally much greater sensitivity—numerically smaller peak flux at the trigger threshold—than a simpler trigger. However, the peak flux values measured by the different triggers will be over different energy bands and will be averaged over different timescales; since bursts have temporal and spectral structure, they have very different peak fluxes when averaged over these energy and time bins. Consequently, greater quantitative sensitivity does not mean that proportionately fainter bursts are detected. The relevant question is how much fainter are bursts at threshold for one trigger relative to another trigger.

Here I consider only single-stage count rate trigger systems where an increase in a single count rate time series suffices. Thus, I do not consider the sensitivity of triggers where the count rate trigger must be corroborated by a point source in an imaging system (as for Swift); the second stage decreases the overall sensitivity since the imaging system will reject events that triggered the count rate trigger system. Nor do I consider the sensitivity for triggers based on multiple detectors (e.g., the WFC and GRBM on BeppoSAX—Frontera et al. 2000).

The sensitivity of different trigger systems can be compared by reference to a fiducial system. Furthermore, normalizing the rate for the fiducial trigger permits the estimate of a mission’s detection rate, which is required both to forecast the achievable scientific results and to plan mission operations (e.g., telemetry or onboard memory requirements). I use the results of the Burst And Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), which provided a very large burst sample accumulated with a well-understood trigger system

I first present in §2 a fiducial trigger system normalized by the BATSE results. Next, in §3 I formulate a methodology for evaluating the sensitivity of different triggers relative to the fiducial trigger, which I then apply to triggers with different time (§4) and energy (§5) bins. A significant issue is the population of soft bursts (or X-ray flashes) that a detector sensitive at low energy might detect (§6). The results are summarized in §7.

## 2 BATSE Fiducial

BATSE consisted of 8 modules, each with two different detectors (Fishman et al. 1989): a large (2025 cm2), flat Large Area Detector (LAD); and a smaller (127 cm2), thicker Spectroscopy Detector (SD). The detectors relevant to burst detection, the LADs were oriented on the faces of a regular octahedron. BATSE as a whole triggered when two or more LADs triggered. The standard LAD trigger required at least a 5.5$`\sigma `$ increase in the counts in the 50–300 keV band accumulated on timescales of 0.064, 0.256 or 1.024 s. Note that this trigger criteria had to be met by the second most brightly illuminated detector, which was considered by the BATSE team in calculating their instrument’s sensitivity.

The revised 4B catalog (Paciesas et al. 1999) found that BATSE was 0.5 and $`0.82`$ complete for peak fluxes of 0.25 and 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1, respectively, accumulated in 1.024 s time bins over the 50–300 keV band; I use 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1 as BATSE’s threshold. Note that the conversion from the observed peak count rate to the peak flux assumes a spectral shape. The peak flux may have occurred during a gap in the burst lightcurve, and consequently bursts with such gaps cannot be used for studies of the peak flux distribution. Thus the distributions the BATSE team published after they improved the sky exposure calculation (e.g., Paciesas et al.) used only bursts without data gaps. However, such bursts occurred, and must be included in normalizing the burst rate. In the 4B catalog there are $`750`$ bursts without data gaps above 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1. The sky exposure for the 4B catalog while BATSE triggered on the 50–300 keV band was 1.73 sky-years. W. Paciesas (2002, personal communication) estimates that $``$20% of the bursts have data gaps. Consequently there are $`550`$ bursts per year per sky above the threshold of 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1. This is consistent with the estimate of $`666`$ bursts per year per sky above BATSE’s threshold (Paciesas et al. 1999) after accounting for the bursts BATSE triggered on with a peak flux below 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1 (Paciesas, 2002, personal communication). At this threshold peak flux, the BATSE cumulative intensity distribution is approximately a power law with an index of -0.8.

Was BATSE’s threshold indeed at a peak flux of 0.3 ph cm-2 s-1? BATSE’s sensitivity can be estimated analytically. I attribute most of the background below 300 keV to the X-ray Background (using the formulation of Gruber 1992), and use the BATSE LAD effective area curve (Fishman et al. 1989) to estimate the counts from the burst. I find in the 50–300 keV band a 5.5$`\sigma `$ threshold of $``$0.17-0.18 ph cm-2 s-1 on axis. The least sensitive case is when the burst is along the normal to one detector and thus $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1/3`$ for the second most brightly illuminated detector; the resulting threshold flux is 0.525 ph cm-2 s-1. The most sensitive case is when the burst falls directly between the normal to 2 detectors, for which $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.8165`$, giving a peak flux of 0.21 ph cm-2 s-1. Based on the symmetry of the octahedron, there is more solid angle near the most sensitive case than near the least sensitive case. Additional complications that are not modelled include the splash off the Earth’s atmosphere and off of the rest of CGRO, both of which increased the signal for a given burst flux. Thus the BATSE team’s threshold distribution curve is reasonable.

## 3 Trigger Sensitivity

Assume the number of background counts accumulated on a time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ over an energy range $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is $`B(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$. Here I consider triggers that only use contiguous accumulation times. The burst signal—the increase in the count rate resulting from the burst—is $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$. Both $`B`$ and $`S`$ are the counts the detector assigns to the range of energy channels labelled $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, i.e., $`B`$ and $`S`$ result from folding the burst’s spectrum through the detector’s response. Thus the nominal $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ will correspond to somewhat different actual energy ranges for different detectors based on the detectors’ energy response. I do not consider the apparent increase in $`B`$ that can occur when burst flux is included in the estimate of $`B`$ if the burst rises slowly before the peak flux. The significance of $`S`$ is

$$\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)=S(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)/\sqrt{B(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)}.$$
(1)
Since $`B(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ is determined primarily by the design of the detector (although there may also be a dependency on time variable particle fluxes, internal activation, etc.), specifying the threshold value of $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma _0`$, sets the minimum value $`S_0(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ that triggers the detector. This value of $`S_0`$ is used as a measure of the detector’s sensitivity.

However, $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ is a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for a given burst, and thus the threshold bursts for triggers using different sets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ are not fainter in proportion to the threshold values $`S_0`$ for the different sets. Therefore, I compare the significance for a given set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ to the significance for a fiducial set $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f`$ for a given burst,

$$R(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E;\mathrm{\Delta }t_f,\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)=\frac{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)}{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }t_f,\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)}=\frac{S(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)}{S(\mathrm{\Delta }t_f,\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)}\sqrt{\frac{B(\mathrm{\Delta }t_f,\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)}{B(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)}}.$$
(2)
$`R`$ is the factor by which a given burst could have been fainter and still be detected by a trigger with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ relative to a trigger with the fiducial set $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f`$. Clearly, a more sensitive detector and trigger system has a greater value of $`R`$, and for a fixed threshold $`\sigma _0`$, $`S_01/R`$. Since $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ varies from burst to burst, $`R`$ will vary from burst to burst, resulting in a distribution of $`R`$ values for the burst ensemble.

Therefore, to estimate the detection rate for a detector with a prescribed trigger system the properties of the burst ensemble must be known or assumed. Conversely, assumptions about the prevalence of bursts with spectral or temporal properties to which previous trigger systems were relatively insensitive (e.g., the rate of bursts with $`E_p=10`$ keV—$`E_p`$ is the peak of the $`E^2N_E\nu F_\nu `$ spectrum—to which BATSE’s 50–300 keV trigger was insensitive) will have a large effect on the estimated burst rate for trigger systems with very different sensitivities. Consequently the assumptions about the burst population must accompany any estimate of a detector’s burst detection rate.

Burst samples are often defined by intensities related to the trigger because the completeness of the observed intensity distribution is understood. For example, the BATSE intensity distribution was usually presented as log $`N`$-log $`P`$, where $`P`$ was the peak flux in the usual BATSE $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=50`$–300 keV over one of the three values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The statistical study of burst samples accumulated by detectors with complicated trigger systems with many values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ should nonetheless characterize the bursts with a simple definition of the intensity, such as the peak flux over a single set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. For statistical analysis it may be necessary to consider only those bursts above a threshold value of the intensity chosen to characterize the bursts, perhaps discarding a large fraction of the detected bursts.

## 4 Sensitivity to Temporal Structure

Here I am concerned only with the dependence on the accumulation time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and therefore I drop the explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Note that the dependencies on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ are not separable since burst light curves differ by energy band. Next, I assume that the background does not vary significantly over the burst, and therefore $`B\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ ($`B`$ and $`S`$ are the number of background and source counts accumulated over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$). Consequently $`\sqrt{B(\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)/B(\mathrm{\Delta }t)}=(\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)^{1/2}`$. The burst counts $`S`$ are characterized by two extremes. The burst may be a pulse much shorter than both $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$ and therefore $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t)/S(\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)1`$. Alternatively, the burst may be flat-topped with a peak count rate that is constant over a time greater than both $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$, and consequently $`S(\mathrm{\Delta }t)/S(\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)=\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$. Thus $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }t;\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)`$ is bracketed by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{\Delta }t_f)^{\pm 1/2}`$. A trigger with a different $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be either more or less sensitive than the fiducial trigger!

One can use a very large number of accumulation times, not just BATSE’s $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.064`$, 0.256 and 1.024 s. Note that BATSE used consecutive non-overlapping time accumulation bins, and thus the registration of the burst with respect to these time bins determined whether a weak burst triggered the detector; the peak with the maximum count rate may have fallen into either one or two accumulation bins. The “ultimate” trigger would use accumulations over all possible overlapping accumulation times. The maximum sensitivity from this “ultimate” trigger is the maximum value of $`R`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

To determine the distribution of $`R`$ for realistic burst light curves, I use the BATSE 0.064 s resolution light curves for channels 2+3 ($`50`$–300 keV) from all the LADs that triggered; these light curves are available at ftp://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/compton/data/batse/ ascii\_data/64ms/. The burst sample consists of the 100 BATSE bursts for which the data are available with the largest values of $`P_{0.064}`$, the peak flux on the 0.064 s time scale. The bursts in this sample are far above BATSE’s detection threshold; they are chosen to represent fiducial light curves. Of course, systematic differences between the brightest and dimmest bursts are ignored. I fit a linear background to these light curves, and then compute $`\sigma `$ for all possible values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that are multiples of 0.064 s. Figure 1 shows the distribution of maximum $`R`$ using the most sensitive BATSE trigger; in this case I calculate the peak value of $`R`$ with each of BATSE’s three values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (0.064, 0.256, and 1.024 s) as the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f`$ and use the minimum resulting value of $`R`$. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the peak value of $`R`$ with the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_f=1.024`$ s. As can be seen, on average the “ultimate” trigger does not increase the significance by large factors over BATSE. The fiducial “BATSE” trigger in these two figures is somewhat more sensitive than was the actual trigger because I consider all possible overlapping 0.256 and 1.024 s time bins whereas BATSE used consecutive, non-overlapping time bins. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the accumulation times $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ that maximize $`R`$. This study uses trigger times with a resolution of 0.064 s; trigger times with a much greater resolution, e.g., 0.01 s, will greatly increase the sensitivity to very short bursts, and will increase the sensitivity to all bursts slightly since the accumulation time can be better tailored to the actual light curves. However, note that there are few bursts in my study for which the sensitivity is greatest at the smallest possible accumulation time of 0.064 s. Thus a much smaller trigger time of 0.01 s may not detect a significantly larger number of bursts.

While choosing an optimum set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ values is not a goal of this study, Figure 3 suggests that including triggers with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ greater than 1 s could increase the burst detection rate significantly. In particular, $`1/2`$ the bursts have their greatest detection significance for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>4`$ s. However, triggers with very long values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ may be compromised by trends in the background. A trigger with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<0.064`$ s would be more sensitive to short bursts than BATSE’s shortest trigger of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.064`$ s. Thus triggers spaced logarithmically with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between $`0.01`$ s and $`20`$ s should be considered. Note that Figure 3 uses strong bursts in the 50–300 keV band; the lightcurves will be systematically different in other energy bands and for fainter bursts in the same energy band.

## 5 Sensitivity to Energy Band

Next I consider the energy band dependence, and hold the accumulation time constant. Consequently, I drop the explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Thus

$$R(\mathrm{\Delta }E;\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)=\frac{S(\mathrm{\Delta }E)}{S(\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)}\sqrt{\frac{B(\mathrm{\Delta }E_f)}{B(\mathrm{\Delta }E)}}.$$
(3)
The background is usually dominated by the X-ray background below $`200`$ keV. The sensitivity involves a competition between the burst spectrum and the diffuse background. Since the spectrum changes from burst to burst, the trigger energy range $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ that maximizes $`R`$ varies.

As an example, I calculate $`R`$ for all possible energy bands with edges at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, 300 and 500 keV, i.e., 10–20 keV, 10–30 keV, 20–30 keV, etc. The fiducial energy band is 50–300 keV, which was BATSE’s usual trigger band. For the background I use the X-ray background and an approximate internal background that dominates above $`250`$ keV. I parameterize the burst spectrum with the traditional four parameter GRB spectrum (Band et al. 1993). I assume the detector’s efficiency is constant as a function of energy. $`R`$ is a function of the three parameters which determine the shape of the GRB function—two spectral indices and a break energy. Figure 4 shows the dependence of $`R`$ on $`E_p`$ (the energy at which $`E^2N_E\nu F_\nu `$ peaks) for four sets of the power law indices. As can be seen, only for low values of $`E_p`$ is the maximum $`R`$ significantly larger than for the fiducial energy band. The sensitivity also increases for high values of $`E_p`$ because the detector efficiency is assumed to remain high at high energy, which is usually not the case (e.g., for Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride, the detector material for Swift and EXIST, although the proposed EXIST detectors will be thicker, and thus be more efficient at high energy than Swift; EXIST’s large area of active CsI shielding will increase its high energy response). A more negative value of the high energy spectral index $`\beta `$ (i.e., softer high energy spectrum) results in a greater sensitivity to low values of $`E_p`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ extends to low energy because there are relatively few photons in the fiducial band.

## 6 Low Values of $`E_p`$

The efficacy of lowering the low energy end of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ depends on the distribution of $`E_p`$ for the bursts’ peak flux. The spectral evolution studies (e.g., Ford et al. 1995) found that $`E_p`$ is greatest when the count rate peaks early in the burst, the part of the light curve that usually triggers detectors. Preece et al. (2000) fit 5500 time-resolved spectra from 156 bursts with various spectral models, including the GRB model (Band et al. 1993). The $`E_p`$ distribution in this study peaks between 200 and 250 keV with very few values below 100 keV. This study used LAD spectra starting at 25 keV, and thus should have been able to fit $`E_p`$ values lower than were observed. The Preece et al. sample fit spectra from different parts of the burst, not just the peak, and the spectra from the peak often were accumulated over long periods (so that the spectra had a sufficient number of counts). Thus the Preece et al. distribution underestimates the $`E_p`$ of the peak flux. As an aside, the distributions of the low and high energy spectral indices peak at $`\alpha 0.8`$ and at $`\beta 2.3`$, respectively. Similarly, Mallozzi et al. (1995) fit the spectra accumulated over the entire burst for $`400`$ bursts; the $`E_p`$ for these spectra are lower than the $`E_p`$ of peak flux. Dimmer bursts have lower $`E_p`$; nonetheless, the average for the dimmest 1/5 of the bursts is $`E_p175`$, and only $`15`$% of the bursts in this dimmest group had $`E_p<80`$ keV.

On the other hand Ginga observed burst spectra that were significantly softer than those found by BATSE; 13 out of 22 bursts analyzed by Strohmayer et al. (1998) had $`E_p<80`$ keV. The discrepancy between the BATSE and Ginga results has never been explained. Both Ginga and BATSE triggered on the same energy range, and thus should have selected the same burst population. Since the Ginga detectors were much smaller than BATSE’s LADs, the bursts Ginga studied were drawn from the bright end of BATSE’s burst distribution. Ginga had a proportional counter sensitive to $`2`$ keV, whereas BATSE’s spectra extended down only to $`18`$ keV; thus Ginga would have been able to detect low energy rollovers to which BATSE would have been insensitive. However, if many bursts are as soft as Ginga observed, BATSE would have seen many steep power law spectra, but did not. In addition, BATSE consisted of 8 detectors of two different types while Ginga had only one low energy detector. The burst direction relative to BATSE was known, while the burst direction was generally unknown for Ginga.

Preece et al. (1996) calibrated the DISCSP, the lowest energy discriminator channel for BATSE’s SD detectors, providing an additional energy channel just below the SHERB spectra, the SD spectra resulting from pulse height analysis. They performed joint fits between the DISCSP (with energies in the 5–20 keV range, depending on the gain setting in effect at the time of the burst) and the SHERB data. They also compared the observed count rate in this DISCSP discriminator channel to the prediction from fits to the SHERB spectrum. While both data types resulted from the same detector, the two data types used different electronics. In 12 out of 86 bursts the observed DISCSP count rate was $`>5\sigma `$ higher than the prediction; the difference between the observed and predicted count rate was attributed to a low energy excess, and not a softer spectrum. The higher energy SHERB spectra were well-fit by the “GRB” function (Band et al. 1993) with $`E_p>100`$ keV. It should be noted that this excess resulted from the comparison of two different data types, which is always difficult, and from integrations over the entire burst. Observing this excess in the same data type would confirm its reality.

Frontera et al. (2000) performed spectral fits to the WFC (2–26 keV) and GRBM (40–700 keV) data for 8 bursts observed by BeppoSAX. Each burst was broken into a number of time segments. In 7 out of the 8 bursts the fit to the time segment with the peak flux in the GRBM band provided only a lower limit to $`E_p`$ which was greater than 170 keV; in four cases $`E_p>700`$ keV. Only GRB980425 had $`E_p=68\pm 40`$ keV at the peak. The bursts in this sample had to have significant flux in both the WFC and GRBM detectors, which introduces complicated selection effects. Nonetheless, this sample does not suggest a large population of bright soft gamma-ray bursts.

The newly-identified X-ray Flashes (XRFs—Heise et al. 2001) are a population of soft transients which may be related to the classical gamma-ray bursts (Kippen et al. 2002). These XRFs are detected in BeppoSAX’s WFC but not the GRBM; Kippen et al. found that 9 of the 10 XRFs which could have been observed by BATSE had detectable flux in the untriggered BATSE data. As noted above, dimmer bursts are softer (Mallozzi et al. 1995), but as a group, the XRFs have smaller $`E_p`$ values than predicted by the $`E_p`$-peak flux correlation. Of course, the XRFs are X-ray selected (by the WFC), and a bias towards X-ray richness is expected. The physical question is whether the XRFs have the same origin as the classical bursts; the operational question is the number of bursts or XRFs a sensitive detector with a low energy trigger band $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ would detect.

HETE-2’s 6–400 keV FREGATE detector demonstrates with a single detector the trend indicated by previous missions (Barraud et al. 2002). Bright bursts have high $`E_p`$ values and small X-ray to gamma ray ratios while faint bursts have low $`E_p`$ and are X-ray rich; the trend appears to be continuous between classical bursts and XRFs. While Barraud et al. do not suspect an inconsistency between their results and Ginga’s, the bright soft bursts reported by Ginga are absent from their data. FREGATE triggers on energy bands $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ that extend as low as 6 keV, and therefore should be more sensitive to bright soft bursts than was Ginga.

In conclusion, the BATSE, BeppoSAX and FREGATE observations are inconsistent with the fraction of bright soft bursts observed by Ginga. The BATSE SD low energy discriminator suggests that there is an additional soft component. The BeppoSAX detections of XRFs indicate there is a population of faint soft transients. FREGATE shows a continuous trend from bright classical gamma ray-rich bursts to faint X-ray rich XRFs. Therefore sensitive low energy detectors may detect large numbers of XRFs.

## 7 Summary

More sophisticated triggers can increase the sensitivity of a detector system. Here I consider count rate triggers, where a statistically significant increase in the count rate triggers the detector. The proposed triggers use a variety of accumulation times $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, energy bands $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and background rate estimation methods.

Traditionally (e.g., for BATSE) the background was assumed to be constant and equal to the average over a period of time. More sophisticated triggers (e.g., for Swift) attempt to estimate trends in the background by considering the background over various blocks of time. These more complicated background calculations should increase the accuracy of the background estimates, but not the nominal sensitivity of the trigger.

Here I analyze triggers that use contiguous accumulation times and energy bands. Greater sensitivity might be gained by excluding the energies of prominent background lines, or by using the peaks of the highly variable burst lightcurves (e.g., using Bayesian blocks to isolate high flux periods); however, I do not consider such triggers. The most sensitive triggers I consider use all possible values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

A detector’s threshold peak flux will differ for different sets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. These peak flux values will be the averages over these $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Because bursts have highly variable lightcurves, and evolving spectra, a burst’s peak flux for one set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ will not be equal to that for another set. As a concrete example, a trigger’s threshold peak flux is generally proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{1/2}`$; thus the threshold peak flux for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=4`$ s will be 1/2 that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s. However, if the burst is less than 1 s long, then the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=4`$ s trigger will average the burst over 4 s and will consider the burst to have a peak flux 1/4 that of the peak flux averaged over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s. Thus the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=4`$ s trigger will have a nominal sensitivity twice as good as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s trigger, but will trigger on short bursts only half as faint as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s trigger!

Multiple values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ complicate the definition of complete statistical samples. Of course, only samples that describe bursts with the same intensity parameter (e.g., peak flux averaged over a particular set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) should be compared. Statistical samples may require a threshold value of the chosen intensity parameter, resulting in the exclusion of a large fraction of the detected bursts. The purpose of missions with complicated triggering systems is to detect a larger number of bursts, not to construct a single complete statistical sample.

To quantify the relative sensitivities of different sets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, I reference these sensitivities to the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1.024 s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$=50–300 keV. Estimates of the detection rate of a detector and trigger system can be estimated from these relative sensitivities and the BATSE-observed burst rate of $`550`$ bursts per sky-year at a peak flux of 0.3 photons cm-2 s-1 in this fiducial trigger band. Using the lightcurves of the 100 brightest BATSE bursts shows that using a trigger time which is any multiple of 0.064 s would have permitted BATSE to detect bursts a factor of 1.3 fainter. While the burst photon flux increases as the low end of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is pushed down to 10 keV, the photon flux of the diffuse background increases even more rapidly, and thus only bursts with very soft spectra with a paucity of photons in the higher energy trigger band will benefit from the lowering the low end of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. XRFs are a population of faint soft X-ray transients that sensitive low energy detectors should detect.

Finally, the predicted burst detection rate of a new detector and trigger system depends on the assumed burst population, and estimates justifying a proposed detector should specify the burst population used to model the detection rate. An actual detection rate significantly lower than the prediction should not be regarded as a failure of the mission, but as a discovery about the burst population.

I would like to thank M. Briggs, E. Fenimore, N. Gehrels, J. Grindlay, M. Kippen, J. Norris, W. Paciesas, and R. Preece for discussions and comments upon this work.


text:
# AAT/WFI observations of the Extragalactic H I Cloud HIPASS J1712-64

## 1 Introduction

All-sky HI surveys have found significant numbers of High Velocity Clouds (HVCs). Although various scenarios have been invoked to explain the disparate properties of the ensemble of HVCs, one population in particular, the isolated compact HVCs, remains a possible candidate for the continuing rain of material accreting on to the Milky Way and other Local Group galaxies (e.g.Braun & Burton 1999; Blitz et al. 1999; Sembach et al. 2002), as predicted by models of hierarchical structure formation (e.g. Klypin et al. 1999).

The goal of the current market leader, the HI Parkes All-Sky Survey (HIPASS), is to map out the distribution of HI gas in the local universe, providing an accurate map of the HVC distribution at finer resolution and to better sensitivity levels than obtained previously.

Recently, Kilborn et al. (2000) announced the detection of an isolated compact HI cloud, HIPASS J1712-64, with a systemic velocity of $``$450 km s-1. Transforming to the reference frame of the Local Group, J1712-64’s velocity is $``$240 km s-1; which, assuming the cloud is extragalactic, places it at a distance of $``$3Mpc (H=75 km s-1 Mpc-1). Kilborn et al (2000) provided further evidence for this conclusion using optical imaging of J1712-64, with the goal of detecting a stellar component. To limits of $`R19.2`$ and $`B19.8`$, no overdensity of stellar sources were detected in the vicinity of J1712-64. However, at a distance of 3 Mpc, the brightest putative asymptotic giant branch (AGB) or red giant branch stars (RGB) typically found in nearby dwarf galaxies would be at $`R`$ magnitudes of $``$23–24 well below the limit of their optical data. Any unresolved low surface brightness signature due to fainter stars would also be close to their limiting surface brightness for detection, making the null optical result somewhat ambiguous.

In an effort to acquire significantly deeper optical imaging we imaged the region around J1712-64 with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) mosaic camera at the AAT. This paper presents the new, deep images of J1712-64 obtained from these observations. The observations were processed using a new data-pipeline at the Anglo-Australian Observatory, a brief synopsis of which is given in Section 2. An analysis of the images is presented in Section 3, and we finish with a brief discussion and summary of the results in Section 4.

## 2 Data Reduction

The data were obtained on the nights of the 17-19 August 2001 using the Wide Field Imager, mounted at the prime focus of the Anglo-Australian Telescope at Coonabarabran (see Tinney 2001). The 1/2 degree $`\times `$ 1/2 degree field of view of WFI on the AAT make it an ideal instrument for searching for optical counterparts of HVCs. For the observations of HIPASS J1712-64 the seeing was sub-arcsec, but high intermittent cirrus made accurate photometric calibration difficult, and the calibration of the colour-magnitude diagrams and various associated limits alluded to later in the paper are only accurate at the $``$0.1 magnitude level.

A total integration time of 2700 s for both $`g`$ and $`r`$-bands was acquired, split as 9$`\times `$300 s exposures in each band. The field was centred at 17 12 35.7, -64 38 12 (J2000), corresponding to the centre of the northern component of J1712-64 (Kilborn et a. 2001). All the data were processed through a prototype AAO/WFI pipeline based on the data pipeline developed for the Isaac Newton Telescope Wide Field Camera (INT WFC). The pipeline provides the standard tools for removing the instrumental signature of CCD images and additionally provides means for defringing the data (if needed), object catalogue generation and the ability to provide astrometric and photometric calibration in an automated manner (see Irwin & Lewis 2001 for more details).

As an example of the versatility of the pipeline, the main end products in this case were a pair of stacked $`g`$ and $`r`$-band images, based on an accurate World Coordinate System (WCS) to coordinate the stacking, and the generation of a deep, detected-object colour-magnitude diagram.

## 3 Image Analysis

A false colour image of the CCD encompassing J1712-64, with the HI contours overlaid, is shown in figure 1, using r, 0.5(g+r) and g for the RGB colours. Careful visual inspection of the whole mosaic image (four times the area shown in figure 1) reveals no compelling evidence for any dwarf galaxy, resolved or otherwise, that could be associated with the HI envelope.

Morphological Classification as part of the data-reduction pipeline is based on automatic analysis of a discreetly sampled intensity curve-of-growth of all images. In any pairwise combination of such measures, stellar images lie on a well-defined (and constant) locus as a function of magnitude leaving only the spread (sigma) in the locus to be further derived. This greatly facilitates image classification based on the sigma-normalised distance from the locus. The size and ”sign” of the deviation(s) are used to assign images to one of three morphological classes: stellar, non-stellar, and noise-like.

At Galactic coordinates, $`l=326.6^{},b=14.6^{}`$, the extinction in this direction is relatively low at E(B-V) = 0.11 (Schlegel et al. 1998), hence all the standard Galactic populations should be readily visible, as well as large numbers of background galaxies and any possible nearby dwarf galaxy component. Therefore, we can be more quantitative in our search by using the distribution of detected stellar images in $`g`$,$`r`$ to probe for any non-uniformity in image distribution. Analysis of isopleth maps, however, revealed that all are consistent with noise and therefore there is no evidence of any resolved compact stellar population in J1712-64 as would be expected for a nearby dwarf galaxy. An example is shown in figure 2 for the range $`22<r<24`$ and $`0.5<gr<2.0`$.

A colour-magnitude diagram for the entire mosaic region containing images classified as stellar in the $`r`$-band is shown in figure 3. The expected Galactic components of the thin disk K/M stars are clearly visible as the red plume around $`gr1.5`$, while the thick disk F/G stars make up the other obvious component at $`gr0.8`$. The faint blue stellar population appearing at the bottom left of the plot is most likely due to misclassified blue compact galaxies at redshifts $`z0.5`$. This component is much stronger in the equivalent non-stellar diagram and in both has a fairly uniform distribution over the whole field making it unlikely to be related to the HVC. Once again there is no compelling signature of any underlying dwarf galaxy component.

## 4 Discussion

This paper has presented new images of the extragalactic HI candidate HIPASS J1712-64, obtained with the WFI on the AAT. These are significantly deeper than previous images, reaching stellar magnitudes fainter than $`r=24`$ and $`g=25`$. Our search for any resolved associated stellar component was negative. Likewise, there is no evidence for any underlying unresolved diffuse components associated with the Cloud. Since the photon noise/ instrumental signature surface brightness limits for detection of unresolved structure are around $`r=28`$ and $`g=29`$ magnitudes arcsec-2 respectively, we can place limits on any possible optical counterpart. In practice, the visibly patchy Galactic foreground nebulosity becomes important $``$1 magnitude brighter than these limits; fortunately though, this patchiness avoids the region where the HI contours are prominent.

Typical Local Group dwarf galaxies have scale sizes of order $``$1 kpc which, at a distance of 3 Mpc, would be equivalent to an angular scale of $``$1 arcmin. We would expect to see the optical counterpart of such objects, if they exist, over a few scale lengths (cf. HI contours in figure 1). Considering a 1 arcminute region and our surface brightness limits, the null detection of any diffuse optical structure leads to an absolute magnitude limit of $`M_g7`$ for this object, if it were at a distance of 3 Mpc. This is comparable to the limit derived by Kilborn et al. (2000) from photographic plates of $`M_B9`$, illustrating that we have pushed $`2`$ magnitudes further down the luminosity function compared to this earlier, shallower study. This limit is already at the lower end of the range for Local Group galaxies, making it unlikely than an optical component exists. Similarly, this lower limit pushes the inferred HI mass to light ratio to $`>150`$, at least two orders of magnitude encountered in Local Group dwarf galaxies. Hence, if J1712-64 is a Local Group member, it represents a very different type of object to what is currently known.

Such conclusions make it tempting to support one obvious alternate scenario for J1712-64 – that it is a Galactic halo High-Velocity Cloud; a recent search of POSS plates for stellar content in a sample of 250 northern HVCs yielded no detections (Simon & Blitz 2002). While there are a few HVCs in the HIPASS catalog (Putman et al. 2002) with Galactic Standard of Rest velocities comparable to that of J1712-64, should J1712-64 be a halo HVC, it would likewise necessarily be an extreme one.

It is of further interest to note that J1712-64, the earlier discovered J1616$``$55 (Staveley-Smith et al 1998), and two additional clouds discovered by HIPASS (Koribalski et al. 2002), all lie superimposed upon the Supergalactic Plane (SGP). An extremely deep survey of this region of the Supergalactic Plane, searching for any putative connection between the clouds, is currently underway at Parkes (Koribalski, Gibson, et al).

The observations were processed using a new pipeline data reduction facility at the AAO. This facility is based on the reduction procedure developed for data obtained with the Wide Field Camera on the Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma. Users of WFI at the AAT who are interested in pipeline processing their data should contact Geraint Lewis.

## Acknowledgments

M. Irwin thanks the AAO for their hospitality during a visit when much of this work was finalised.

## References

Blitz, L., Spergel, D. N., Teuben, P. J., Hartmann, D. & Burton, W. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 818

Braun R., Burton W. B., 1999, A&A, 341, 437.

Irwin, M. & Lewis, J. 2001, New Astronomy Review, 45, 105

Kilborn, V. A., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1342

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O. & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Koribalski, B., et al. 2002, in preparation

Putman, M.E., et al. 2002, AJ, in press

Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

Sembach, K. R., Gibson, B. K., Fenner, Y. & Putman, M. E. 2002, ApJ, in press

Simon, J. D. & Blitz, L., 2002, ApJ, in press

Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 2717

Tinney, C. G. 2001, AAO Newsletter, 96, 14