text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0205174

String Interactions in PP-Waves

Rajesh Gopakumara,b1 gopakumr@mri.ernet.in

a Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Rd.,

Jhusi, Allahabad, India 211019.

b Institute for Advanced Study, Olden Lane.,

Princeton, NJ08540, U.S.A.

Abstract

We argue that string interactions in a PP-wave spacetime are governed by an effective coupling $`g_{eff}=g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$ where $`f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$ is proportional to the light cone energy of the string states involved in the interaction. This simply follows from generalities of a Matrix String description of this background. $`g_{eff}`$ nicely interpolates between the expected result ($`g_s`$) for flat space (small $`\mu p^+\alpha ^{}`$ ) and a recently conjectured expression from the perturbative gauge theory side (large $`\mu p^+\alpha ^{}`$).

May 2002

1. Introduction

A recent important insight into the physics of large $`N`$, $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang-Mills theory has been that one might be able to isolate the dynamics of subsectors of the full theory, for instance, those carrying large global quantum numbers ,. Rather remarkably, BMN  conjectured that a well defined subset of the states in the gauge theory, carrying a large $`U(1)`$ R-charge, are really the excitations of a Type IIB closed string in a PP-wave background geometry.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =dx^{}dx^+\mu ^2\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}(x^i)^2\right)(dx^+)^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}(dx^i)^2\hfill \\ \hfill F_{+1234}^{(5)}& =F_{+5678}^{(5)}=\mu .\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, free string theory in this background is exactly solvable in lightcone gauge . This allows one in principle to make direct comparisons between the gauge theory and the full string theory (beyond a supergravity limit)  .

In particular, the spectrum of the first quantised strings is given in terms of independent oscillators with the light cone energy of the $`n`$th oscillator being

$$E_n=\mu \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2}}.$$

The total light cone energy of a generic string state is $`E\mu f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})=_nN_nE_n.`$ The lightcone momentum $`p^+`$ is proportional to the $`U(1)`$ R-charge $`J`$ of the gauge theory

$$\mu p^+\alpha ^{}=\frac{J}{\sqrt{\lambda }}=\frac{J}{g_{YM}\sqrt{N}}.$$

The energy $`E_n`$ translates into the anomalous dimension in the gauge theory of the corresponding operator $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)_n=\sqrt{1+\frac{n^2\lambda }{J^2}}`$. For finite $`g_{YM}^2=g_s`$, the ’tHooft coupling blows up in the large $`N`$ limit. However, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }J)_n`$ is finite provided one scales $`J\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\frac{J^2}{N}`$ is held fixed. In fact, there are good indications that, rather than $`\lambda `$, it is $`\lambda ^{}=\frac{\lambda }{J^2}=\frac{1}{(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2}`$ which is the right expansion parameter for perturbative gauge theory in this sector ,.

A formalism for studying string interactions in the lightcone framework in this background has been developed by  following the approach of   for flat space 2 A covariant formalism has also been proposed in .. Interactions in a DLCQ framework are also being studied . On the gauge theory side, it has been observed by    that despite strictly taking $`N\mathrm{}`$, nonplanar diagrams survive, being suppressed by factors of $`\frac{J^2}{N}=g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2`$. In other words, contributions from gauge theory diagrams of genus $`g`$ are weighted with a factor of $`\frac{J^{4g}}{N^{2g}}`$. Thus it might be natural to guess that the three string interaction which governs splitting and joining of strings is weighted by an effective string coupling of $`\frac{J^2}{N}=g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2`$.

However, in this note we argue that the effective string coupling is actually $`g_{eff}=g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$ where $`E=\mu f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$ is the total light cone energy involved in the interaction. In the most generic case involving a few ($`O(1)`$) oscillators with $`O(1)`$ excitations we see from Eq.(1.1) that,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})& \sqrt{1+\frac{1}{(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2}}\hfill \\ \hfill g_{eff}=& g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})^2}}=\frac{J^2}{N}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{J^2}(1+\frac{\lambda }{J^2})}\hfill \end{array}$$

which is quite different from the above natural guess.

Our reasoning is based on a second quantised Matrix String picture of interacting strings in the PP-wave background. The details of this Matrix String description will appear in a forthcoming publication . Here we will obtain $`g_{eff}`$ simply by applying some scaling arguments that will need only the general features of the Matrix String picture.

The $`g_{eff}`$ obtained here is in pleasing accord with a couple of facts. Consider the generic case where $`f`$ is as in Eq.(1.1). Firstly, in the limit of small $`\mu p^+\alpha ^{}`$ (or large $`\lambda ^{}`$) one recovers the flat space answer for $`g_{eff}`$, namely, simply $`g_s`$. Secondly, for large $`\mu p^+\alpha ^{}`$ (or small $`\lambda ^{}`$), $`g_{eff}g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$. In their study from the perturbative gauge theory side, the authors of  were led to conjecture (for small $`\lambda ^{}`$) precisely $`g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})=\frac{J^2}{N}\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}=\frac{J}{\sqrt{N}}g_{YM}`$ as the effective interaction, at least amongst a class of string states. Thus our $`g_{eff}`$ provides the interpolating behaviour between these two regimes. We note in passing that our formula implies that for any small but fixed $`g_s`$, (as well as fixed $`(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})`$) perturbation theory breaks down if one scatters high energy string states.

2. Matrix String Interactions

2.1. Flat Space

We briefly recapitulate the Matrix String description of flat space.

Matrix String theory    elegantly encapsulates the physics of weakly coupled second quantised strings in light cone gauge in terms of the IR dynamics of a $`(1+1)`$ dimensional gauge theory. For instance, in the case of Type IIA in $`R^{10}`$ with a null circle $`x^{}x^{}+2\pi R_0`$ and $`p^+=\frac{J}{R_0}`$, the gauge theory is the maximally supersymmetric $`(1+1)`$ dimensional $`U(J)`$ Yang-Mills theory

$$S=d^2\sigma Tr_J\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^i)^2+g_{YM}^2[\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j]^2+fermions\right).$$

The original parameters of the IIA lightcone string theory, namely, $`R_0`$ and the string coupling $`g_s^{IIA}`$ translate into the gauge theory parameters

$$g_{YM}=\frac{R_0}{g_s^{IIA}\alpha ^{}};\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R_0}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ is the radius of the spatial direction in the Yang-Mills.

The free string limit $`g_s^{IIA}0`$ corresponds to the IR (strong coupling) in the gauge theory. This is described by a free orbifold conformal field theory. The classical moduli space consists of commuting configurations $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma )=diag\{\varphi _I^j(\sigma )\},(I=1\mathrm{}J)`$. Since the gauge symmetry includes the action by the Weyl group $`S_J`$, one can have long string configurations $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma +2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_1)=g\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma )g^1`$, where $`g`$ is an element of the Weyl group and hence permutes the eigenvalues. The length of each permutation cycle in $`g`$ is the number of bits that go into forming a long string and is proportional to the $`p^+`$ it carries. The number of distinct cycles is the number of strings. In the limit $`J\mathrm{}`$ one can describe any number of free strings each carrying some arbitrary fraction of the total light cone momentum.

Similarly, for IIB string theory with $`p^+=\frac{J}{R_0}`$  one first compactifies on a transverse circle of radius $`R_1`$, T-dualises to Type IIA, lifts to M-theory and interchanges $`x^{}`$ and $`x^{11}`$, (the “9-11 flip”). The end result is a theory of $`J`$ D-0 branes on two transverse circles in a decoupling limit  . Or equivalently, the maximally supersymmetric $`U(J)`$ Yang-Mills in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions with the parameters

$$g_{YM}^2=\frac{R_0(R_1)^2}{g_s^{IIB}(\alpha ^{})^2},\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R_0},\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{R_0}g_s^{IIB},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ are the radii of the two spatial directions.

The main difference from Type IIA arises in that even without going to weak coupling, if one takes $`R_1\mathrm{}`$ (the noncompact limit of the original theory) one is at strong Yang-Mills coupling. The resulting theory at the origin of the moduli space is the interacting maximally supersymmetric $`(2+1)`$ dimensional CFT. The massless modes are parametrised by commuting configurations $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=diag\{\varphi _I^j(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\},(I=1\mathrm{}J)`$. Again they can obey twisted boundary conditions but now in both spatial directions: $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma _1+2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\sigma _2)=g_1\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)g_1^1`$ and similarly with indices $`1,2`$ interchanged. To the extent that one can classically describe this interacting theory, these configurations can be thought of as long membranes wrapped some number of times on both the cycles of the torus.

The simplification at weak coupling, $`g_s^{IIB}0`$, is that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_20`$ and one has effectively a $`(1+1)`$ dimensional theory. The dimensional reduction is therefore the same orbifold CFT as above, the only difference being that the fermions now have opposite chirality. The massless modes are thus long strings as in the IIA case, but now originate from the higher dimensional configurations which are twisted only in the $`\sigma _1`$ direction.

2.2. The PP-Wave Spacetime

The matrix string description for the IIB PP-wave (1.1) closely follows the description for flat space . We will study it as a limit $`J,R_0\mathrm{}`$ $`(R_0=\mu \sqrt{\lambda }\alpha ^{})`$ of a DLCQ theory with $`p^+=\frac{J}{R_0}`$ fixed (see   for an explicit realisation of the finite $`R_0`$ geometry).

Despite appearances the background Eq.(1.1) has eight commuting $`U(1)`$ isometries. One can compactify the Type IIB theory on one of these directions with radius $`R_1`$. T-duality takes one to a Type IIA background which can be lifted to M-theory

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_M^2& =dx^{}dx^+\mu ^2\left(\underset{I=3}{\overset{8}{}}(x^I)^2+4(x^9)^2\right)(dx^+)^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}(dx^i)^2\hfill \\ \hfill F_{+129}^{(4)}& =2\mu ;F_{+349}^{(4)}=4\mu .\hfill \end{array}$$

Reducing along $`x^{}`$ gives a theory of $`J`$ D0-branes in a nontrivial curved background with two compact transverse directions $`(x^1,x^2)`$. The appropriate description of the decoupled theory is again a $`(2+1)`$ dimensional $`U(J)`$ Yang-Mills theory with the same field content as in the flat space case. But now with some number of additional pieces in the lagrangian

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }S=& d^3\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }L_m+\mathrm{\Delta }L_{myers}+\mathrm{\Delta }L_{ferm});\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }L_m& \mu ^2Tr_J(\mathrm{\Phi }^i)^2;\mathrm{\Delta }L_{myers}\mu M_{ijk}Tr_J(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Phi }^j\mathrm{\Phi }^k).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to see the origin of these terms from Eq.(2.1). The mass terms come from the nontrivial part of the metric, while the Myers terms come from $`F^{(4)}`$. The corresponding mass and cubic terms involving fermions are determined by supersymmetry. This and other details, which will appear in , will not be crucial for our scaling argument.

2.3. String Interactions

Let us momentarily ignore the mass terms etc. in (2.1). The weak coupling picture of strings splitting and joining emerges beautifully from the orbifold CFT description (which as we have seen is the $`g_s0`$ limit of both IIA and IIB Matrix Strings, allowing for the differences in chirality). The leading irrelevant operator in the CFT is determined by the symmetries of the theory to be a dimension 3 operator, $`V_{int}\frac{1}{M}d^2\sigma 𝒪^{(3)}`$, built out of the twist fields of the CFT. The twist fields lead to precisely the splitting and joining of strings by permuting eigenvalues. A detailed study recovers the Mandelstam light-cone interaction vertex (delta function overlap) for these strings. We should think of this operator as arising, in the effective field theory language, from integrating out massive states whose dynamics we are not interested in. The mass parameter $`M`$ in $`V_{int}`$ is set by the lightest such state. In the Type IIB case, in reducing to the $`(1+1)`$ dimensional theory, we have ignored KK excitations, the lightest of which has mass $`M=\frac{1}{J\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}`$. This comes from a configuration carrying fractional momentum in the $`\sigma _2`$ direction  .

Turning on the mass terms in (2.1) will not seriously disturb this effective field theory description provided we consider energies much less than $`M`$. To be precise, we want the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian (which we denote by $`H_0`$ and which includes the mass terms) to have energies much less than $`M`$. The relevant configurations will then continue to be diagonal matrices with the $`S_J`$ action. In other words, at the energy scales set by $`H_0`$, the states correspond to the second quantised Fock space of free strings in the PP-wave spacetime. The Matrix String action in this limit is essentially a (diagonal) matrix version of the Green-Schwarz action in the PP-wave background (as is appropriate for a description of multiple strings).

Since the eigenvalues of $`H_0`$ are the light cone energies of the free string excitations involved in the interaction (Eq.(1.1) and below), we need $`E=\mu f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})<<M`$. Using Eq. (2.1) this translates into $`g_{eff}=g_s(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})f(\mu p^+\alpha ^{})<<1`$ as the condition for the DVV picture of string interactions to hold.

Stated differently, from effective field theory reasoning, the dimensionless coupling that suppresses the higher dimension operator $`𝒪^{(3)}`$ is really $`g_{eff}=\frac{E}{M}`$ and we can rewrite the above interaction vertex as,

$$V_{int}\frac{g_{eff}}{E}d^2\sigma 𝒪^{(3)}.$$

As mentioned in the introduction, this effective coupling $`g_{eff}`$ interpolates between flat space behaviour and that suggested by perturbative gauge theory.

We should remark here that the operator $`𝒪^{(3)}`$ should be thought of as the DVV interaction operator but now dressed up by RG flow to energy scales $`E`$. The mass deformation preserves the original $`S_J`$ orbifold action. This and the constraint of supersymmetry should hopefully enable one to obtain an explicit expression for $`𝒪^{(3)}`$ in terms of twisted sector modes of the free (but now massive) orbifold theory. This would be important for using the Matrix String description to do explicit string computations. We hope to address this issue in the future. It would also be very interesting to compare the results here with that from light cone string field theory as developed in  .

3. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my collaborators of , D. Ghoshal and D. Jatkar for a lot of discussions on this topic. I should also thank K. Hori, J. Maldacena, S. Mukhi, B. Pioline, M. Rangamani, N. Seiberg, S. Sethi, M. Spradlin and S. Wadia for helpful conversations. I must specially thank S. Minwalla for stimulating discussions as well as for useful comments after a reading of the manuscript. The author’s work has been generously supported by the people of India. He also acknowledges support from the DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40542.

References

relax D. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena and H. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from N = 4 super Yang Mills,” JHEP 0204, 013 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0202021\]. relax S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “A semi-classical limit of the gauge/string correspondence,” arXiv:hep-th/0204051. relax R. R. Metsaev, “Type IIB Green-Schwarz superstring in plane wave Ramond-Ramond background,” Nucl. Phys. B 625, 70 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0112044\]; R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Exactly solvable model of superstring in plane wave Ramond-Ramond background,” arXiv:hep-th/0202109. relax D. J. Gross, A. Mikhailov and R. Roiban, “Operators with large R charge in N = 4 Yang-Mills theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0205066. relax M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Superstring interactions in a pp-wave background,” arXiv:hep-th/0204146. relax S. Mandelstam, “Interacting String Picture Of The Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 69, 77 (1974). relax M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and L. Brink, “Superfield Theory Of Type II Superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B 219, 437 (1983). relax N. Berkovits, “Conformal field theory for the superstring in a Ramond-Ramond plane wave background,” JHEP 0204, 037 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0203248\]. relax S.Mukhi, M. Rangamani, E. Verlinde, H. Verlinde, work in progress. relax C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G. W. Semenoff and M. Staudacher, “A new double-scaling limit of N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory and PP-wave strings,” arXiv:hep-th/0205033. relax D. Berenstein and H. Nastase, “On lightcone string field theory from super Yang-Mills and holography,” arXiv:hep-th/0205048. relax N. R. Constable, D. Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, L. Motl, A. Postnikov and W. Skiba, “PP-wave string interactions from perturbative Yang-Mills theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0205089. relax D. Ghoshal, R. Gopakumar, D. Jatkar, to appear. relax L. Motl, “Proposals on nonperturbative superstring interactions,” arXiv:hep-th/9701025. relax T. Banks and N. Seiberg, “Strings from matrices,” Nucl. Phys. B 497, 41 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9702187\]. relax R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde, “Matrix string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 500, 43 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9703030\]. relax N. Seiberg, “Why is the matrix model correct?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3577 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9710009\]. relax A. Sen, “D0 branes on T(n) and matrix theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 51 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9709220\]. relax S. Mukhi, M. Rangamani and E. Verlinde, “Strings from quivers, membranes from moose,” JHEP 0205, 023 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0204147\]. relax M. Alishahiha and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “Strings in PP-waves and worldsheet deconstruction,” arXiv:hep-th/0204174. relax J. Michelson, “(Twisted) toroidal compactification of pp-waves,” arXiv:hep-th/0203140. relax S. R. Das and S. D. Mathur, “Excitations of D-strings, Entropy and Duality,” Phys. Lett. B 375, 103 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9601152\]. relax J. M. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “D-branes and Fat Black Holes,” Nucl. Phys. B 475, 679 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9604042\].


format: text

text:
# Tailoring Single and Multiphoton Probabilities of a Single Photon On-Demand Source

## Abstract

As typically implemented, single photon sources cannot be made to produce single photons with high probability, while simultaneously suppressing the probability of yielding two or more photons. Because of this, single photon sources cannot really produce single photons on demand. We describe a multiplexed system that allows the probabilities of producing one and more photons to be adjusted independently, enabling a much better approximation of a source of single photons on demand.

The advent of photon-based quantum cryptography, communication and computation schemes Bennett and Brassard (1989b); Ekert et al. (1992) is increasing the need for light sources that produce individual photons. It is of particular importance that these single photons be produced in as controlled a manner as possible, as unwanted additional photons can render quantum cryptographic links insecure and degrade quantum computation efficiencies Brassard et al. (2000).

Single photons (or more precisely, approximations thereof) are now commonly created via the process of parametric downconversion (PDC) Burnham and Weinberg (1970); Ekert et al. (1992); Gisin et al. (2001), although attenuated lasers and quantum-dots and other single quantum site sources are also used Jacobs and Franson (1996); Kim et al. (1999); Buttler et al. (2000); Yaun et al. (2001). Because PDC creates photons in pairs, the detection of one photon indicates, or “heralds”, the existence of its twin, a significant advantage over other methods (even aside from the potential to directly produce entangled states). In addition, because the PDC process is governed by the constraints of phase matching, it is possible to know the output trajectory, polarization, and wavelength of that heralded photon. While PDC has a long history as a single photon source and there have been many recent improvements Kwiat et al. (1999), the scheme has a couple of problems. The conversion process is random, so while an output photon is heralded by its twin, there is no control or prior knowledge of when the heralding event will occur. In addition, there is a possibility of producing more than one pair at a time and because that probability increases nonlinearly with the one photon probability, one must operate at low one photon probabilities. So to be assured that more than one photon is not produced, one must operate where it is most likely that no photon is produced at all Nielsen and Chuang (2000).

The faint laser scheme suffers the same difficulty as the PDC method, in possibly producing more than one photon at a time, with the added difficulty of not having any herald at all Buttler et al. (1998). Quantum-dot sources offer promise as a new way of definitively producing single photons, although it remains to be seen whether their output/collection efficiencies can be made to approach unity in practice, a requirement for a true on-demand source.

To surmount the problem of random production in PDC, one uses a pulsed laser to pump the nonlinear crystal (see for instance Buttler et al. (2000)). With a pulsed source, photon pairs can only be produced at certain times. Unfortunately the multiple photon emission problem remains; a high probability ($`P_1`$) of producing a single photon pair during each pulse leads to an increased likelihood ($`P_{>1}`$) of producing more than one photon pair during each pulse, defeating the original goal of having a source of single photons. This problem occurs regardless of whether sources with Poisson or Bose statistics are used Gisin et al. (2001); Walls and Milburn (1995). Because of this, pulsed systems are usually operated with low probability of producing an output photon pair during a laser pulse ($`P_1`$0.1 to 0.3) Jacobs and Franson (1996); Buttler et al. (1998, 2000). Thus, while photons can only come during specific time windows, most of these time windows will contain no photons at all, illustrating the trade off between the two requirements of producing a photon on demand and being assured that there is, in fact, just one photon.

The improvement presented here allows these two competing requirements to be adjusted independently by decoupling $`P_1`$ and $`P_{>1}`$. We can then select both the desired likelihood of production of a photon pair and the desired suppression of multiple pair events. This is accomplished using an array of downconverters and detectors (Fig. 1a) pumped simultaneously by the same laser pulse. The laser power is chosen so each downconverter has some small probability of producing a photon pair, while the number of downconverters is chosen so there is a high likelihood of at least one pair being created somewhere in the array. The detector associated with each downconverter allows us to determine which of the downconverters has fired. This information is used to control an optical switching circuit directing the other photon of the pair onto the single output channel. This arrangement allows a much truer approximation of a single photon on-demand source than is possible with other methods.

A simple extension of this arrangement can produce a regularly spaced series of single photons. By ganging up a series of these “single photon on demand setups” with additional optical switches and a series of optical delays, it is possible to produce an arbitrary length train of single photons. By producing a pulse train long enough to last until the next pump laser pulse arrives, one can create a continuous train of single photon pulses synchronized with an external signal.

These basic concepts could be used to produce higher order photon number states as well. By using detectors with the capability of sensing the number of photons in a single pulse, the switching circuit could just as well direct the outputs of those converters that produced multiple photon pairs to the output channel. That would result in an output pulse train with each pulse containing the desired number of photons.

While the scheme just described is conceptually the simplest way of presenting the method, there are a number of modifications that can improve the efficiency, construction, and convenience of the system. The first of these is that the array of downconverters can be implemented with a single PDC crystal. This is possible because while phasematching requires a PDC photon pair to be constrained to a plane containing the pump beam, the azimuthal angle is not constrained. Thus, the PDC process produces light distributed azimuthally around the pump laser direction (for type I phasematching). So, each azimuthal plane can be thought of as a separate downconverter. Thus the multiple PDC setup is achieved by placing many detectors azimuthally in an annular pattern around the pump direction of a single downconverter and collecting at the correlated positions.

A second modification allows the array of detectors to be replaced by a single detector. By sending each of the potential herald photons to an increasing sequence of delays and then directing the delay outputs to a single detector, the timing of the detector pulse indicates which of the input downconverters has created a pair. Of course, several of the downconverters may produce a photon pair, but only the first photon herald received by the detector causes it to fire. Detector deadtime causes subsequent photons to be ignored. The timing of the detector pulse is used to select which correlated photon channel to direct to the output of system.

A third implementation (Fig. 1b) even eliminates the output switching network circuit, while still maintaining a significant advantage over both the conventional PDC and faint laser photon sources. The output photons are simply collected with a single lens output port. This most basic implementation allows production of pulses with individual certainties of that pulse containing exactly one photon. In other words, this source provides single photons and a “certificate” tied to each output photon quantifying the likelihood that just one photon was emitted. Some of these pulses can achieve a significantly higher single photon certainty than is possible with the conventional single photon source setups. This more complete characterization of the emitted pulse and its tighter constraints on $`P_{>1}`$, will allow more efficient use of the emitted light. This reduces the need for overhead tasks such as privacy amplification Inamori et al. (2001).

The basic reason that this arrangement can produce single photons with lower probability of multiple photons is that the delay system provides extra information about the photons produced. For instance, in the cases where one of the longer delays happened to cause the detector to fire, we know that all the prior delays did not cause the detector to fire. If the detection quantum efficiency is high, it is very likely that there were no photons in those modes coupled to those shorter paths. Thus $`P_{>1}`$ is greatly reduced because it is just the multiphoton probability for only the last delay, rather than for all $`N_D`$ of them, which has a mean photon number of $`\overline{n}`$ vs. $`\overline{n}/N_D`$.

We now quantify the advantage of this last scheme in its simplest and most straightforward implementation. We will see this scheme results in production of photon pulses where each pulse has its own individualized single photon certification, and as expected, these certifications can be significantly better than the uniform result obtained from the conventional arrangement. To begin, we consider the standard PDC setup for producing heralded single photons. The trigger detector registers one photon of a pair and indicates the existence of the second photon exiting the correlated channel. The collection optics for that correlated channel are designed to collect, as close as can be approximated, just the photons correlated to those seen by the trigger detector. In this arrangement, both the trigger channel and output channel are set up to collect only one mode of the field Kurtsiefer et al. (2001). When the trigger detector fires, one photon has been received (assuming negligible dark counts), but we do not know if additional photons were also present as the considered detectors cannot distinguish a one-photon from a multi-photon event. Given that the trigger detector has fired, the probability that there were $`n`$ photons incident is:

$$P_{\overline{n},\eta }^\text{F}(n)=\frac{(1(1\eta )^n)\times P_{\overline{n}}(n)}{_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1(1\eta )^k)\times P_{\overline{n}}(k)}.$$
(1)
Note that $`1(1\eta )^n`$ is the probability of the detector firing for $`n`$ photons incident and detector quantum efficiency, $`\eta `$ defined as the probability of the detector firing when just one photon is incident. We use Bose statistics for the probability, $`P_{\overline{n}}(n)`$, of having $`n`$ photons emitted into a single mode of the PDC light, given $`\overline{n}`$ Walls and Milburn (1995); Gisin et al. (2001).

With this basis, we now describe a system with a number of delay lines of increasing length placed between the PDC crystal and the trigger detector. Each of these delay line channels intercepts a single, but separate, mode of the field. The output channel collection optic is also modified to include the extra modes correlated to those of the additional trigger modes. Each of these trigger paths has a chance to cause the trigger detector to fire, with the shortest path providing the first chance, and the next longer path providing the next chance, and so on. But once the trigger detector fires due to a photon in a particular path, it cannot fire due to subsequent photons in the longer delay paths. The timing of the trigger detector firing relative to the pump pulse tells which delay path caused the firing. Thus the result of a single pulse of the pump laser is that either no trigger was produced or a trigger was produced and we know which delay path produced it. This last piece of information allows us to make a better determination of the probability that the photon produced was a single photon. If the photon that causes the trigger to fire is one of the later delay paths we will have a much lower likelihood of there being more than one photon. We now calculate this likelihood as a function of which delay path caused the firing.

For a system of $`N_\text{D}`$ delay paths where the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ delay path caused the firing, the one photon probability is:

$$P_{\overline{n},\eta ,N_\text{D}}(i)=\left(1P_{\frac{\overline{n}}{N_\text{D}},\eta }^{\overline{\text{F}}}\right)^{i1}P_{\frac{\overline{n}}{N_\text{D}},\eta }^\text{F}(1)\left(P_{\frac{\overline{n}}{N_\text{D}}}(0)\right)^{N_\text{D}i},$$
(2)
where $`P_{\frac{\overline{n}}{N_\text{D}},\eta }^{\overline{\text{F}}}`$ is the probability that photons were incident if the detector did not fire. Then we use Eq. (1) with $`n`$=1 for a Bose distribution in each of the modes collected of Fig. 1b. Figure 2 shows the functional form of these probabilities, where each line of the fan shaped family of curves represents a system of $`N_\text{D}`$ delays. Each point on a given line corresponds to the trigger firing at a particular $`i^{\text{th}}`$ delay out of a set of $`N_\text{D}`$. The point’s value is the probability that this event indicates that exactly one photon pair exists in the system. It can be seen that for $`N_\text{D}`$ of more than a few, and with high $`\eta `$, we can have emission events with single photon probabilities around 90%, greatly exceeding the conventional arrangement results for the same $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{n}`$. The conventional result is represented by the single $`N_\text{D}`$ =1 point (i.e. the standard PDC setup with one trigger path).

We have calculated two additional probabilities: the overall probability of producing a heralded single photon (Eq. (3)), and that same probability given that the trigger did fire (Eq. (4)). The first is obtained by taking the product of the probability of a particular delay event occurring and the probability of that event being due to a single photon and then summing over all possible types of events. The second probability is obtained by eliminating the case where the trigger did $`not`$ fire and renormalizing. Via some algebra we obtain:

$$P_1(\overline{n},\eta ,N_\text{D})=\overline{n}\eta \times \left(\frac{N_\text{D}}{\overline{n}+N_\text{D}}\right)^{1+N_\text{D}}$$
(3)
$$P_1(\overline{n},\eta ,N_\text{D}|trigger)=\frac{\overline{n}\eta \left(\frac{N_\text{D}}{\overline{n}+N_\text{D}}\right)^{1+N_\text{D}}}{1\left(\frac{N_\text{D}}{\overline{n}\eta +N_\text{D}}\right)^{N_\text{D}}}.$$
(4)
for a Bose distribution in each of the modes collected in Fig. 1b. These two results are also shown on Fig 2. For these curves, the abscissa is $`N_\text{D}`$ rather than delay $`i`$. Note that the total single photon probability rises somewhat as $`N_\text{D}\mathrm{}`$. This probability, calculated for a thermal source approaches the result that would be obtained for a Poisson distribution $`P_1(\overline{n},\eta )=\overline{n}\eta e^{\overline{n}}`$, which is independent of $`N_\text{D}`$. This independence for a set of Poisson subsystems is what one would expect, as a collection of Poisson subsystems taken together yield a result with Poisson statistics. The tending of the collection of many single mode Bose subsystems toward the Poisson result is also understandable in that the more independent subsystems that are included in the sum, the more the individual events in the system are independent of each other, which is the definition of Poisson statistics. The higher values of $`P_1(\overline{n},\eta ,N_\text{D}|trigger)`$ seen in Fig. 2 indicate the advantage of having heralded photons, rather than those from a faint laser. We also note that for Poisson instead of Bose distributions, the above analysis yields qualitatively the same shaped curves seen in Fig. 2, but all the $`P_{\overline{n},\eta ,N_\text{D}}(i)`$ probabilities are somewhat higher.

Analysis of Eq. (2) shows that $`\eta `$ near one gives the best single photon certifications. This is because high $`\eta `$ means that the system provides more complete information about what has happened, e.g. an instance of the trigger not firing means with high certainty that no photon was incident, while low $`\eta `$ decreases our certainty of that. Highlighting the advantage of this method, Fig. 2 also shows that in almost all cases, the multiplexed heralded system presented here significantly surpasses the single photon probability of a faint laser described by the Poisson limit to the curve. This advantage still holds for $`\eta <`$ 1, althought the certifications are not as high.

Eq. (2) also shows that increasing $`\overline{n}`$ increases the spread of the certifications, while decreasing the maximum single photon certification possible. Thus there is a trade off between having high certainty single photons and high overall single photon number. In fact, $`P_1`$ does not continue increasing with increasing $`\overline{n}`$ . The maximum occurs for all systems at $`\overline{n}`$=1. This is the balancing point between reducing the number of single photon events and increasing the number of multiple photon events. This tells us the best rate to operate the system to maximize single photon events, although it will not necessarily provide the highest single photon certainties. We can still achieve higher single photon certifications than is possible conventionally, while maximizing single photon rates. We must of course, verify that the events with high single photon probabilities or “certifications” have reasonable likelihoods of occurring. An analysis of this question shows that while the likelihood of the later delay events occurring is lower than the earlier delay events, the dependence is not particularly strong. For instance, in the $`N_\text{D}`$=8, $`\overline{n}`$=1 case the falloff from delay 1 events to delay 8 events is only a factor of about 2.

We have shown a way to decouple the probabilities of producing a single photon and the probability of producing more than one photon using an array of parametric downconverters. By doing so, we can construct a better approximation of a true single photon on demand source than is possible using a conventional single PDC setup and certainly better than a faint laser source Brassard et al. (2000); Gisin et al. (2001). In principle this method could achieve an arbitrarily close approximation of a single photon on demand source. We have also analyzed a version that, while greatly simplifying the construction of an actual device, retains most of the benefits of the original concept. We have shown that the setup would produce single photons with individual certifications that the photons produced are actually the desired single photons. Such a better-defined single photon source will allow for better use of quantum channel resources in a cryptographic system by reducing the need for overhead tasks such as privacy amplification, as well as having implications for the field of quantum computation. As photon counting becomes more convenient at telecom wavelengths we expect that integrated all solid state implementations of these schemes will be made even easier and we will have truly achieved the dream of a convenient source of single photons on demand. We are currently working on experimental implementations.


text:
# Non-locality as an essential feature of brane worlds

## 1 Introduction

The idea that our four-dimensional world may be a timelike surface, or a world-volume of a $`3`$-brane, in a higher dimensional spacetime has been attracting a great deal of physical interests. As shown by Randall and Sundrum , the $`4`$-dimensional Newton’s law of gravity can be reproduced on a $`4`$-dimensional timelike hypersurface with positive tension in a $`5`$-dimensional AdS background despite the existence of the infinite fifth dimension.

However, if we consider another brane parallel to the first brane at finite distance then the weak gravity at low energy on either brane becomes Brans-Dicke type . What is interesting is that Einstein gravity is recovered if we further include a scalar field between the two branes . From the $`4`$-dimensional point of view, these facts can be understood as the emergence of a massless mode called radion in the former case and the stabilization of the radion in the latter case. Namely, if we have two branes but no bulk scalar then the inter-brane distance is arbitrary and, hence, the corresponding mode should be massless. The massless mode plays the role of the Brans-Dicke scalar field. If we include a bulk scalar field which couples to the branes then the inter-brane distance is no longer arbitrary and, hence, the would-be massless mode should obtain a nonzero mass. Thus, the would-be Brans-Dicke scalar will disappear from the low energy description of brane gravity and, thus, Einstein gravity is recovered.

The above understanding of the emergence of Brans-Dicke theory and the recovery of Einstein gravity is appealing to our intuition based on $`4`$-dimensional gravitational theory: our intuition is that low energy gravity should always look like either Einstein or Brans-Dicke gravity and that all we have to do should be to investigate whether there exists a massless scalar or not. Although this is true in the above cases without or with just one bulk scalar field, we may not trust this strategy too seriously for more general cases since we are dealing with a $`5`$-dimensional system and it is rather non-trivial whether a $`4`$-dimensional description is valid or not. Actually, in order to claim that the weak gravity at low energy is Einstein, we have to show that the effective $`4`$-dimensional gravitational coupling constants $`G_N^{(S)}`$ and $`G_N^{(T)}`$ for scalar and tensor modes, respectively, are the same , where these coupling constants are defined by

$`^\rho _\rho h`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi G_N^{(S)}\tau ,`$
$`^\rho _\rho h_{\mu \nu }^{TT}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi G_N^{(T)}\tau _{\mu \nu }^{TT}.`$ (1.1)
Here, $`h`$ and $`h_{\mu \nu }^{TT}`$ are the trace and the transverse traceless part of metric perturbation on the brane, and $`\tau `$ and $`\tau _{\mu \nu }^{TT}`$ are those of stress energy perturbation of matter on the brane. (In the main part of this paper, we shall deal with gauge-invariant quantities only and, thus, there is no ambiguity due to gauge freedom.) If the two coupling constants are the same then Einstein gravity is recovered. In this case a massless scalar is, if any, not a Brans-Dicke scalar but just a Klein-Gordon massless scalar. Note that none of the above equations (1.1) for zero modes says anything about relations between metric and matter perturbations since the left hand sides vanish. Hence, the zero mode does not affect the value of $`G_N^{(S,T)}`$ directly. If the two coupling constants are different and if there is a massless scalar then the weak gravity at low energy is Brans-Dicke type. Finally, if the two coupling constants are different and if there is no massless scalar then we do not have a $`4`$-dimensional covariant description of the system: our intuition based on $`4`$-dimensional gravity just breaks down. Therefore, in principle we have four cases: (i) Einstein gravity without massless scalars; (ii) Einstein gravity with massless scalars; (iii) Brans-Dicke gravity; (iv) no $`4`$-dimensional covariant description.

In this paper, we shall review the result that (i) is the case for a model with one bulk scalar  and that high-energy corrections to Einstein gravity can be mimicked by higher derivative terms . Of course, for the original Randall-Sundrum model without bulk scalars, (iii) is the case . For a particular class of perturbations, it has been shown that these conclusions are true even for second order in perturbations . It is fortune that we do not encounter the cases (ii) or (iv) for models without or with just one bulk scalar. However, for models with more than one bulk scalars, we do not know whether we still have the same fortune or not.

## 2 Formalism

Throughout this paper we consider a $`5`$-dimensional brane world model with a bulk scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ between two end-of-the-world branes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm `$. The scalar field has potential in the bulk $`U`$ and on the branes $`V_\pm `$. The positions of two branes are described by the parametric equations

$$x^M=Z_\pm ^M(y_\pm ),$$
(2.1)
where $`x^M`$ ($`M=0,\mathrm{},4`$) are $`5`$-dimensional coordinates in the bulk, and $`y_+`$ and $`y_{}`$ represent $`4`$-dimensional coordinate systems on the branes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, respectively. We can consider coordinate transformations of $`x^M`$ and $`y_\pm ^\mu `$ independently. In this sense, this setting is doubly covariant.

What we are interested in is classical dynamics of perturbations around a background with $`4`$-dimensional Poincare symmetry since it determines the effective $`4`$-dimensional theory of weak gravity on the branes. Those perturbations include perturbations of $`Z_\pm ^M`$ as well as those of the metric $`g_{MN}`$, the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and matter on the branes. We assume that there is no matter excitation on the brane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$, considering it as the hidden brane and the other brane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ as our brane. Equations which we can use are the $`5`$-dimensional Einstein equation, the $`5`$-dimensional scalar field equation, the Israel metric junction condition  and the scalar field junction condition. The setting is summarized in figure 1.

An important point is that the induced metric $`q_{\pm \mu \nu }`$ is not necessarily minimally coupled to matter on the brane in the sense that the matter action on the brane may depend on the pullback $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ of the scalar field. We assume that the minimally coupled metric $`\overline{q}_{\pm \mu \nu }`$ is conformally related to the induced metric:

$$\overline{q}_{\pm \mu \nu }=e^{\alpha _\pm (\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm )}q_{\pm \mu \nu }.$$
(2.2)
In other words, we assume that the matter action depends on the pullback of the scalar field via this conformal factor only. Correspondingly, the physical stress energy tensor of matter on the brane should be defined by

$$\overline{S}_\pm ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\overline{q}_\pm }}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{q}_{\pm \mu \nu }}I_{\pm matter}.$$
(2.3)
Note that this is different from the surface stress energy tensor which is used in the Israel metric junction condition. There is a simple relation between two stress energy tensors.

Hereafter, we consider modes with non-vanishing $`4`$-momentum $`k_\mu `$. Actually, a mode with vanishing $`4`$-momentum corresponds to just a change of background within the $`4`$-dimensional Poincare symmetry. On the other hand, we consider modes with vanishing $`k^\mu k_\mu `$ as far as $`k_\mu `$ itself is not zero.

In order to analyse the system, let us (i) perform Fourier transformation with respect to the $`4`$-dimensional coordinates; (ii) classify Fourier coefficients into scalar, vector and tensor parts (each part forms an irreducible representation of the little group of $`4`$-dimensional Poincare symmetry and, thus, can be analysed independently); (iii) construct gauge-invariant variables in each part. After these three steps, we have a set of purely $`1`$-dimensional problems as shown in figure 2 (a) and in the following three paragraphs.

For the scalar part, we have three gauge invariant variables in the bulk and three gauge invariant variables on each brane. The variables $`F`$ and $`F_{ww}`$ are constructed from bulk metric perturbations only, while $`\phi `$ is constructed from perturbations of the scalar field and the metric. The variable $`\varphi _{\pm w}`$ is a gauge invariant variable corresponding to the normal component of perturbations of the brane position. Other gauge invariant variables $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (Y)}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (LL)}`$ correspond to perturbations of the physical stress energy tensor of matter on the brane. Since it was assumed that there is no excitation of matter on the hidden brane, $`\overline{\tau }_{(Y)}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{(LL)}`$ are zero. For the three variables in the bulk we have one differential equation and two algebraic equations. Hence we can eliminate, for example, $`\phi `$ and $`F_{ww}`$. As for the three variables on the brane, the metric junction condition gives a conservation equation and an expression of $`\varphi _{\pm w}`$ in terms of $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (LL)}`$. The conservation equation is a linear relation between $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (Y)}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (LL)}`$. Hence, we can eliminate $`\varphi _{\pm w}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{\pm (Y)}`$. Finally, the scalar field junction condition gives a boundary condition of bulk perturbations at $`w=w_\pm `$ depending on $`\overline{\tau }_{+(LL)}`$.

The vector part is actually irrelevant since vector perturbations vanish if matter perturbations on the hidden brane vanish.

As for the tensor part, we have one differential equation for one variable in the bulk, and the metric junction condition gives a boundary condition at $`w=w_\pm `$ depending on $`\overline{\tau }_{+(T)}`$.

Therefore, we finally simplified the $`5`$-dimensional problem to a set of simple $`1`$-dimensional problems shown in figure 2 (b). For each sector of scalar and tensor parts, we have one differential equation with a boundary condition depending on matter on our brane. This system may be simple enough to analyse. If we can solve the $`1`$-dimensional differential equations with the boundary conditions then we can calculate gauge-invariant perturbations $`\overline{f}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{(T)}`$ of the $`4`$-dimensional physical metric on our brane. Since the boundary condition depends linearly on matter on our brane, the result should be of the form

$`C_{(S)}\overline{f}_+`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\tau }_{+(LL)},`$
$`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu C_{(T)}\overline{f}_{+(T)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\tau }_{+(T)},`$ (2.4)
where $`C_{(S)}`$ and $`C_{(T)}`$ are functions of $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$ and $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the inverse of the unperturbed physical metric $`\overline{q}_{+\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$. The reason why $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$ was put in front of $`\overline{f}_{+(T)}`$ is that we expect the emergence of $`4`$-dimensional gravitons on our brane (non-vanishing $`\overline{f}_{+(T)}`$ with $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{+(T)}=0`$). This is actually the case .

What is important here is that the functions $`C_{(S,T)}`$ completely characterize the effective theory of weak gravity on our brane. Actually, if one likes, one can restore gauge fixed equations for any gauge choices from the functions $`C_{(S,T)}`$ only. Since we are dealing with gauge-invariant variables only, there is no ambiguity of gauge freedom when we compare the result with the corresponding equations in a $`4`$-dimensional gravitational theory. Namely, we only have to compare functions $`C_{(S,T)}`$ of $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$ with the corresponding functions of momentum squared in the Fourier transformed, linearized $`4`$-dimensional gravitational theory.

In order to solve the reduced $`1`$-dimensional problems, we expand them by the dimensionless parameter $`\mu =l^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$ so that we can solve equations iteratively, where $`l`$ is the characteristic length scale of the model which we can determine by comparing the results of order $`O(1)`$ and $`O(\mu )`$. The purpose of the $`\mu `$-expansion is to analyze the behavior of the functions $`C_{(S)}`$ and $`C_{(T)}`$ near $`\mu =0`$. Namely, we shall seek first few coefficients $`C_{(S,T)}^{[i]}`$ ($`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$) of the expansion

$$C_{(S,T)}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ^iC_{(S,T)}^{[i]}.$$
(2.5)
Since the $`4`$-dimensional physical energy scale $`m_+`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ is given by $`m_+^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}_+^{(0)\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu `$ $``$ $`\mu l^2`$, the expansion in $`\mu `$ is nothing but the low energy expansion. Hence, the first few coefficients $`C_{(S,T)}^{[i]}`$ ($`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$) of the expansion (2.5) determine the low energy behavior of weak gravity on our brane.

## 3 Result and conjecture

In the low energy expansion (2.5), we expect that $`C_{(S,T)}^{[0]}`$ give $`4`$-dimensional Einstein gravity, that $`C_{(S,T)}^{[1]}`$ give curvature-squared corrections to the Einstein gravity, and so on. Actually, this is the case. The effective Newton’s constant was determined in ref.  and coefficients of curvature-squared terms were determined in ref. . For a trivial $`4`$-dimensional conformal transformation between the induced metric and the physical metric ($`\alpha _\pm =0`$), the Newton’s constant agrees with the result of ref. . In ref. , the freedom of the conformal transformation was not considered. On the other hand, in refs.  a conformal transformation depending arbitrarily on the bulk scalar field was taken into account.

Equipped with the result up to the order $`O(\mu ^1)`$, we conjecture that in the order $`O(\mu ^N)`$, weak gravity on the brane should still be indistinguishable from a higher derivative gravity whose action includes up to $`2(N+1)`$-th derivatives of metric. Two linear combinations of coefficients of higher derivative terms can be fixed by using the iterative results in ref. . Since the expansion in $`\mu `$ is in principle an infinite series, gravity in the brane world becomes non-local at high energies even at the linearized level. Actually, in this case equations of brane gravity will have up to $`2(N+1)`$-th derivatives ($`N\mathrm{}`$) and, thus, we need to specify the $`0`$-th to $`(2N+1)`$-th time-derivatives ($`N\mathrm{}`$) of the metric perturbations on a spacelike $`3`$-surface on the brane in order to predict the future evolution. In other words, we need to specify the whole (past) history of perturbations on the brane to predict the future evolution with infinitely high accuracy, provided that the metric perturbations can be Taylor expanded with respect to the time. This explains how the $`4`$-dimensional local description breaks down at high energies. Of course, at low energies the non-local behavior is well suppressed. The result and the conjecture are summarized in table I.

The non-locality is due to gravitational and scalar waves in the bulk as shown in figure 3. First, let us consider perturbations localized on the brane. By definition, these perturbations propagate on the brane. At the same time, they can generate gravitational and scalar waves since the junction conditions couple perturbations on the brane and those in the bulk. These waves, of course, propagate in the bulk spacetime. However, they may eventually collide with the brane, and can alter the evolution of perturbations localized on the brane. Hence, from the $`4`$-dimensional point of view, the evolution of perturbations localized on the brane should be non-local. The non-locality is one of essential features of brane worlds.

Hence, the infinite series of higher derivative terms is one description of the non-locality pointed out in ref.  in the context of brane world cosmology . Another description was given as an integro-differential equation for the brane world scenario without bulk scalars in ref. , where a complete set of four equations governing scalar-type cosmological perturbations was derived by using the doubly gauge invariant formalism . One of the four equations is an integro-differential equation, which describes non-local effects due to gravitational waves propagating in the bulk. Further investigation of the relation between the two different descriptions may be an interesting future subject. For example, the infinite series of higher derivative terms in the original Randall-Sundrum model with the infinite fifth dimension without bulk scalars was obtained in ref. . It should also be possible to obtain integro-differential equations for the model with a bulk scalar.

## Acknowledgements

Part of contents presented here is based on collaboration with Lev Kofman. The author would like to thank him for useful discussions and comments. This work is supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad.


text:
# X-ray Lines From Gamma-ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

Although much has been learned about gamma-ray busts (GRBs) in the last several years, the nature of the central exploding object remains uncertain (see Piran, 2000; van Paradijs et al. 2000; Meszaros, 2001 for recent reviews). The possible detection of x-ray lines in GRB afterglows is very important in this connection since the lines provide strong constraints on models.

Piro et al. (2000) claimed to detect an Fe Kα line and the corresponding recombination edge in GRB 991216. The line was seen about 1.5 days (in the observer frame) after the initial burst. There have been claims for iron lines also in a few other bursts (GRB 970508: Piro et al. 1999; GRB 970828: Yoshida et al. 1999; GRB 000214: Antonelli et al. 2000).

Recently, Reeves et al. (2002) reported the detection of x-ray Kα lines of Mg XI (or XII), Si XIV, S XVI, Ar XVIII and Ca XX in GRB 011211. The presence of multiple lines at apparently the same redshift makes this detection particularly interesting. If the lines are emitted isotropically, GRB 011211 must have emitted over $`10^{48}`$ ergs in each line as measured in the source frame. The emission occurred a few hours after the GRB and continued for about half an hour in the source frame. Since the lines are blue-shifted by $`v/c0.1`$ with respect to the GRB, the emission must have occurred within a sub-relativistic outflow from the source.

We show in this paper that it is quite challenging to come up with a viable theoretical model to explain the lines seen in GRB 011211. Recently, Borozdin & Trudolyubov (2002) have suggested that the lines may be an instrumental artifact, which would of course solve the theoretical problems. In the rest of the paper we derive constraints on some of the popular models that have been proposed so far for the line emission. The constraints apply to GRB 011211 and also to any other GRB for which a line with an energy output of about 1048 ergs is detected; this level of line emission roughly corresponds to the detection threshold of the current generation of instruments for a high redshift GRB. We also propose in this paper a new model for line production, which we believe suffers from fewer problems than the previous models.

Two broad classes of models have been proposed to explain the x-ray lines. In one model, it is assumed that the GRB is associated with a long-lived engine, with a duration of several hours to a day (Meszaros & Rees 2000). Part of the long-duration emission from the engine is intercepted by a funnel that has been carved out of the supernova ejecta. The intercepted radiation is reprocessed into x-ray line photons by the photoionized gas in the surface layers of the funnel. Lazzati, Ramirez-Ruiz & Rees (2002) have shown that this model is ruled out in the case of GRB 011211, the reason being that the radiation from the central engine which causes the line emission should also be visible to the observer. There should be a very significant level of continuum radiation, which was not observed.

In the second model, it is proposed that the GRB explosion is preceded, by roughly a week or so, by a supernova explosion which ejects a dense slab of gas moving at a speed $`v0.1c`$. The ejected material reaches a distance $`>10^{15}`$ cm by the time the GRB goes off. The x-ray photons from the GRB and early afterglow are intercepted by the slab and the radiation is reprocessed into line photons (Vietri & Stella, 1998; Vietri et al. 2001). The geometry of the outflowing gas is somewhat flexible. It could be a quasi-spherical shell, as in the model suggested by Reeves et al. (2002), or it could be in the form of a large funnel carved out in the previously ejected material. In either case, the delay of a few hours between the GRB and the line emission is explained as the geometrical time delay associated with the extra path length that photons have to travel from the GRB to the photoionized layer and then to the observer.

A third possibility, which we elaborate upon here, is that the supernova and the GRB go off simultaneously, but that the radiation from the GRB and early afterglow is scattered by a nearby scattering medium and then intercepted by the expanding surface of the supernova ejecta. The lines are produced from the surface layers of the ejecta. The time delay in this case measures the path length from the GRB to the scatterer and back to the ejecta. The basic outline of this model was briefly described by Vietri et al. (2001), who however considered the model implausible. We conclude just the opposite in this paper. We argue that, if the lines in GRB 011211 are real, they were probably produced by something resembling this model. Vietri et al. (2001) did not specify the nature of the scatterer. In our model, the scattering occurs in a pair screen created by the gamma-ray photons from the GRB. An attractive feature of the model is that the radius at which the pair screen is likely to form is close to what is needed to explain the observed time delay.

We provide some general constraints on the various models in §2 and find serious problems with all proposals. We show in §3 that the pair screen scattering model can account for the x-ray lines in GRB 011211 provided there is sufficient ambient density in the vicinity of the GRB to scatter gamma-rays to produce a significant pair screen, and provided the surface layers of the exploding star move with a significant speed $`0.3c`$. We conclude with a summary and discussion in §4. Some of the radiation physics relevant to line emission is discussed in the Appendix A.

## 2 General Constraints

Consider a photoionized medium with a radius $`R=10^{15}R_{15}`$ cm as seen projected on the plane of the sky (i.e., perpendicular to the line of sight from the observer). Let the line-emitting gas have a thickness $`d`$ and optical depth $`\tau `$ parallel to the line of sight. Let the electron density be $`n_e=10^{15}n_{15}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the temperature be $`10^7T_7`$ K, and let the number of electrons per Si ion be $`4\times 10^4a_s`$; we focus on Si because it is the strongest line seen in GRB 011211. The parameter $`a_s`$ is defined such that $`a_s=1`$ corresponds to solar composition and $`a_s<1`$ corresponds to a medium in which the heavy elements are enhanced by a factor $`1/a_s`$.

Let the medium be irradiated by x-ray continuum radiation from the GRB for a time $`t=10^2t_2`$ s. The efficiency for converting x-ray continuum radiation (in the 1–10 keV band) to x-ray line radiation is typically a few percent under optimal conditions (Lazzati et al. 2002). Therefore, the energy in continuum irradiation is $`50\zeta _{50}E_x`$, where $`E_x=10^{48}E_{48}`$ ergs is the energy emitted in line photons. The continuum photon number flux incident on the line producing region is thus

$$\mathrm{}_x=\frac{50\zeta _{50}E_x}{4\pi R^2tϵ_\alpha }10^{25}\frac{\zeta _{50}E_{48}}{R_{15}^2t_2ϵ_3}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1,$$

where $`ϵ_x=3ϵ_3`$ keV is the energy of each line photon.

The photoionization cross-section for hydrogenic ions is $`\sigma _\gamma =7.9\times 10^{18}z^2`$ cm2, where $`z`$ is the atomic number of the line-emitting species ($`z=14`$ for Si). For the photon number flux estimated above, we see that the photoionization time for Si XIII is about 3x10-6 s. In comparison, the recombination time for Si XIV is

$$t_{rec}5.9\times 10^4\frac{T_7^{1/2}}{z_{14}^2n_{15}}\mathrm{s},$$

which, for an electron density of 1015 cm-3, is about $`10^3`$ times longer than the photoionization time. In the following, we therefore assume that the line emission is controlled by the recombination rate.

The rate at which Si Kα photons are emitted by the gas per unit projected area is

$`\dot{N}_{Si}={\displaystyle \frac{n_{Si}d}{t_{rec}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_e}{4\times 10^4a_s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\sigma _Tn_e}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_{14}^2n_{15}}{5.9\times 10^4T_7^{1/2}}}\right)`$
$`=6.4\times 10^7{\displaystyle \frac{z_{14}^2\tau n_e}{a_sT_7^{1/2}}}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.`$
The line flux is

$$F_{Si}=ϵ_\alpha \dot{N}_{Si}=3.1\times 10^{14}\frac{z_{14}^2\tau ϵ_3n_{15}}{a_sT_7^{1/2}}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$
$`(\text{1})`$
The irradiating continuum flux in 1–10 keV photons is $`F_{110}=50\zeta _{50}F_{Si}`$, and so the ionization parameter is

$$\xi =\frac{4\pi F_{110}}{n_e}=190\frac{z_{14}^2ϵ_3\zeta _{50}}{T_7^{1/2}}\frac{\tau }{a_s}.$$
$`(\text{2})`$
For $`T_71`$, $`\tau 1`$, $`a_s0.1`$ (ten times solar abundance, see Reeves et al. 2002 and Appendix A3), we find $`\xi 2\times 10^3`$, which is approximately the value needed for strong line emission according to Lazzati et al. (2002) for a ten times solar composition gas. Our analysis in Appendix A2 also gives a similar requirement for $`\xi `$. Thus, it appears that an optimum ionization parameter is obtained quite naturally in this problem using reasonable parameters.

Since each gas element in the medium is irradiated and emits lines for a time $`10^2t_2`$ s, the total energy emitted in Si lines is

$$E_{Si}=F_{Si}\pi R^210^2t_2=5\times 10^{47}\frac{\xi _3t_2n_{15}R_{15}^2}{\zeta _{50}}\mathrm{ergs},$$

where we have written the answer in terms of $`\xi _3=\xi /10^3`$. For an observed line energy of $`10^{48}E_{48}`$ ergs, we then find

$$n_{15}\frac{2\zeta _{50}E_{48}}{\xi _3t_2R_{15}^2}.$$
$`(\text{3})`$
Note that a number of parameters have disappeared from the final expression for $`n_e`$. This is because we have expressed the result in terms of the ionization parameter.

Equation (3) is an important constraint on the density of the radiating layer. The constraint applies not only to the Si line explicitly considered above, but also to lines of Fe and other elements of similar abundance when appropriate values for $`E_{48}`$ and $`\xi _3`$ are substituted. As an example, for GRB 991216, Piro et al. (2000) reported the detection of an Fe Kα line with $`E_{48}10`$. Since the optimum $`\xi _3`$ for producing the Fe line is typically about 10 times larger than for the Si line (see Fig. 1 and also Lazzati et al. 2002), the numerical coefficient in equation (3) remains unchanged for the particular claimed Fe line.

The constraint expressed by equation (3), coupled with another constraint which comes from the observed time delay (see below), severely limits possible models for the line emission. We now consider three very different models for the line emission.

1. Shell Model: We assume that the radiating gas is in the form of a quasi-spherical shell at a radial distance $`D=10^{15}D_{15}`$ cm from the GRB engine. Let the radiation from the GRB be beamed within a cone of half-angle $`0.1\theta _1`$ radians. The observed time delay of $`10^4t_{x\gamma ,4}`$ s between the GRB and the X-ray lines requires

$$R_{15}=\frac{6t_{x\gamma ,4}}{\theta _1},D_{15}=\frac{60t_{x\gamma ,4}}{\theta _1^2}.$$
$`(\text{4})`$
Given this estimate of $`D`$ and assuming a beaming angle of 0.1 radians, we note that a shell moving at speed $`0.1c`$ must have been ejected nearly a year before the GRB. The time difference may be reduced to a few days if the beam is significantly wider (Reeves et al. 2002). Substituting the above estimate of $`R_{15}`$ into equation (3) we find that the mean electron density in the shell is

$$n_{15}0.06\frac{\theta _1^2\zeta _{50}E_{48}}{\xi _3t_2t_{x\gamma ,4}^2},$$
$`(\text{5})`$
and the thickness of the shell is

$$d=\frac{\tau }{\sigma _Tn_e}=2.7\times 10^{10}\frac{\tau \xi _3t_2t_{x\gamma ,4}^2}{\zeta _{50}\theta _1^2E_{48}}\mathrm{cm},$$

$$\frac{d}{D}=4.5\times 10^7\frac{\tau \xi _3t_2t_{x\gamma ,4}}{\zeta _{50}E_{48}}.$$

We consider such a small value of $`d/D`$ to be highly unlikely. Because in this model the irradiation occurs on the inside of the shell and the observed line emission is from the outside, the quantity $`d`$ directly measures the total thickness of the shell. Even if the shell was initially ejected with zero thickness, we estimate that thermal expansion would have broadened it considerably. For instance, if the shell was created with a temperature of 106 K (a conservative estimate) and it subsequently cooled adiabatically, then the relative expansion velocities of the two surfaces of the shell would be about 100 km s-1, which is to be compared with the mean velocity of $`0.1c`$. It is unlikely that $`d/D`$ would be less than the ratio of the two velocities, which gives a limit $`d/D\stackrel{>}{}3\times 10^3`$, orders of magnitude larger than the value obtained in the shell model. Note that there is very little leeway in the values of the parameters $`\tau `$, $`\xi _3`$, $`t_2`$, $`\zeta _{50}`$ and $`E_{48}`$ in the expression for $`d/D`$. As discussed above, a similar constraint should apply also to the Fe line observation of Piro et al. (2000), except that the numerical coefficient is a little different because of the longer time delay in that case. We conclude that the shell model is not viable.

2. Funnel Model: We assume that the radiating layer is on the inside of a conical or quasi-cylindrical funnel with an opening angle $`0.1\theta _1`$ radians (as viewed from the GRB engine). The estimates of $`R_{15}`$, $`D_{15}`$ and $`n_{15}`$ obtained in equations (4), (5) for the shell model are valid in this case as well. (Recall that $`R_{15}`$ refers to the projected radius of the emitting region, and that $`\tau `$ refers to the optical depth parallel to the line of sight, not perpendicular to the inclined funnel surface.) In this model there is no longer any difficult with having a very small value of $`d/D`$. The ionizing photons from the GRB impinge on the inner surface of the funnel and the line photons are also emitted from the same surface. Thus, the radiating region can be an arbitrarily thin layer (unlike in the case of the shell model).

There is, however, a problem with the amount of mass required in the model. Let us assume that the funnel is carved out of a roughly quasi-spherical external medium (most probably the supernova ejecta). Given the electron density $`n_e`$ and the radius of the sphere $`D`$, we estimate the external mass to be

$$M\frac{4\pi }{3}D^3n_em_p4.3\times 10^7\frac{\zeta _{50}t_{x\gamma ,4}}{\xi _3t_2\theta _1^4}M_{}.$$

For $`\theta _11`$, the mass is unacceptable large. Even if we take $`\theta _110`$, i.e., no beaming, the mass is still much too large. As in the case of the shell model, we do not have much freedom in choosing the other parameters.

One way to decrease the mass requirement in the funnel model is to enhance the density in the funnel wall relative to the rest of the ejecta. For example, one could imagine that initially there was no funnel, and that it was the GRB itself that pushed the material aside to form the funnel. It is conceivable that the material pushed aside could have piled up on the walls, giving an enhanced density there. It is not clear that this mechanism can produce the orders of magnitude density enhancement needed to reduce the mass estimate to a reasonable value.

3. Scattering Screen Model: In this model, the photoionization occurs indirectly. Photons from the GRB travel out to a screen, are scattered, and then irradiate the line-emitting gas, which is located in the surface layers of the supernova ejecta. Because the geometry is very different from the previous two models, there are two important changes. First, the time delay of $`10^4`$ s between the GRB and the line emission measures the distance to the scattering screen ($`>10^{14}`$ cm) but not the size of the line-emitting ejecta. Therefore, the estimates given in equation (4) are not valid. Instead, if we assume that the ejecta have expanded at speed $`0.1c\beta _{,1}`$ for $`10^4t_{x\gamma ,4}`$ s, we estimate that $`RD10^{13.5}t_{x\gamma ,4}\beta _{,1}`$ cm. Second, the irradiation occurs for a time $`10^4t_{x\gamma ,4}`$ s rather than $`10^2`$ s, and so we expect $`t_2100t_{x\gamma ,4}`$. Both changes help to ease some of the constraints.

With the above choices for $`R`$ and $`t`$, we find

$$n_{15}=20\frac{\zeta _{50}E_{48}}{\xi _3t_{x\gamma ,4}^3\beta _{,1}^2}.$$
$`(\text{6})`$
The mass in the ejecta is then

$$M\frac{4\pi }{3}R^3n_em_p2\frac{\zeta _{50}E_{48}\beta _{,1}}{\xi _3}M_{},$$

and the kinetic energy is

$$E_{KE}M(0.1c\beta _{,1})^2/2=2\times 10^{52}\frac{\zeta _{50}E_{48}\beta _{,1}^3}{\xi _3}\mathrm{ergs}.$$

The kinetic energy may be overestimated by a factor of a few because the velocity of $`0.1c`$ presumably refers only to the surface layers, while the bulk of the ejecta may be moving substantially slower. Overall, the parameters are more reasonable in this model than in the previous two models. The mass and energy requirements, for instance, are consistent with an underlying supernova.

Two issues remain to be clarified in this model, both of which are discussed in §3. First, we need to identify the nature of the scattering screen. We suggest that it is a pair plasma cloud which is temporarily created by the GRB radiation itself. Second, we have to check whether there is enough scattered radiation to power the rather impressive level of line emission seen in GRB 011211.

## 3 X-ray Reflection from a Pair Screen

As the pulse of gamma-ray photons from a GRB moves outward, some of the photons will be scattered by electrons in their path and will collide with other outgoing photons to produce electron-positron pairs. This process has been considered by a number of authors in the context of GRBs (Thompson & Madau 2000; Meszaros et al. 2000; Beloborodov 2002; Kumar & Panaitescu 2002).

An exponential growth of pairs occurs when the optical depth for a scattered GRB photon to pair-produce off outgoing Mev photons is greater than 1. This condition gives an upper limit on the distance of the pair screen from the central explosion: $`R_\pm 10^{15}E_{52}^{1/2}`$ cm. Here, $`E_{52}`$ measures the isotropic equivalent energy in the gamma-ray pulse in photons of energy greater than 1 Mev, where $`E_{52}E_{GRB}(2m_ec^2/h\nu _p)^\beta /10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$, $`E_{GRB}`$ is the total energy in the GRB pulse, $`\nu _p`$ is the frequency at the peak of the spectrum, and $`\beta `$ is the high energy spectral index. Approximately 103 pairs can be created per ISM electron when conditions are right, but the number can be much less in other situations. If the optical depth of the pair screen becomes $`1`$, further pair creation is expected to be quenched and so the optical depth will not increase much above unity.

Let the medium in the vicinity of the GRB explosion be stratified with density decreasing as $`r^2`$, as appropriate for a wind from the pre-supernova star: $`n(r)=n_0(r/r_0)^2`$. For a mass loss rate of 10-5 yr-1, which is average for a Wolf-Rayet star, and a wind speed of 103 km s-1, the number density at a radius of 1015 cm is about 106 cm-3. The optical depth in the wind is dominated by the radius at which the GRB photons are produced (where the density is highest). In the internal shock model for GRBs this radius is a $`r_1\mathrm{few}\times 10^{14}`$ cm. Let us assume that the pair screen forms between $`r_1`$ and an outer radius $`r_2`$. Let us also imagine that, on average, each ISM electron produces $`\eta _\pm `$ pairs. The optical depth of the pair screen is then

$$\tau =n_0\sigma _T\eta _\pm r_0^2/r_1,$$

Assuming a mass $`2m_p`$ per ISM electron, the mass of the screen is

$$M=\pi \theta _j^22m_pn_0r_0^2r_2,$$

where $`\theta _j`$ is the jet opening angle.

Let the pair screen move with Lorentz factor $`\gamma _\pm `$ as a result of absorbing momentum from the GRB photons. The momentum of the screen may be written in the form

$$P=\frac{2\pi \theta _j^2\tau r_2r_1m_pc\gamma _\pm }{\sigma _T\eta _\pm }.$$

The momentum taken out of the GRB pulse is $`E_{GRB}\times \mathrm{min}(\tau ,1)/(c\gamma _\pm ^2)`$, where the factor $`\gamma _\pm ^2`$ allows for the fact that, for a stationary observer, the scattered photons move at an angle of $`1/\gamma _\pm `$ with respect to the radial direction. Equating the momentum taken out of the GRB pulse to $`P`$ we obtain an estimate for the Lorentz factor of the pair screen:

$$\gamma _\pm =\left[\frac{\sigma _TE_{GRB}\eta _\pm \mathrm{min}(\tau ,1)}{2\pi \theta _j^2m_pr_2r_1c^2\tau }\right]^{1/3}=\left(\frac{0.07E_{51}\eta _\pm \mathrm{min}(\tau ,1)}{\theta _j^2r_{1,15}r_{2,15}\tau }\right)^{1/3}.$$

For $`E_{51}=0.5`$, $`\theta _j=0.2`$, $`\eta _\pm =10`$, $`r_{1,15}=r_{2,15}/4=0.5`$ and $`\tau 1`$ we find $`\gamma _\pm =2.1`$. The total energy scattered backward is about a factor of 18 less than the energy in the original GRB pulse because of Doppler de-amplification. However, the peak of the spectrum of the back-scattered radiation is a factor of $`4`$ smaller than the peak of the GRB spectrum. If the latter is at 100 kev, we expect the ejecta from the exploding star to be bathed in a radiation field with a peak at $`\stackrel{<}{}25`$ kev, which is closer to the optimum energy for photoionizing the gas in the ejecta.

In order to have significant back-scattering of photons, $`\tau `$ should be close to unity. Taking $`\eta _\pm =10`$, $`r_0=10^{15}`$ cm, $`r_1=5\times 10^{14}`$ cm, this requires $`n_07\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, which is substantially larger than the number density expected for a typical WR star wind. The pre-supernova star must have had an unusually heavy mass-loss rate within the last few years of its life just before the explosion.

Assuming $`\tau \stackrel{>}{}1`$, the fraction of the backward scattered energy intercepted by the exploding star, assuming the ejecta are expanding uniformly with a velocity 0.15c,1111For a spherically expanding shell with speed $`v`$, the mean blueshift observed for a line is $`2v`$/3. is 6%. The intercepted flux is a factor of two larger when we include the dipole nature of Thomson scattering. Thus the total energy incident on the star is $`3\times 10^{48}`$ ergs. This falls short of the required amount in GRB 011211, which is $`50\zeta _{50}\times 10^{48}E_{48}=5\times 10^{49}\zeta _{50}E_{48}`$ ergs. If the supernova explosion is non-spherical, as evidenced by recent polarization observations, with the equatorial region expanding at about twice the speed of the polar region, then about 50% of the back scattered flux will be intercepted by the ejecta and the total energy incident on the expanding stellar surface is $`2\times 10^{49}`$ ergs. Instead of an asymmetric supernova, we could also consider a rapidly expanding cocoon, possibly associated with the GRB jet. This will work equally well provided the density is sufficiently high (eq 6) and the transverse velocity is $`\stackrel{>}{}0.3c`$.

The deceleration radius for the relativistic GRB ejecta, for the wind density deduced above, is significantly smaller than the radius $`r_1`$ of the pair screen. Thus a substantial fraction of the energy of the relativistically expanding GRB fireball will be converted to x-ray radiation before the expanding material hits the pair screen, and this energy will also be scattered by the pair screen and intercepted by the supernova ejecta. The early afterglow spectral peak is typically at an energy smaller than the GRB peak, and the peak shifts to lower energies with time as the Lorentz factor of the shock decreases. In the case of the high density surrounding medium considered here, the two emissions could have similar peak energy at early times, but the afterglow emission will subsequently shift to lower frequencies.

When we include the scattered afterglow flux, we find that the expanding supernova ejecta could receive a total of $`5\times 10^{49}`$ ergs in 1–20 keV band. The afterglow radiation will be more efficient, compared to the GRB photons, in ionizing Si and other atoms which have ionization energies of a few keV. Such a continuum x-ray flux can be efficiently processed into line radiation as discussed in the Appendix, with about 2% of the continuum energy, or $`10^{48}`$ ergs, coming out in Si Kα photons. We note that, because of projection effects, an observer who is located in the direction of the jet will infer a factor of 2 higher line luminosity than the true isotropically averaged luminosity. This gives a safety factor of $`2`$ in the above estimates.

Because the pair cloud is moving outward with a Lorentz factor $`2`$, its optical depth is likely to reduce substantially by the time the line photons arrive at the cloud. Therefore, the x-ray lines will not be significantly attenuated by scattering off pairs. Note in addition that GRB radiation scattered off the pair cloud associated with the counter-jet is likely to be blocked by the expanding supernova ejecta (for the parameters we have considered, viz., $`\theta _j=0.2`$, transverse $`v/c\stackrel{>}{}0.3`$). Thus, that radiation will not contribute to the observed continuum flux.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

The discovery of x-ray lines in the afterglow spectra of GRBs, hours to days after the initial gamma-ray burst, poses severe problem for theoretical models. We have focused in this paper on the strong Si line observed by Reeves et al. (2002) in GRB 011211, but our arguments are valid more generally and apply, for instance, to the Fe line observed in GRB 991216 by Piro et al. (2000). In the case of GRB 011211, we have the following constraints:

1. The line-emitting gas must be moving towards the observer at an average speed of $`v0.1c`$ relative to the rest frame of the GRB. This suggests that the gas is associated with ejecta from a supernova explosion.

2. The time delay of $`10^4`$ s (measured in the source frame) between the initial GRB and the later line emission constrains the geometry of the source. In models in which the lines are produced by direct irradiation by GRB photons, the distance of the line-emitting region from the central engine ($`D`$) and the lateral extent of the irradiated region ($`R`$) are constrained by equation (4). In indirect irradiation models, in which the GRB radiation is first scattered off a nearby screen, the distance to the cloud is constrained to be $`10^{14.5}`$ cm and $`D`$ is smaller $`10^{13.5}`$ cm.

3. According to Reeves et al. (2002), GRB 011211 emitted $`10^{48}`$ ergs or more in each of five Kα lines. This estimate of the energy is conservative since there might well have been additional line emission during the 11 hours between the time of the GRB and when the x-ray observations began. Regardless, the energy in the lines is a substantial fraction of the total gamma-ray energy budget of $`10^{51}`$ ergs (for reasonable beaming angles). Assuming the lines were produced by photoionization, the source must have been very efficient at converting continuum radiation into lines.

4. In the x-ray observations, the 1–10 keV continuum flux was found to be no more than a factor of 10 greater than the flux in each line. This introduces two constraints on models. First, the free-free emission from the gas should not be too large relative to the line emission. This requires the composition of the gas to be several times solar (Appendix A3, Reeves et al. 2002) or the temperature of the gas to be less than a keV. Second, as Lazzati et al. (2002) have argued, the photoionizing radiation from the GRB which is the cause of the line emission must not be visible to the observer. The reason is that the irradiating flux is estimated to be nearly 100 times larger than the line flux even under optimum conditions, much in excess of the observed continuum flux. This constraint eliminates all models in which the central engine puts out substantial energy for $`10^4`$ s or longer.

5. For optimum line emission, the ionization parameter $`\xi `$ has to lie in a relatively narrow range: $`\xi _3=\xi /10^30.1`$few. This condition introduces quite a strong constraint on the electron density in the line-emitting gas, as shown by equation (3).

When combined together, these constraints make it very hard to find a model that can explain the lines claimed by Reeves et al. (2002) in GRB 011211. We have considered in §2 two varieties of models that have been discussed previously in the literature.

In one type of model, one has a “transmission geometry” in which the irradiation occurs on one surface of a slab of gas and the lines are emitted from the other surface. The shell model of Reeves et al. (2002) is of this type. Given the density constraint (3) and the requirement that the Thomson optical depth through the slab not be much greater than unity (in order to have any transmission at all), we deduce an impossibly thin slab at quite a large radius from the GRB engine. We believe it is extremely hard to arrange such a thin shell.

In another type of model, one has a “reflection geometry” in which both the irradiation and the line emission occur from the same surface of the line-emitting region. A good example of such a model is the funnel model discussed in §2. In this case, the high density implied by equation (3), coupled with the large length $`D`$ of the funnel, imply an enormous amount of mass in the external medium. The mass can be reduced to something reasonable only by invoking highly contrived conditions.

We have also proposed and discussed in some detail a third type of model which appears to have a better chance of producing observable x-ray lines in GRBs. In this model, gamma-rays from the GRB create a pair screen temporarily at a distance of $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ cm from the central engine. The screen scatters a substantial fraction of the gamma-rays backward and thereby irradiates the expanding supernova ejecta. The lines are produced in the outer layers of the ejecta. In this model, the time delay between the GRB and the line emission reflects the added path length that the irradiating photons travel before they photoionize the line-emitting gas. The line-emitting region is significantly more compact than in the other two models. Also, each line-emitting gas element experiences irradiation for $`10^4`$ s and not just $`10^2`$ s as in the other models. These modifications enable this model to overcome the problems associated with the other models. Interestingly, even though irradiation occurs for $`10^4`$ s, the model can satisfy the low continuum flux (constraint 4 above) because the irradiating photons move backwards, i.e., away from the observer. (The corresponding backward moving photons from the counter-jet are likely to be hidden by the supernova ejecta, see §3.)

The pair screen scattering model satisfies most of the constraints described above without requiring too much mass or too much energy or an implausible geometry. Moreover, the distance at which a pair screen is likely to be formed around a GRB is just what is needed to explain the observed time delay. In addition, the model has the important virtue that the GRB and the supernova occur simultaneously. In our opinion, this is an improvement over the shell and funnel models discussed above, both of which require the supernova explosion to have occurred days to weeks before the GRB explosion.

The main problem with the pair screen scattering model is that it has difficulty explaining the total energy in the lines. Because the model involves an extra stage of scattering, the amount of irradiating flux is reduced compared to the other models. Therefore, in order to produce as much as $`10^{48}`$ ergs per line, we need (i) very efficient scattering in the pair screen, which implies order unity optical depth and a reasonably small outward Lorentz $`\gamma _\pm `$ for the pairs, and (ii) a large surface area for the supernova ejecta so that much of the reflected gamma-rays may be intercepted and reprocessed into lines. These requirements can be satisfied, as we have discussed in §3, but it requires pushing some parameters to their limit — in particular, we need a rather high mass loss rate from the pre-supernova star within a few years of the explosion, and an asymmetric supernova with a ratio of equatorial to polar velocity of about 2.

It is important to emphasize that, although we have concentrated on GRB 011211, many of the constraints we have described in this paper should be relevant for any detection of hydrogenic Kα lines of Si, Fe and other elements, in GRB afterglows. For a robust detection of a line with current instruments, the line energy has to be of order $`10^{48}`$ ergs and the continuum level has to be low, as perhaps in GRB 011211. Also, the detection is likely to be made hours to days after the initial GRB. Therefore, the problems we have emphasized with explaining the lines in GRB 011211 will carry over to line detections in other GRBs.

Acknowledgments: PK is indebted to Alin Panaitescu for valuable discussions on the physics of pair screens surrounding gamma-ray bursts, and to Gregory Shields and Craig Wheeler for numerous discussions on radiative effects, supernovae and GRBs. RN was supported in part by NSF grant AST-9820686.

Appendix A

A1. X-ray Lines from a Reflecting Slab

The flux in Kα lines of an atomic species $`A`$ (Si XIV for instance) from a photoionized slab of gas is given by

$$f_\alpha =n_{A^+}n_eR_{rec}h\nu _\alpha \lambda ,$$
$`(\text{7})`$
where $`n_{A^+}`$ is the number density of $`A^+`$ ions, $`h\nu _\alpha `$ is the line photon energy,

$$R_{rec}=5.2\times 10^{14}zb^{1/2}\left[0.429+0.5\mathrm{ln}b+0.496/b^{1/3}\right]$$

is the recombination rate for hydrogenic atoms (Seaton, 1959), $`b=1.58\times 10^5z^2/T\mathrm{s}^1`$, and $`\lambda `$ is the smaller of the mean free paths for ionizing photons ($`\lambda _{ion}`$) and line photons escaping from the region ($`\lambda _\alpha `$). The two mean free paths are given by

$$\lambda _{ion}^1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{z_A}{}}\sigma _{ion,i}(\nu _A)n_i,$$

where $`\sigma _{ion,i}(\nu _A)=7.9\times 10^{18}z^2(\nu _A/\nu _i)^3`$cm2 is the photoionization cross-section for atomic species $`i`$ at the frequency $`\nu _A`$, the threshold ionization frequency for atom $`A`$, and

$$\lambda _\alpha ^1=\eta n_e\sigma _T+\underset{i}{}\sigma _{ion,i}(\nu _\alpha )n_i,$$

where $`\nu _\alpha `$ is the frequency of the line photon, $`\eta (\delta \nu /\nu _\alpha )(c/v_e)`$ is the maximum allowed optical depth to Thomson scatterings such that the line broadening does not exceed the observed linewidth $`\delta \nu `$, and $`v_e`$ is the electron thermal velocity. The ionization fraction of the atom $`A`$ (assumed to be in the hydrogenic state) is determined from the following ionization equilibrium equation

$$n_{A^+}n_eR_{rec}=n_A𝑑\nu \frac{\sigma _{ion,A}(\nu )f_\nu }{h\nu }.$$

We have solved the above equations numerically. The results are shown in Fig. 1. In the calculations, the effect of resonant line trapping was included (see the discussion in A2 below), but the Auger effect was not considered. The temperature was taken to be 106 K for all the calculations, and the spectrum of the illuminating x-ray continuum was taken to be $`\nu ^{1.25}`$. For $`T=10^7`$ K, the peak of the Si line flux shifts to $`\xi 400`$ for solar abundance and to $`\xi =2\times 10^3`$ for 10 times solar abundance, and the value of $`f_{Si}/f_{inc}`$ at the peak remains nearly the same. For the Fe XXIV line, the line emission efficiency begins to decline at $`2\times 10^3`$ for $`T=10^7`$K. For $`T=4\times 10^7`$K our results agree with those of Lazzati et al. (2002) despite several differences in the input physics.

We discuss here an approximate analytical estimate for the line flux which provides some insight into the numerical results. Since the ionization cross-section decreases rapidly with increasing frequency, as $`\nu ^3`$, the above equation can be written approximately as

$$n_{A^+}n_eR_{rec}n_A\sigma _{ion,A}(\nu _A)f_{\nu _A}/3h\frac{f_{\nu _A}}{3h\lambda _{ion,A}},$$

where $`\lambda _{ion,A}^1=n_A\sigma _{ion,A}(\nu _A)`$ is the photo-absorption depth for photons of frequency $`\nu _A`$ (the threshold frequency for ionizing $`A`$). Substituting this in equation (7) we find

$$f_\alpha \nu _Af_{\nu _A}\left(\frac{\nu _\alpha }{3\nu _A}\right)\left(\frac{\lambda }{\lambda _{ion,A}}\right).$$

The photoionization cross-section for Si XIV is $`4\times 10^{20}`$ cm2 or a factor of $`6\times 10^4`$ larger than the Thomson cross-section. The abundance of Si, by number, for a gas of solar composition is a factor of about $`3\times 10^4`$ smaller than the hydrogen abundance. Thus, $`\lambda `$ is approximately equal to the Thomson mean free path ($`\lambda _T`$) for solar abundance and for an ionization fraction of $`50`$%.

For small values of the ionization parameter ($`\xi \stackrel{<}{}10^2`$) the ionization fraction is small and the mean free path $`\lambda \mathrm{min}\{\lambda _{ion,A},\lambda _\alpha \}\lambda _\alpha `$. In this case $`f_\alpha /\xi `$ increases with increasing $`\xi `$ because line photons are less likely to be absorbed, as the neutral fraction of atoms of $`z<z_A`$ decreases with increasing $`\xi `$. Resonant line scattering makes this effect very important. At some value of $`\xi 10^2`$, when $`n_{SiXV}/n_{SiXIV}1/2`$ (ionization fraction of 50%) the various mean free-paths are equal to each other and the line is most efficiently generated, i.e., $`f_\alpha /\xi `$ attains its maximum value. At larger $`\xi `$ atoms are photoionized to larger depth but the line photons can only come from a smaller depth of order $`\lambda _T`$. Thus, $`f_\alpha /\xi `$ decreases roughly as $`\xi ^1`$.

The largest possible value for the line flux is $`\nu _\alpha f_{\nu _A}/3`$. This flux is obtained under the right conditions when the abundance of $`A`$ is larger by an order of magnitude than the abundances of lower atomic number elements ($`z_A5\stackrel{<}{}z<z_a`$). It is also clear that increasing the abundance of all metals, or even all neighboring $`z`$ elements within $`|zz_A|\stackrel{<}{}5`$, will not increase the line emission efficiency $`f_\alpha /\xi `$ since, near the maximum of $`f_\alpha /\xi `$, $`\lambda `$ is largely controlled by the photoionization depth, which decreases inversely with increasing abundance.

Under optimal conditions, about 5% of the 1-10 keV continuum flux can be converted to line emission. This condition is met when the peak of the incident radiation is close to $`\nu _A`$ and the atomic abundance of $`A`$ is larger by a factor of a few than that of neighboring z-elements

A2. Resonant Line Trapping

The scattering cross-section for Kα photons of a hydrogenic atom is

$$\sigma _{21}(\nu )=\frac{c^2}{2\pi \nu _\alpha ^2}\frac{1}{1+[4\pi (\nu \nu _\alpha )/A_{21}]^2},$$

where $`A_{21}10^9z^4`$ s-1 is the spontaneous decay rate from $`n=2`$ to $`n=1`$. The mean scattering cross-section within the Doppler width of the line is $`A_{21}c^2/(8\pi ^2\nu _\alpha ^2\delta \nu _D)`$. The Doppler shift is $`\delta \nu _D(3kT/2m_pz)^{1/2}\nu _\alpha /c=3\times 10^4T_7^{1/2}\nu _\alpha (15/z)^{1/2}`$, and therefore the scattering cross-section, within the Doppler width of the line, is $`3\times 10^{18}`$ cm2, or two orders of magnitude larger than the photoionization cross-section. Since the photoionization optical depth of the region from which line photons are emerging is order unity, we see that the scattering optical depth is $`10^2`$. Thus the probability that the Kα photons are absorbed by atoms of lower atomic number, by photoionizing them, on their way out of the line producing region is not small and must be included in the calculation of the line flux.

It is interesting to note that a Kα photon undergoes only $`\tau _\alpha ^{2/3}`$ scatterings before getting out of the trapping region (and not $`\tau _\alpha ^2`$ scattering, as would be the case if the scattering cross-section was frequency independent), and the total path length traversed before escape is $`\tau _\alpha ^{1/3}`$ times the depth $`d`$ of the medium. This is explained below.

In each scattering the frequency of a line photon undergoes a random walk. After $`N`$ scatterings the frequency shift is given by

$$(\delta \nu /\nu _\alpha )^2=N(v/c)^2.$$

Since the scattering cross-section for a Lorentzian profile decreases as $`(A_{21}/\delta \nu )^2(c/v)^2/N`$, after $`\tau _\alpha `$ scatterings the cross-section decreases by a factor of $`\tau _\alpha `$. The photon then finds itself in a region with optical depth of order unity and escapes. Taking into account the distance traveled toward the surface in $`N`$ scatterings, which is proportional to $`N^{3/2}`$, we find that photons escape after $`\tau _\alpha ^{2/3}`$ scatterings and therefore the total path length traversed by a photon is about $`\tau _\alpha ^{1/3}d`$ (where $`d`$ is the depth of the line producing region).

When the absorption mean free path of the photon is comparable to the photoionization depth for Si atoms, the line-photon flux will be suppressed by a factor of about $`\tau _\alpha ^{1/3}`$. For an ionization parameter of $`400`$ and $`T_7=0.1`$, or for $`\xi =100`$ and $`T_7=1`$, the two mean free paths are equal and the line flux is small. However, as we increase $`\xi `$ the neutral atomic fraction decreases and the path length over which a line photon is absorbed by neutral atoms of lower atomic number goes up. An increase in the ionization parameter by a factor of four increases the photo-absorption length by a factor of four, and the emergent line emission is no longer suppressed by line trapping.

The enhanced photo-absorption of line photons due to resonant line trapping is included in the numerical results shown in Fig. 1. Our basic result is that the maximum flux in the Si XIV Kα line is a few percent of the irradiating x-ray continuum flux, and that the maximum flux is attained when $`\xi 10^3`$ for solar composition and for $`T=10^6`$K (for $`T=4\times 10^7`$K, $`\xi 100`$ as reported in Lazzati et al., 2002). The optimum $`\xi `$ increases further if the Si abundance is above solar.

A3. Bremsstrahlung Energy Loss

Let us assume that the most abundant ionic species in the plasma has an atomic number $`z`$. Its number density compared to electrons is smaller by a factor of $`z`$, and the bremsstrahlung energy loss rate per electron in the gas is given by

$$ϵ_B=5.3\times 10^{24}n_ezT_7^{1/2}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1.$$

If we approximate the geometry of the region as locally plane-parallel, then the x-ray continuum flux due to bremsstrahlung is given by

$$f_Bϵ_Bn_e\lambda _T=ϵ_B/\sigma _T=8.0\times 10^{15}n_{15}T_7^{1/2}z\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$

Comparing this with the estimate for the Si line flux given in equation (2), we find (for $`z=z_{14}=\tau =ϵ_3=1`$)

$$\frac{f_B}{F_{Si}}26a_s.$$

Observations of GRB 011211 indicate that the continuum flux is no more than ten times the Si line flux. This suggests that the line-emitting gas is overabundant in heavy elements by a factor of at least a few. Reeves et al. (2002) estimated an abundance of ten times solar in their analysis. Alternatively, the temperature of the gas must be less than 1 keV, so that the bulk of the bremsstrahlung emission is outside the 1–10 keV band.

The ionization parameter $`\xi _B`$ corresponding to the above bremsstrahlung flux is

$$\xi _B=\frac{4\pi f_B}{n_e}=100T_7^{1/2}z.$$
$`(\text{8})`$
For a pure H plasma this gives an ionization parameter of 100. If the ionization parameter for the incident radiation is $`50\zeta _{50}`$, then the bremsstrahlung flux will equal the incident x-ray flux, which is ruled out by the above-mentioned limit on the continuum flux. We need to lower the bremsstrahlung flux by a factor of about 10 to satisfy the continuum limit. From equation (8) this requires reducing the temperature to $`T_70.1`$. Lowering the temperature increases the recombination rate, and in order to get to the same ionization fraction we must increase the ionization parameter by a factor of $`T_7^{1/2}`$. The upshot is that in order to get about 2-4% of the irradiating flux as Si line emission, without violating the constraint on the x-ray continuum radiation, we require the ionization parameter to be $`10^3`$. The argument presented in A2 also suggests $`\xi 10^3`$ in order that Kα photons are not absorbed by atoms of lower $`z`$.