text:
# Baryon stopping and strange baryon/antibaryon production at SPS energies

## I Introduction

Present lattice QCD calculations indicate that strongly interacting hadronic matter at temperatures of 150-170 MeV (or energy densities of 1-2 GeV/fm3) should undergo a phase transition to a new state of matter generally denoted as quark-gluon-plasma (QGP). It is also common believe that this state of matter existed during the early phase of the universe until the temperature drop due to the rapid expansion lead to the freeze-out of hadrons which constitute a sizeable fraction of the total mass of the universe. Whereas the ’big bang’ has only been a single event - for presently living observers - relativistic collisions of heavy nuclei offer the unique possibility to study the dynamics of a huge number of ’tiny bangs’ under well controlled laboratory conditions. Hadronic spectra and relative hadron abundancies reflect the dynamics in the hot and dense zone formed in the early phase of the reaction.

Whereas meson rapidity distributions and transverse mass spectra essentially reflect the dynamics of newly produced $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, the baryon rapidity and transverse mass distributions give important information on baryon stopping  whereas antibaryon abundancies shed some light on quark chemical potentials $`\mu _q`$ at the space-time points of chemical decoupling, i.e. when chemical reactions no longer occur due to a large average separation between the hadrons. The latter statement, however, only holds if an approximate chemical equilibrium is reached in the collision zone of nucleus-nucleus reactions. In fact, chemical equilibrium models – based on extrapolations of existing data at the AGS and SPS – suggest that the highest strange baryon abundancies should occur in central collisions of heavy nuclei between 20 and 40 A$``$GeV . Furthermore, the degree of baryon stopping is related (by energy-momentum conservation) to the number of newly produced hadrons $`dN/dy`$ (per unit rapidity) which can be used to extrapolate the achieved energy density in these collisions by adopting the Bjoken formula

$$ϵ=\frac{M_T}{\tau _0A}\frac{dN}{dy}|_{y=y_{cm}},$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the transverse (geometrical) overlap region, $`M_T`$ is the average transverse mass and $`\tau _0`$ the proper production time which is estimated to be in the order of 1 fm/c. According to (1) the energy densities reached in central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at the SPS – using experimental information on $`M_T`$ and $`dN(y_{cm})/dy`$ should be in the order of 2.5–3.5 GeV/fm3, i.e. well above the critical energy density for a transition to a QGP in equilibrium.

The data from the SPS on baryon stopping demonstrate that simple extrapolations from $`pp`$ collisions at the same energy do not show enough baryon stopping (cf. e.g. ). Here transport models employing hadronic and string degrees-of-freedom such as RQMD , UrQMD  or HSD  do a better job since the formation and multiple rescattering of formed hadrons are included in these approaches. Furthermore, such transport calculations allow to study the change in dynamics from elementary baryon-baryon or meson-baryon collisions to proton-nucleus reactions or from peripheral to central nucleus-nucleus collisions in a unique way without changing any parameter. This is of central importance since the prejudice of thermal and chemical equilibrium does not hold in all of these reactions and the transport studies allow to explore the amount of (thermal or chemical) equilibrium reached in such collisions .

Experimentally, the dynamics of heavy nucleus-nucleus collisions have been studied up to 11.6 A$``$GeV at the BNL AGS and an extensive program has been carried out at the ’top’ CERN SPS energy of 160 A$``$GeV, whereas the intermediate range from 11 to 160 A$``$GeV has been practically unexplored from the experimental side. Only recently, experiments for $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV have been performed at the CERN SPS  and further experimental measurements are expected at 20 A$``$GeV . In this respect there is considerable hope that the experimental data can throw light on the basic question – if we might find signatures for an intermediate QGP state or if we just see strongly interacting hadronic matter.

In a previous study – within the UrQMD approach – we have addressed pion, kaon and antikaon abundancies and spectra in central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions from 20 – 160 A$``$GeV in comparison to the data from the NA49 Collaboration . In general, we have found that the UrQMD model reasonably describes the data, however, systematically overpedicts the $`\pi ^{}`$ yield by $`20`$%, whereas the $`K^+`$ yield is underestimated by $`15`$%. The $`K^{}`$ yields are in a good agreement with the data for all energies. This suggests that the production of antistrange quarks ($`\overline{s}`$) might be somewhat low in the transport model (as in the HSD approach ) whereas the production of the lightest $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs is overestimated systematically. However, in order to obtain a complete information on the abundancy of $`s,\overline{s}`$ quarks one has to study strange baryon production and antihyperon production, too, since strangeness conservation implies the same amount of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks to be produced in the collision. It is the aim of this work to provide an answer to this question within nonequilibrium transport theory.

## II Proton stopping and hyperon production

The UrQMD transport approach is described in Refs.  and includes all baryonic resonances up to an invariant mass of 2 GeV as well as mesonic resonances up to 1.9 GeV as tabulated in the PDG . For hadronic continuum excitations we employ a string model with meson formation times in the order of 1-2 fm/c depending on the momentum and energy of the created hadrons. The transport approach is matched to reproduce the nucleon-nucleon, meson-nucleon and meson-meson cross section data in a wide kinematical regime . At the high energies considered here the particles are essentially produced in primary high energetic collisions by string excitation and decay, however, the secondary interactions among produced particles (e.g. pions, nucleons and excited baryonic and mesonic resonances) also contribute to the particle dynamics – in production as well as in absorption.

Here we can come directly to the results for baryons and antibaryons and start at the highest bombarding energy of 160 A$``$GeV. The comparison of the UrQMD results on baryon stopping for the most central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 160 A$``$GeV to the NA49 data  has been reported previously in Refs. . In Fig. 1 we compare the UrQMD (version 1.3) calculations for the net proton rapidity distribution $`p\overline{p}`$ to the most resent data from the NA49 Collaboration  for 6 different centrality classes of $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions – from the most central (bin 1) to the very peripheral collisions (bin 6). Note, that the spectators are excluded from the calculated $`dN/dy`$ spectra in line with the experimental measurement. We find that the UrQMD model overestimates the stopping for the most central rapidity bin, i.e. the data show a slight dip at midrapidity and a two peak stucture, which indicates that full stopping is not achieved at 160 A$``$GeV even for this heavy system. On the other hand, it is quite remarkable that the hadron/string approach well reproduces the $`p\overline{p}`$ rapidity distributions as a function of centrality.

We step on with the hyperon ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) rapidity distributions at 40, 80 and 160 A$``$GeV in comparison to the data from NA49  – Fig. 2. The UrQMD calculations show an increasing hyperon yield with bombarding energy essentially due to a broadening of the rapidity distribution, while the midrapidity distributions at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV are practically the same. The data from the NA49 Collaboration show a decreasing hyperon yield at midrapidity with higher bombarding energy while suggesting a slightly larger width in $`dN/dy`$. Note, however, that the data at 160 A$``$GeV correspond to 10% centrality whereas the lower energies are for 7% centrality, respectively. We mention that for 7% centrality our calculations at 160 A$``$GeV roughly give the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ yield at midrapidity than for the lower energies of 40 and 80 A$``$GeV. It is not clear at present from the data, if the total integrated yields are compatible with our calculations. However, as demonstrated in Ref. , the UrQMD model describes rather well the antikaon rapidity distributions from 40 – 160 A$``$GeV whereas the kaon rapidity distributions are underestimated by about 15%. Consequently, by strangeness conservation, which is strictly fulfilled in the UrQMD approach, the hyperon yield should also be underestimated slightly.

We, furthermore, provide an overview on rapidity distributions of protons, neutral ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) and charged hyperons ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) at 40, 80 and 160 A$``$GeV from 7% or 5% central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions within the UrQMD model as well as predictions for 20 A$``$GeV (Fig. 3), where experimental measurements will be taken in near future . Whereas the net proton density at midrapidity decreases strongly with higher bombarding energy – which should be attributed to a lower amount of baryon stopping – the width in rapidity increases accordingly since the net $`p\overline{p}`$ number is a constant, if the produced meson system on average is charge neutral. The situation with strange baryons is different since a newly produced $`s`$-quark is contained in their wave function. In the UrQMD transport model this leads to a much narrower rapidity distribution for strange baryons than for protons from 20 – 160 A$``$GeV as seen from Fig. 3. Consequently, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/p`$ ratio varies sensitively with rapidity.

## III Antiproton and antihyperon production

We continue with antibaryon production in central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at SPS energies. Since the final $`\overline{p}`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ rapidity distributions are sensitive to their annihilation cross section with nucleons, we first discuss the actual implementation of annihilation within UrQMD. In this respect we show in Fig. 4 the annihilation cross section of $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ with nucleons as a function of the incident ($`\overline{p}`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) momentum in the laboratory frame. The solid circles are the $`\overline{p}`$ data from  while the open squares correspond to the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}p`$ data from . The dashed line stands for the parametrization of the $`\overline{p}`$ annihilation cross section used in UrQMD while the short dashed and solid lines correspond to two different parametrizations of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}p`$ annihilation cross section, which are both compatible to the experimental data (open squares), however, involve quite different extrapolations to the low momentum regime. The parametrization-1 (short dashed line) assumes

$$\sigma _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}N}^{ann}(\sqrt{s})0.8\sigma _{\overline{p}N}^{ann}(\sqrt{s}),$$
(2)
thus relating the different cross sections at the same invariant energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, which leads to a constant annihilation cross section for antilambdas at low momentum of $``$ 55 mb (default in UrQMD). The parametrization-2 (solid line) instead assumes

$$\sigma _{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}N}^{ann}(p_{lab})0.8\sigma _{\overline{p}N}^{ann}(p_{lab}),$$
(3)
thus relating the different cross sections at the same laboratory momentum $`p_{lab}`$. We note again that the data on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ annihilation at high momenta are compatible with both parametrizations.

The UrQMD calculations of the antiproton ($`\overline{p}`$) rapidity distribution for 5% central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 160 A$``$GeV are shown in Fig. 5 in comparison to the data from the NA49 Collaboration , which also include some contribution from the feeddown of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$. The experimental distribution is underestimated severely in UrQMD suggesting either a much lower annihilation cross section for antiprotons or the dominance of multi-meson fusion channels as suggested in Refs. .

Within the strangeness balance discussed in the context with Figs. 2 and 3, the antistrangeness content of antihyperons ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$) has been neglected. This conjecture remains to be proven. In fact, as shown in Fig. 6, the experimental data  for central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 80 A$``$GeV give $`dN/dy`$ 1, which is within the experimental error bars for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ in Fig. 2. This even more holds true at the lower bombarding energy of 40 A$``$GeV. The UrQMD calculations for the same centrality bin underestimate the NA49 data  by about of a factor of 2 (for parametrization-1) or 3 (for parametrization-3) at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV whereas the data at 160 A$``$GeV are underestimated only by about factors of 1.5-2. The short-dashed line (in the lower part for 160 A$``$GeV) shows the result of a calculation without antihyperon annihilation which only slightly overestimates the data. When integrating over rapidity we find that in case of parametrization-1 about half of the antihyperons are annihilated whereas for the parametrizarion-2 $``$2/3 of the antihyperons disappear.

It has been shown previously in Ref.  that the standard UrQMD model (with parametrization-1) underestimates the (multi-)strange baryon multiplicity for central $`Pb+Pb`$ at 160 A$``$GeV. As argued in , the inclusion of non-hadronic medium effects, like color-ropes  (simulated in UrQMD by increasing the string-tension), enhances the multiplicity of (anti-)strange baryons. The missing antihyperon yield can be attributed also to multi-meson fusion channels involving $`K,\overline{K},K^+,\overline{K}^{}`$ mesons  that are not accounted for in the calculations reported here. Furthermore, the high abundance of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ seen experimentally might also signal the appearance of disoriented chiral condensates (DCC’s) as put forward by Kapusta and Wong . In short, this issue is presently still open.

In order to provide an overview on antiproton and antihyperon production (in analogy to Fig. 3) we show in Fig. 7 the rapidity distributions of antihyperons ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$) calculated within the UrQMD model for 7% central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 20 (short dashed lines), 40 (dot-dashed lines), 80 (dashed lines) and for 10% central ( $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$) and 5% central ($`\overline{p}`$) collisions at 160 A$``$GeV (solid lines). The upper plot corresponds to the ’parametrization-1’ for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}p`$ annihilation cross section whereas the middle plot shows the UrQMD results with the ’parametrization-2’. The abundancy of strange antibaryons ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^0`$) increases rapidly with bombarding energy. Note, since the antihyperon yield is very low especially at 20 A$``$GeV, we present the antihyperon rapidity distribution in a logarithmic scale and indicate the statistical errorbars in order to demonstrate the accuracy/statistics achieved in the UrQMD calculations. As discussed above the antihyperon absorption is more pronounced for parametrization-2 especially at lower bombarding energy. We note in passing, taht the (rapidity integrated) $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\overline{p}`$ ratio from the UrQMD calculation is $``$ 0.9 and 0.6 for all bombarding energies from 20 - 160 A$``$GeV within the parameterset-1 and 2, respectively.

## IV Conclusions

In summary, we have calculated the amount of baryon stopping in central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions from 20 – 160 A$``$GeV as well as hyperon rapidity distributions in comparison to experimental data at 40, 80 and 160 A$``$GeV taken recently by the NA49 collaboration . We have demonstrated, furthermore, that the UrQMD model reasonably reproduces the amount of baryon stopping at 160 A$``$GeV for $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions as a function of centrality. The comparison of our calculations for hyperons with the experimental data, however, indicates that the strange baryon yield at midrapidity is slightly overestimated whereas the calculated rapidity distributions are somewhat more narrow than the data. This discrepancy might indicate a different mechanism for strange hyperon production than the string mechanism in the transport model. On the other hand, the experimental antihyperon rapidity distributions at 40, 80 and 160 A$``$GeV as well as the antiproton rapidity distribution at 160 A$``$GeV are underestimated by up to factors of 3 which we address to missing multi-meson fusion channels  in the UrQMD model. Note, however, that instead of multi-meson fusion channels also disoriented chiral condensates might explain the enhanced production of multistrange baryons as suggested in Ref. .


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Ultra-high energy neutrino nucleon cross section $`\sigma _{\nu N}`$ is a topic of fundamental physical importance. Low scale gravity models  predict enhancement of the neutrino-nucleon neutral current type cross section at center of mass energies above the fundamental gravity scale of about 1 TeV .111In the present context, by neutral current type cross section we mean there is no leading, charged lepton produced. The shower is essentially hadronic, which includes the case of black hole final states. Consequences for cosmic ray physics have been studied in application to the highest energy cosmic rays , where there is great interest in possible violation of the Greisen, Zatsepin, Kusmin (GZK) bound , at roughly 10 EeV ($`10^{19}eV`$). There is also great interest in application to an intermediate range , roughly 0.1 - 100 PeV ($`10^{14}10^{17}`$ eV). The history and future of the highest energy experiments  and intermediate energy experiments  provide a tremendous impetus for these studies pointing toward new physics.

Whatever the model, there are rich opportunities to study fundamental high energy interactions by focusing on (1) the ratio of neutral current type events to charged current events and (2) the angular distribution of events in upcoming experiments. The neutral-to-charged ratio and the angular distribution shape do not depend on the uncertainties of overall flux normalizations. The primary uncertainty in all cosmic ray comparisons with theory – the overall scale of the flux – drops right out. For a range of models with standard and reasonable flux spectral indices, the angular distributions are also remarkably insensitive to the details of the model. The strongest determining factor in the shape of the angular distribution is the fundamental physics of the interaction cross section itself. We emphasize and explore this fact, showing that arrays now planned or under construction could stringently test the Standard Model and proposals for new physics simply on the basis of the neutral-to-charge ratio and the slope of the angular distribution of neutrino-nucleon events. In the context of extra space-time dimensions, data could determine or bound such details as the scale and number of extra dimensions in the present models.

Here we continue earlier work  that examined possible signatures of enhanced $`\sigma _{\nu N}`$ in kilometer scale detectors. Extensions of the currently operating AMANDA  and RICE  experiments to ICECUBE  dimensions would certainly explore the 1 PeV - 100 PeV region. In the case of RICE, modest improvements even allow a reach above the EeV range. In  we used a linear extrapolation of the low scale gravity mediated neutral current $`\sigma _{\nu N}`$ from the low energy, $`\sqrt{s}1`$ TeV, region, to the $`\sqrt{s}1`$ TeV region and found a very sharp suppression of the up-to-down ratio compared to the standard model that set in at about 5 PeV for M = 1 TeV and at about 50 PeV for M = 2 TeV.

In that earlier study , we did not apply other extrapolations of the cross section to the up-to-down calculation, nor did we include the “feed down” effect , which results from neutral current interactions degrading higher energy neutrinos as they travel through the earth and “feeding” the flux at lower energies. In the standard model, this effect is small above 1 PeV where the flux decrease steepens and the neutral current cross section is too small to compensate. In contrast, this effect turns out to be extremely important after including the gravity induced neutral current $`\sigma _{\nu N}`$, which rises rapidly with energy. This point has not been explicitly recognized previously in connection with gravity enhancement.

A number of new gravity effects relevant to energies above the fundamental scale, applicable to physics at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), kilometer cubed detectors ($`KM^3`$) and GZK energies, have been proposed recently. In both Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD)  and Randall and Sundrum (RS)  models, eikonal treatment of the effective low energy amplitude (used as the “Born term” input) has been studied  and applied to LHC  and GZK  energies. In string realizations of the ADD framework , “stringy” cross sections, relevant just below M, have been estimated , as has the black hole formation cross section , which may be relevant above M, including the GZK energy region. We have investigated all of these options, and find that the eikonalized ADD low energy “Born amplitude” and “geometrical” black hole cross sections lead to the largest and least model dependent effects in our 1 PeV to 1000 PeV $`KM^3`$ application.222We do not treat the possibility of brane production and decay here . Our study goes beyond that reported recently in  in two respects: we emphasize higher energies and we include and analyze the consequences of the new, eikonalized graviton exchange component of the neutral current interaction. This latter point also distinguishes our work from a recent black hole detection study .

We should note here that, though the neutral current does not produce a prompt electron shower or leading muon characteristic of charged current signatures, one expects that the hadronic shower, which is completely electromagnetic after several radiation lengths, will be an observable signature of neutral current interactions. For this reason we regard all of the current detection mechanisms to be relevant to our study, certainly including RICE, which can detect a radio pulse from any kind of shower, AMANDA and ICECUBE.

### 1.1 The Cross Section

At C.M. energies well above the Planck mass, the classical gravity Schwarzschild radius $`R_s(\sqrt{s})`$ is the dominant physical scale. The classical impact parameter,b, may make sense in this domain, and the eikonal approximation be valid, for values of b larger than $`R_s`$. We will sketch the eikonal set-up shortly. At smaller impact parameters, the parton-level geometrical cross section

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{BH}}\pi r_S^2$$
(1)
provides a classical, static estimate of the cross section to form black holes. In Eq. 1 $`r_S`$ is the Schwarzchild radius of a $`4+n`$ dimensional black hole of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$,

$$r_S=\frac{1}{M}\left[\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+n}}\left[\frac{2^n\pi ^{(n3)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+n}{2}\right)}{2+n}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+n}}$$
(2)
where $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is the parton-parton or, in our case, neutrino- parton C.M. energy, and $`M`$ is the 4+n-dimensional scale of quantum gravity.333We use the mass scale convention discussed in , referred to as $`M_D`$ there. The black hole production process is expected to give a dominant contribution when $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}>>M`$. Black holes will form only if the impact parameter $`b<r_S`$. To convert Eq.1 into an estimate for the neutrino- nucleon cross-section, we fold it with with the sum over parton distribution functions and integrate over x-values, where $`\widehat{s}=xs`$, at a momentum transfer typical of the black hole production process:

$$\sigma _{\nu NBH}(s)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i_{x_{min}}^1𝑑x\widehat{\sigma }_{BH}(xs)f_i(x,q).$$
(3)
Black hole formation requires $`x>M^2/s`$, so we take $`x_{min}=M^2/s`$. In addition, $`q^1=b<r_S`$ is required. We adopt $`q=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ up to $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=10TeV`$, the maximum range in q of the CTEQ parton distribution functions , the set we use, and $`q=10TeV`$ when $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is above this value. As remarked in , the dependence of $`\sigma _{\nu NBH}(s)`$ on the choice of $`x_{min}`$ and the treatment of q is rather mild.

In the case of ADD model the black hole production cross sections can be large for $`n>2`$, in which case the fundamental scale can be of the order of 1 TeV. A number of authors have adopted this estimate and applied it to ultra relativistic, parton level scattering. The approximation has been challenged on the basis that quantum corrections should lead to exponential suppression of individual channels, such as the black hole formation final state , with several, independent arguments advanced in each case. In defense of the “black disk” approximation, several authors also point to success of internal consistency checks of the classical picture . Recent phenomenological studies seem to be agnostic on this issue , treating the phenomenological consequences of both versions.

In a string picture with scale $`M_s<M`$, there is a range of energy $`M_s\sqrt{s}`$ where string resonances dominate , and a range $`M_s<\sqrt{s}M`$, where stringball formation  could dominate.444In this discussion we suppress the $`\widehat{s}`$ notation for convenience, though parton level processes are intended. The cross section can be roughly expressed as

$$\sigma _{SR}(\sqrt{s})g_s^2\delta (sM_{SR}^2),\sqrt{s}M_{SR},$$
(4)
for the string resonance case. Here $`g_s`$ is the (weak) string coupling constant and $`M_{SR}`$ is the mass of a string resonance state. Similarly, for the stringball case, estimates of the cross section give

$$\sigma _{SB}(\sqrt{s})1/M_s^2,M_s/g_s<\sqrt{s}<M_s/g_s^2,$$
(5)
where $`M`$ is a few times less than $`M_s/g_s^2`$ for weak coupling. The impact of these various processes on the physics to be expected at the LHC, at a next linear collider (NLC) and very large hadron collider (VLHC) has been surveyed in a number of papers, summarized and referenced in the Snowmass 2001 report of the extra dimensions subgroup .

In our application to $`KM^3`$ physics in this paper, we mentioned above that the “classical” eikonal cross section  and the geometric black hole formation cross section are the only cases where we find potentially observable effects. We outline our treatments of the eikonal model in the ADD  and RS1  pictures next. The black hole cross section needs no further elaboration. The fundamental mass scale $`M`$ in the case of the ADD model for $`n>2`$, can be of the order of 1 TeV, though new astrophysics analyses may constrain n = 3 more severely, as we comment below . Similarly, in the RS picture the effective scale of gravity on the physical brane, the lowest K-K mode mass, can be arranged to be of the order of 1 TeV. In all of our quantitative work, we set the scale $`M`$ the same for every value of n we use in our comparisons. As noted earlier, the scale $`M`$ is the same as $`M_D`$ defined in  and discussed in .

In the RS1 model with one extra dimension or in the ADD model with several, a possible choice for the input amplitude to the eikonal approximation, referred to as the Born amplitude, is given by,

$$i_{\mathrm{Born}}=\underset{i}{}\frac{ics^2}{M^2}\frac{1}{q^2+m_i^2}$$
(6)
where $`c`$ is the gravitational coupling strength, which is effectively Newtonian for ADD and electroweak for RS. Here $`q=\sqrt{t}`$ is the momentum transfer. In the Randall-Sundrum case, the sum runs over the massive K-K modes, constrained to start at or above the TeV scale when c is of order electroweak strength. Their spacing is then also of TeV order. In the ADD case, the index i must include the mass degeneracy for the ith K-K mode mass value. The spectrum is so nearly continuous that an integral evaluation of the sum is valid, but must be cut off at a scale generally taken to be of the order of M. Taking the transverse Fourier transform of the Born amplitude, we get the eikonal phase as a function of impact parameter, b,

$$\chi (s,b)=\frac{i}{2s}\frac{d^2q}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐛)i_{\mathrm{Born}}$$
(7)
For the ADD model, where $`c=(M/\overline{M}_P)^2`$ and $`\overline{M}_P=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced, four dimensional Planck mass,

$`\chi (s,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s(2^{2n3}\pi ^{\frac{3n}{2}1})}{M^{n+2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)}}2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑mm^{n1}K_0(mb)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_c}{b}}\right)^n,`$
where

$$b_c^n=\frac{1}{2}(4\pi )^{\frac{n}{2}1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]\frac{s}{M^{2+n}}.$$
(9)
Because of the exponential decrease of $`K_0`$, the phase integral is actually ultraviolet finite. For the RS model, the corresponding expression is

$$\chi (s,b)=\underset{i}{}\frac{cs}{2M^2}K_0(m_ib).$$
(10)
For widely spaced KK modes in the Randall-Sundrum case, the lowest few modes dominate and contribute insignificantly in the $`1\mathrm{PeV}<E_\nu <100`$ PeV region. We do not discuss RS further.

The eikonal amplitude is then given in terms of the eikonal phase by

$``$ $`=`$ $`2is{\displaystyle d^2b\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐛)\left[\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )1\right]}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`i4\pi s{\displaystyle 𝑑bbJ_0(qb)\left[\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )1\right]},`$
The eikonal amplitude for the case of ADD model can be obtained analytically  in the strong coupling $`qb_c>>1`$ and weak coupling $`qb_c<<1`$ regimes.

In the strong coupling regime the eikonal amplitude can be computed using the stationary phase approximation and is given by,

$$=A_ne^{i\varphi _n}\left[\frac{s}{qM}\right]^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}},$$
(12)
where

$$A_n=\frac{(4\pi )^{\frac{3n}{2(n+1)}}}{\sqrt{n+1}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{1+n}},$$
(13)
$$\varphi _n=\frac{\pi }{2}+(n+1)\left[\frac{b_c}{b_s}\right]^n$$
(14)
and $`b_s=b_c(qb_c/n)^{1/(n+1)}`$. In the weak coupling regime, $`q0`$ the amplitude is given by

$$(q=0)=2\pi isb_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{2}{n}\right)e^{i\pi /n}.$$
(15)
As it turns out, the small q region contributes little to the cross section, and we use the simple rule that the amplitude is set to its value at $`q=1/b_c`$ for values $`q1/b_c`$.

The parton-level cross section is calculated by assuming that it is given by the Born term as long as $`\widehat{s}<M^2`$. For $`\widehat{s}>M^2`$ the cross section is estimated by the eikonal amplitude.555A discussion of the reliability of the eikonal amplitude in the $`5\mathrm{TeV}\sqrt{s}15`$ TeV range is given in . For M = 1 TeV, for example, the actual matching between the Born and eikonal amplitudes occurs in the range $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ = 1 - 3 TeV, depending on n and the value of $`y=q^2/\widehat{s}`$. In any case the region $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}M`$ contributes negligibly to the cross-section, so the precise matching choice makes no difference in the final result. The eikonal calculation is not expected to be reliable if the momentum transfer $`q>M`$. At large momentum transfer we assume that the black hole production dominates the cross section. The eikonal cross section is, therefore, cut off once the momentum transfer $`q>1/r_S`$. The neutrino-parton differential cross-section is folded with the CTEQ parton distributions and integrated over x and y variables, consistent with our momentum transfer restriction on the eikonal amplitude. The CTEQ limit at $`x=10^5`$ is exceeded only at the high end of the energy range we study. A standard power law extrapolation is used when x does range below this value, though the $`\widehat{s}`$ values are so low that the contribution of this range to the cross section is negligible. In Fig. 1 we plot the total neutrino-nucleon cross sections for several different values of the fundamental scale $`M`$ and the number of extra dimensions $`n`$, including both eikonal and black hole production contributions. The cross section is clearly more sensitive to the choice of the scale parameter, M, than to the number of dimensions, n. In fact the sensitivity to choice of n comes primarily through the dependence of the differences in bounds on M corresponding to different choices of n. The strongest bounds on M come from astrophysical and cosmological considerations, which unavoidably require some degree of modeling.

A recent review of experimental and observational constraints is given in , where lower bounds on M are quoted for n = 3 from various analyses such as supernova cooling, regarded as the least model dependent bound ($`M2.5TeV`$), post-inflation re-heating ($`M20TeV`$), and neutron star heat excess ($`M60TeV`$). For n = 4, the most severe constraint is $`M5TeV`$ in the case of the post-inflation re-heating limit. There are essentially no constraints on the cases n = 5 and 6. Laboratory lower bounds are typically of order 1 TeV or less for all $`n2`$, with LEP II providing the strongest bound at 1.45 TeV for n=2.

## 2 Event Rates of Downward Neutrinos

In Fig. 2, we show the downward event rate, defined as the number of interactions from down- coming neutrinos, within a one kilometer cubed volume. We use two, quite different input flux assumptions to show the dependence of rate on the flux. A simple parameterization of an optically thick source model of flux above 1 PeV given in Ref.  (SDSS) is used, along with the flux bound for optically thin source environments of Ref.  (WB). The flux in  is about two orders of magnitude larger than the bound in , and it has roughly an $`E^2`$ power law behavior from 0.1 PeV to 10 PeV, and then it steepens to approximately $`E^3`$. We parametrized the SDSS flux such that it falls as $`E^2`$ for 10 TeV $`<E<`$ 10 PeV and as $`E^3`$ for $`E>`$ 10 PeV. The WB bound, on the other hand, falls as $`E^2`$ over the whole energy range. The two flux curves cross at about $`10^3`$ PeV.

Our estimate is made by taking the vertical flux result, multiplying it by $`2\pi `$ steradians and by the probability that a neutrino would interact within 1 km in ice, with density 0.93 gm/cc, given the cross section model in question. To get an actual event rate for a given detector, we would have to multiply by the acceptance of the detector. In the SDSS flux model, Fig. 2a, the number of interactions peaks at around 10 PeV for the $`M=1`$ TeV case, with encouragingly large numbers of interactions, in the 350-650 range, induced by low-scale gravity. This is 10-20 times the SM interaction rate at the same energy. The number and the location of the peak rate depend upon the flux model of course . This dependence is illustrated in Fig. 2b, where the event rate for the WB bound is shown. The event rates are lower by a factor of about 50 and the gravity induced events have a much broader peak, centered at about 15 PeV, compared to the SDSS case. The peak is broader for the WB flux than for SDSS because the WB limit falls as $`E^2`$ throughout this energy region, while the SDSS flux falls as $`E^3`$ above 10 PeV, cutting off the higher energy events more rapidly. The shape of the SM event rate is the same in both cases, since the flux shapes are the same below 10 PeV.

The excess above the SM is roughly half neutral current type events arising from eikonalized graviton exchange and half black hole events, which decay predominantly into hadrons. Therefore an optimal detection scheme requires sensitivity to the hadronic shower from the deposited energy in the ice. The ICECUBE and RICE detectors, for example would respond readily to hadron showers at these energies. The special role of enhanced neutral current type events, those with hadronic signatures like the graviton exchange and black hole events, prompts us to propose that the ratio of neutral current to charged current events provides a powerful tool to uncover new interactions. In particular, if the neutral current type component, distinguished by hadronic dominated showers and no leading charged lepton, dominates, as it does in the black hole and the eikonal regimes of the low scale gravity models, there would be no standard model explanation. The ratio of neutral current type events to charged current events, distinguished by the presence of a leading charged lepton, is shown in Fig.3. The rapid rise that sets in above the threshold for new physics is remarkable, and would be so even without the black hole contribution. Even scales $`M>2TeV`$ are discernible with this observable. Putting together the information from several techniques, RICE and ICECUBE for example, one might well separate the “neutral” versus “charged” character of events and find a clear window on new physics.

## 3 The Regeneration and Angular Dependence of Neutrino Flux

We next calculate the up over down ratio of neutrino flux. The downward $`\varphi _0(E_\nu )`$ is the flux of neutrinos incident on the surface of the earth from the sky. We will consider only the diffuse neutrino flux and assume that it is isotropic. Our calculations are easily generalized if the flux is found to be non-isotropic or if we are interested in individual sources. The upward flux $`\varphi _{\mathrm{up}}(E_\nu )`$ is defined as the flux of neutrinos coming upwards from the surface of the earth. This is the angular average

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{up}}(E_\nu )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{\pi /2}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )𝑑\theta \varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )$$
(16)
of the flux $`\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )`$ emerging from the earth, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle with respect to the nadir and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the azimuthal angle. The ratio $`R`$ is essentially the ratio of up-to-down event rates. The event rates are given by the product of flux, cross section, number density, volume and acceptance, and to the extent that the latter four factors cancel in the ratio, only the up-to-down ratio of fluxes survives. This ratio is affected by the energy dependence of the flux, but not to its overall normalization. The upward flux depends on the cross sections of course, as we elaborate next.

In order to determine $`\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )`$ we first need to solve the evolution equation for the neutrino propagating through the interior of the earth. In the case of the standard model, the neutrino cross section is dominated by the charged current, the neutral current does little to evolve, or “feed down”, the rapidly falling flux above 1 PeV, and neutrinos basically get lost after collision inside earth. In the present case, on the other hand, the eikonalized graviton exchange gives a large contribution to the feed down above 1 PeV, and we have to include this important enhancement of regeneration of lower energy neutrinos from higher energy.666The black hole production component, in contrast, essentially leads to loss of neutrinos upon collision. In the present context, the black hole interaction acts like the charged current in the standard model. The eikonal component has the character of the usual neutral current, transferring a small fraction of the neutrino energy to the hadron and leaving a leading neutrino in the final state. 777We do not treat the regeneration of $`\tau `$ neutrinos through $`\tau `$ production by $`\nu _\tau `$ and subsequent $`\tau `$ decay back to $`\nu _\tau `$. The large cross sections mean that neutrinos experience many interactions as they proceed through the earth, even at angles near the horizon. For instance, just 5 degrees below the horizon a 100 PeV neutrino traverses more than 20 interaction lengths of earth before reaching the detector region. This behavior supports our use of the continuous evolution model, summarized below in Eq.17, since fluctuations are small for UHE application, where the cross section is large. The neutrino loses little energy during any particular collision and hence it is reasonable to assume that it practically moves in a straight line path. The evolution equation for the neutrino is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\varphi }{dt}}(E_\nu ,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{W+BH}^{\nu N}(E_\nu )\sigma _{Z+E}^{\nu N}(E_\nu )+{\displaystyle _{E_\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E_\nu ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (E_\nu ^{},\theta )}{\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{Z+E}^{\nu N}}{dE_\nu ^{}}}(E_\nu ^{},E_\nu )`$ (17)
$``$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\nu N}(E_\nu ,\theta ),`$
where $`\sigma _{W+BH}^{\nu N}`$ is the “neutrino absorbing” W-exchange + black hole cross section and $`\sigma _{Z+E}^{\nu N}`$ is the “neutrino regenerating” Z-exchange + eikonalized graviton exchange cross section. In Eq.17, $`dt=n(r)dz`$ and $`n(r)`$ is the number density of nucleons at any distance $`r`$ from the center of earth, radius $`R_e`$. Expressing the flux $`\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )`$ as

$$\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )=\varphi _0(E_\nu )\mathrm{exp}[\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}(E_\nu ,\theta )t(\theta )],$$
(18)
where the column density at upcoming angle of entry $`\theta `$, chord length $`2R_ecos\theta `$, is given by

$$t(\theta )=_0^{2R_e\mathrm{cos}\theta }n(z,\theta )𝑑z,$$
(19)
we solve equations 17 and 18 numerically by iteratively improving the flux $`\varphi (E_\nu ,\theta )`$. Using this solution we can determine the ratio $`R`$ of up to down flux,

$$R=\frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{up}}(E_\nu )}{\varphi _0(E_\nu )}$$
(20)
By using $`R`$, one sharply reduces the effects of experimental systematics and flux normalization and isolates the dependence on cross sections and flux shape. Refinements of angular binning can add information according to the size of the data sample, as we discuss below.

In Fig. 4 we plot the ratio $`R`$ as a function of the neutrino energy. This figure illustrates two points: the ratio $`R`$ is insensitive to the normalization of the flux assumed and, given a flux, the feed-down from higher to lower energies as the neutrinos pass through the earth is a powerful effect. In this application, our two, quite different input flux assumptions, show the insensitivity of R to the flux used. The long dashed curve gives the ratio for the larger flux with a “knee” from , while the shorter dashed line gives the result of the smaller flux bound with uniform $`E^2`$ fall-off of . The solid curve refers to the SM cross section input, the two flux models give indistinguishable results in this case and are shown as one line. The lowest curve shows the ratio as a function of energy with pure absorption, in the sense that only the first two terms in $`\sigma _{eff}`$, Eq.17., are included. The two flux models give the same result, as they should. The sum of the eikonal and black hole cross section is used, the eikonal providing the neutral-current cross section and the black hole the purely absorptive cross section, as described in footnote 6. The cross section are computed in the ADD model, and the value $`n=3`$ and the scale of quantum gravity $`M=1`$ TeV. We see that the regeneration term gives a big effect for $`M=1`$ TeV, producing factors of more than 10 above 20 PeV, and it is essential to include it in assessing the consequences of the low scale gravity models. Though radically different from each other, the two flux assumptions lead to nearly identical values of R out to 50 PeV and then differ only weakly above that, where the effect of the steeper decrease of SDSS flux shows up.

In Fig. 5 we plot the results for the ratio $`R`$ in the ADD model as a function of the neutrino energy for the choice of the fundamental scale $`M=1,2`$ TeV and the number of extra dimensions equal to 3,4 and 6. The result depends on both the number of extra dimensions and, especially strongly, on the fundamental scale $`M`$. If the fundamental scale is larger than about 2 TeV, the KM3 neutrino detectors will not be able to distinguish the Standard model result from the predictions of quantum gravity by using $`R`$ as a diagnostic. However for $`M1`$ TeV, we find that the effect is very large and, given enough flux, could be seen in these detectors. For energies above 1 PeV, a noticeable difference in $`R`$ between the two cases is seen. With sufficient data, a distinction between no deviation from the standard model and a deviation corresponding to $`M=1`$ with n = 3, 4 or 6 may be drawn.

The angular distribution of upward flux is an important diagnostic tool, as we stressed in the Introduction. In Fig. 6, we show the integrated flux per square kilometer per year above $`1.8`$ PeV as a function of nadir angle for $`M=1,2`$ and n=3,4,6. The (higher) 2 TeV curve is essentially the same as for the SM, while the (lower) curves for $`M=1`$ show clear suppression at all nadir angles up to $`\pi /2`$. It is somewhat disguised by the log scale, but most of the contribution to the ratio $`R`$ comes from the highest event rates near the horizontal. With several bins of good statistics data above 1 radian in nadir angle, one can distinguish the slopes of the flux vs. nadir angle near the horizontal. The difference between these slopes for the SM and low scale gravity models when $`M1TeV`$ provides another new physics discriminator. As in the case of the R observable, the slope is insensitive to the flux value, enhancing its power at identifying the nature of the neutrino interactions.

Realistically, one needs enough upcoming events at a given energy to calculate a meaningful ratio. The situation for the two flux models we are discussing is shown in the table.

For our two power law approximation to the flux of  (SDSS), we see from the table that there are enough events with $`E_\nu >10`$ PeV in a 10 year run to determine the ratio R. Can one discriminate among the different physics models for the cross section with the events? Fig. 5 shows that if there are enough upcoming events to calculate a meaningful value for R, there are clear distinctions among the models. For example, taking a naive, purely statistics estimate, the $`M=1`$ TeV, $`E_\nu >10`$ PeV case would produce $`13\pm 3`$, $`6\pm 2`$ and $`1\pm 1`$ events for n = 3, 4 and 6. Combining these values with the downward event rates (see Fig. 2), we see that the distinction between the n = 3 case and the n= 6 cases is significant. When $`M=2`$ TeV, the numbers of upcoming events is essentially the same for the low scale gravity models and the SM. In 5 - 10 years of data, there would be enough events to determine an up-to-down ratio reasonably well. Figure 2 shows that the number of downward events is larger in the low scale gravity models than in the SM, because of their larger cross sections, so R values are different for the different cases. Thus, even for $`M=2`$, values of R above 15 PeV are distinctly different in the two classes of models, as one sees in Fig. 5. In fact, within the low scale gravity models themselves there is more than a factor two difference between n = 3 and n = 6. Moreover, the low scale gravity models can all be easily distinguished from the SM with 5 years of data, with the number of events per year shown in the table. Even the cut $`>15`$ PeV allows the meaningful distinction between the low scale models and the SM in 5 - 10 years of data. Using the WB bound on the optically thin source flux, we find that the upward events are too sparse to discriminate among models by use of the R ratio. Flux values in between the two presented here offer various levels of discrimination, with useful information obtainable for the larger fluxes.

Putting together the rise in downward event rate above 1 PeV, the sensitivity of R to the new physics cross sections, and the slope of the upward flux as a function of nadir angle, we see that a signal of low scale gravity models would stand out clearly.

## 4 Conclusions:

$`KM^3`$ detectors have been planned primarily as “neutrino telescopes”. However our study indicates that $`KM^3`$ will also provide vigorous new exploration of fundamental questions in ultra-high energy physics. Extra dimension, low scale gravity models show an observable impact on the signature of neutrino events in the $`KM^3`$ detectors such as the currently running RICE detector and the ICECUBE detector, which is in the R & D stage. Of the “strong gravity” effects we looked at, the black hole formation cross section and the extrapolation of the small $`q^2`$, part of $`\sigma ^{\nu N}`$ from the $`s<M^2`$ to $`sM^2`$ within the ADD model yield the largest detectable effects.

While some observables are somewhat sensitive to the number of dimensions, $`n`$, most are quite sensitive to the value of the scale of gravity $`M`$. If $`M`$ is 1-2 TeV, the enhanced $`\sigma ^{\nu N}`$ creates a clearly recognizable signature, with the “neutral-to- charged” event ratio still showing new physics effects at M = 5 TeV. The ratio $`R`$ of upcoming to down-going events is a powerful diagnostic, capable of discriminating between models if fluxes are large enough to produce a significant number of upcoming events. In the entire analysis, we emphasized that the regeneration of neutrino upcoming flux due to neutrinos scattering down from higher to lower energies is a crucial feature of the gravity-induced neutral current interactions. This is a general and important feature of our work presented here.

Considering only down-coming events, we propose that the fraction of neutral current type events, those with hadronic showers and no leading charged lepton, provides a probe of new interactions. In particular, event signatures arising from a dominant component of eikonalized graviton exchange or of black hole production as occur in low scale gravity models, would have no standard physics explanation, and would point the way toward physics beyond the Standard Model if observed. There is every reason to believe that the neutral-to-charged current ratio can be extracted from upcoming facilities well enough to make a practical signal. In particular, determining the ratio of events with a muon, to those making an isolated shower, is certainly feasible with a combination of AMANDA/ICECUBE and RICE technology. The striking behavior of the neutral current-to-charged current ratio is shown in Fig. 3.

Finally, the shape and slope of the angular distribution, Fig. 6, is found to have good discriminating power. The shape does not depend at all on the overall normalization of the flux. Moreover the slopes differ substantially right in the regime of maximum detectable flux, near $`\pi /2`$ nadir angle, and is ideal for comparing low scale gravity models to the Standard Model. Whether or not extra-dimension models as currently envisaged survive, the angular distribution can severely test the neutrino physics of the Standard Model, possibly strongly bounding or even discovering new physics, as soon as data becomes available.

Acknowledgements: P. Jain thanks the University of Kansas College of Arts and Sciences and Department of Physics and Astronomy for hospitality and support in the course of this work. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG03-98ER41079. We used computational facilities of the Kansas Center for Advanced Scientific Computing for part of this work.


text:
# Clustering dynamics of Lagrangian tracers in free-surface flows

## Abstract

We study the formation of clusters of passive Lagrangian tracers in a non-smooth turbulent flow in a flat free-slip surface as a model for particle dynamics on free surfaces. Single particle and pair dispersion show different behavior for short and large times: on short times particles cluster exponentially rapidly until patches of the size of the divergence correlation length are depleted; on larger times the pair dispersion is dominated by almost ballistic hopping between clusters. We also find that the distribution of particle density is close to algebraic and can trace this back to the exponential distribution of the divergence field of the surface flow.

PACS: 83.50.Lh, 47.27.Eq, 47.27.Qb

The Lagrangian evolution of passive tracers in turbulent flows has attracted considerable attention recently. Particle tracking techniques have been developed that allow for a detailed observation of their motion even in high-Reynolds number turbulence . The statistics of few particle clusters has been used to obtain information on the Lagrangian statistics of the flow field . Simplified models of passive scalars evolution, e.g. the Kraichnan model with its delta-correlated random velocity fields, have provided important insights into the origin of intermittency corrections to scaling laws . The advection of particles that are not neutrally buoyant gives rise to clustering and this process has been suggested to be essential for the formation of rain. Similar clustering phenomena should appear for bubbles or inertial particles in turbulent flows . The problem we consider here is the advection of Lagrangian particles in a flat free surface above a turbulent volume flow. Previous approaches to the particle advection in such (compressible) flows include random maps  and Kraichnan models with prescribed smooth  and non-smooth  spatial variations. Realistic flows have some finite time correlations, but, as we will demonstrate here, they show further differences: the distribution of values for the divergence of the flow field is exponential (and not Gaussian ), the distribution of density is algebraic (and not lognormal ) and the two-particle dispersion shows an almost ballistic regime for large separations. Furthermore, this behavior is outside the range of Kraichnan type models since the ratio between divergence and velocity gradient fluctuations is such that the surface flow belongs to a marginal situation where the Kraichnan models predict neither clustering nor exponential separation of particles .

The experimental realization, the dynamics and the properties of the flat free surface flows that we consider have been discussed in detail before . What is needed here is the presence of a $`r^{2/3}`$-scaling in the inertial subrange due to connection to bulk turbulence in the volume below, i.e. a non-smooth flow with finite time correlations which goes beyond all previous analytical approaches. On the numerical side we integrate particle trajectories using a bicubic spline interpolation which was checked by comparison with analytical examples  and with a direct spectral evaluation of the velocity between the grid meshs . The pseudospectral simulations of the Navier-Stokes flow are based on grids with $`256\times 256\times 65`$ nodes, with a forcing that maintains a fixed energy injection rate $`ϵ`$ . A Taylor-Reynolds number $`R_\lambda =u_{x,rms}^2/[\nu (_xu_x)_{rms}]=145`$ was achieved and the Kolmogorov length $`\eta =(\nu ^3/ϵ)^{1/4}`$ is 0.8 grid spacings. The Kolmogorov time is $`\tau _\eta =(\nu /ϵ)^{1/2}`$.

A typical particle distribution that emerges from a uniform initial distribution is shown in Fig. 1 (upper panel). The particle dynamics shows two time regimes, a quick clustering into elongated structures, followed by a slower exchange of particles between structures. Superimposed on the particle distribution we show the surface flow that can be considered as a superposition of an irrotational and a gradient part by the Helmholtz decomposition theorem,

$$𝐯=𝐯_s+𝐯_p=\times \varphi (x,y)𝐞_z+\psi (x,y),$$
(1)
with scalar potentials $`\varphi (x,y)`$ and $`\psi (x,y)`$. It suggests that the aggregate of particles is dominated by the gradient field, with the particles clustering in the minima of the potential $`\psi `$, similar to compressible Kraichnan flows . When the velocity field is projected onto the solenoidal part $`𝐯_s`$ the particle distribution remains essentially uniform and there is no clustering (lower panel of Fig. 1).

The dynamics in this initial period is dominated by the exponential contraction in $`𝐯_p`$. This follows, e.g. from the advection-diffusion equation for a smooth density $`\rho `$ with diffusivity $`D`$,

$$_t\rho =(𝐯)\rho (𝐯)\rho +D\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ,$$
(2)
where the divergence patches cause an exponential variation that typically is faster than the variations of the other terms . The natural time scale $`\tau =(𝐯)^2^{1/2}3.5\tau _\eta `$ is approximately the lifetime of a divergence patch which comes out to be about $`5\tau _\eta `$ (half width half maximum of the temporal divergence correlation function). As expected, the divergence-free advection contributes little to the clustering. For the discrete particles we measure the density by coarse graining, i.e. dividing the plane into $`256\times 256`$ grid cells and count the particles inside the cells. The maximal number $`n_{max}/N`$ with total particle number, $`N`$, increases initially exponentially, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. For $`t>\tau `$ the exponentially fast formation crosses over to a slower regime. The accumulation of more particles into larger clusters continues: the inset of Fig. 2 shows the integrated probability to find cells with no fewer than $`N_0`$ particles, $`s(t,N_0)=_{n=N_0}^Np(t,n)`$, for different values of $`N_0`$ with $`1N_0N`$. The probabilities continue to vary even when the maxima remain essentially constant.

The divergence also determines the particle distribution $`p(n)`$, as shown in Fig. 3. In Kraichnan type models this distribution comes out to be lognormal for smooth flows  and delta-like for non-smooth cases . Although we were limited to moderate resolutions and particle numbers, our data in Fig. 3 are closer to an algebraic distribution which is consistent with the exponential distribution of the divergence (see Fig. 4). Neglecting the diffusion term in (2), the density increases exponentially in the Lagrangian frame, $`\gamma (t)=\rho (t)/\rho (0)=\mathrm{exp}(_0^t(𝐯)𝑑t^{})`$. For $`t1`$ we can simplify the exponent to $`\lambda t`$ where $`\lambda =𝐯`$ (in units of $`\tau ^1`$). If we assume that the density variations are faster than the changes in the velocity field, we have local fluctuations in the divergence that give rise to locally varying density fluctuations. If $`P(\lambda )`$ is the probability density function (PDF) for the divergence, then the PDF for $`\gamma `$ becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{P}(\gamma )=𝑑\lambda \delta (\gamma \text{e}^{\lambda t})P(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\gamma t}P(\mathrm{ln}\gamma /t).$$
(3)
Hence, if the divergence fluctuations are Gaussian, as in smooth Kraichnan flows , the PDF of the density fluctuations is lognormal. However, in the case of the surface flow the divergence fluctuations have a filamentary small-scale structure  (refered to as a shocklet (negative divergence) in compressible supersonic turbulence ). The small scale structures appear in the PDF as exponential tails (see Fig. 4). If we let $`P(\lambda )=1/(2s)\text{e}^{|\lambda |/s}`$, where $`s0.95`$ from Fig. 4, then

$$P(\gamma )|\gamma |^{11/(st)}.$$
(4)
As shown in the inset of Fig. 3, the slope $`\alpha `$ in the tails of the distribution decreases with time, from about $`3.0`$ at $`t=0.5`$ to $`2.3`$ at $`t=1`$, in good agreement with the prediction from (4). For much longer times the discretness of the particles shows up and the distribution ceases to change, for $`t=21`$ we got $`\alpha =1.5`$.

The change in behavior for times larger than about $`3`$ (in units of the divergence time) is connected with the discretness of the particles. The exponential contraction near the minima in the potential leads to a depletion of particles in the neighborhood, so that the density cannot increase further by accumulation once all particles that initially were in a region with negative divergence are collected in a cell. Estimates of the size of the cells can be based on the spatial correlations of the divergence field, $`C(r_i)=𝐯(r_{i0}+r_i)𝐯(r_{i0})`$ with $`r_i=x,y`$. The typical extension of the patches, identified from the first zero of the correlations, is about $`20\eta `$ (inset of Fig. 4). Based on this decorrelation length $`l_d20\eta `$ the typical maximal number of particles is about $`n/Nl_d^2/L^20.01`$, in good agreement with the data in Fig. 2.

As a second set of characteristics we consider the single-particle dispersion, $`\sigma (t)`$, and the two-particle pair (or relative) dispersion, $`d(t)`$. The first one is defined as the root mean square of the absolute particle displacement, $`\sigma (t)=[𝐱(t;𝐱_0,0)𝐱_0]^2_{}^{1/2}`$, where $`_{}`$ denotes an average over the single Lagrangian particles. The second uses the difference $`𝐑_{12}(t)=𝐱_1(t;𝐱_{1,0},0)𝐱_2(t;𝐱_{2,0},0)`$ between Lagrangian particle tracks that start at $`𝐱_{1,0}`$ and $`𝐱_{2,0}`$ and is defined as the root mean square value for all particles pairs, $`d(t)=[𝐑_{12}(t)𝐑_{12}(0)]^2_{}^{1/2}`$. In order to fix the dependence on initial separation we take it to be about $`1\eta `$, with random orientation in space. The single-particle dispersion reflects the influence of flow structures at different scales on the particle motion and the relative dispersion can detect the clustering, an interparticle property. In two-dimensional incompressible flows, the limiting cases for both quantities are well-known . Both quantities have a ballistic regime, $`t`$, for short times when particle distances lie within the viscous subrange. For times much larger than the Lagrangian integral time scale, $`T_L`$, correlations can be expected to have decayed, and the relative or single particle motion becomes statistically independent and both dispersions increase diffusively as in an uncorrelated Brownian motion, i.e. $`t^{1/2}`$. For intermediate times, anomalous scaling, $`t^\beta `$ with $`1/2<\beta <1`$ has been observed. For an inverse Kolmogorov cascade, pair dispersion scaling exponents were found to be close to the classical Richardson value of 3/2  in numerical simulations  as well as experiments , but, e.g., sensitive to initial pair separation. In the case of single particle dispersion transient trapping of tracers in coherent vortex structures  affects the value of $`\beta `$.

Results on $`\sigma (t)`$ and $`d(t)`$ for the full surface flow and the solenoidal part alone are shown in Fig. 5. The integral length scales are $`T_L/\tau _\eta =9.1`$ for $`𝐯`$ and slightly shorter, $`T_L/\tau _\eta =7.8`$, for $`𝐯_s`$. In all cases we do observe the initial ballistic regime up to $`T_L`$. The single-particle dispersion crosses over to the Brownian regime, $`\sigma (t)t^{1/2}`$, for $`t>T_L`$ in both flow fields as indicated in the upper panel of Fig. 5. We connect this behavior to the fastly varying divergence patches  that cause a kind of stochastic sweeping of the tracers.

For intermediate times pairs separate superdiffusively like $`d(t)t^\beta `$ with an exponent of about 1.6, a value that is close to the Richardson prediction, $`d_R(t)t^{3/2}`$. Small differences may also be attributed to the additional fact that the surface flow was found to have larger intermittency corrections than the associated three-dimensional volume turbulence . Similar scaling behavior is observed for the pair advection in the solenoidal part only (see the lower panel of Fig. 5 for both).

While this anomalous scaling continues for advection in $`𝐯_s`$ to even larger times, we find a change of the pair dispersion to an almost ballistic behavior of $`d(t)t^{0.9}`$ for $`t50\tau _\eta `$, that does not seem to cross over into a Brownian regime. Microscopically, this means that while one particle follows its partner within a pair, pair correlations decay more slowly and $`d(t)`$ grows more rapidly than in the Brownian case. Such almost ballistic scaling was also found for the single-particle dispersion in the strongly compressible one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation . The difference to our case might be caused due to the dimensionality of the problem and the specific character of our surface flow. Superimposed on this process is a chaotic component that comes from $`𝐯_s`$ and causes exponential separation. Another separation mechanism is a breaking of larger particle clusters due the rapidly emerging flow, i.e. due to the rapidly changing divergence patterns. Clustering and separation were found to be competing processes that cause anomalous diffusion on a longer transient phase of the evolution.

The exponential concentration described above has implications for the dynamics of (inertial) particles that are not density matched with the fluid in which they move. The relations by Maxey and Riley  for their motion implies that the velocity field of the particles is not divergence free. The particles will then cluster exponentially, as in Eq. (3). With a view towards the formation of rain  there is a uniform condensation of droplets from thermodynamic nucleation and then an exponential clustering to form larger drops, which then fall to the ground as rain drops. The sizes of clusters thus range from the small scale droplets to the size of rain drops and their size distribution thus reflects the distribution of divergence fluctuations by Eq. (3).

We thank J. R. Cressman, J. Davoudi, W. I. Goldburg, E. Hascoët, V. Horvath, K. R. Sreenivasan, and P. K. Yeung for discussions, and the John von Neumann-Institut für Computing in Jülich for support and computing time on a Cray T90. One of us (J.S.) would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for support within the Feodor-Lynen program and Yale University for support and hospitality. This work was supported in part by the European Community, HPRN-CT-2000-00162.


text:
# Formation and migration of trans-Neptunian objects

## Formation and migration of trans-Neptunian objects

1Institute of Applied Mathematics, Moscow, Russia
2NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, USA

Abstracts of the Conference ”Celestial Mechanics - 2002: Results and Prospects” (10 - 14 September 2002, St. Petersburg, Russia), Institute of Applied Astronomy of Russian Academy of Sciences.

We support the Eneev’s idea  that the largest (with diameter $`d`$$`>`$100 km) trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) moving now in not very eccentric orbits could be formed directly by the compression of rarefied dust condensations (with $`a`$$`>`$30 AU) of the protoplanetary cloud (we do not support Eneev’s opinion that planets were formed directly from large condensations) but not by the accretion of smaller (for example, 1-km) planetesimals, because such accretion could take place only at a large total mass of TNOs (several tens of Earth masses) and very small eccentricities ($`0.001`$), which probably could not exist during the time needed for such accretion. Probably, some planetesimals with $`d1001000`$ km in the feeding zone of the giant planets and even large main-belt asteroids also could be formed directly by such compression. Some smaller objects (TNOs, planetesimals, and asteroids) could be debris of larger objects, and other such objects could be formed directly by compression of condensations. A small portion of planetesimals from the feeding zone of the giant planets that entered into the trans-Neptunian region could left in eccentrical orbits beyond Neptune and became so called ”scattered objects”. These objects could supply most of bodies that collided the Earth at the end of its bombardment 4 Gyr ago. The total amount of water delivered to the Earth during the formation of the giant planets was about the mass of water in the Earth’s oceans.

The motion of TNOs to Jupiter’s orbit was investigated by several authors. We considered the evolution for intervals $`T_S`$$``$5 Myr of 2500 Jupiter-crossing objects (JCOs) under the gravitational influence of all planets, except for Mercury and Pluto (without dissipative factors). In the first series we considered $`N`$=2000 orbits near the orbits of 30 real Jupiter-family comets with period $`<`$$`10`$ yr, and in the second series we took 500 orbits close to the orbit of Comet 10P Tempel 2 ($`a`$$``$3.1 AU, $`e`$$``$0.53, $`i`$$``$$`12^{}`$). We calculated the probabilities of collisions of objects with the terrestrial planets, using orbital elements obtained with a step equal to 500 yr and then summarized the results for all time intervals and all bodies, obtaining the total probability $`P_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of collisions with a planet and the total time interval $`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ during which perihelion distance $`q`$ of bodies was less than a semimajor axis of the planet. The values of $`P_r`$$`=`$$`10^6P`$$`=`$$`10^6P_\mathrm{\Sigma }/N`$ and $`T`$$`=`$$`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }/N`$ are presented in the Table together with the ratio $`r`$ of the total time interval when orbits were of Apollo type (at $`a`$$`>`$1 AU, $`q`$$`=`$$`a(1e)`$$`<`$1.017 AU, $`e`$$`<`$$`0.999`$) to that of Amor type ($`1.017`$$`<`$$`q`$$`<`$1.33 AU); $`r_2`$ is the same as $`r`$ but for Apollo objects with $`e`$$`<`$0.9. For observed near-Earth objects $`r`$ is close to 1.

Table: Values of $`T`$ (in kyr), $`T_c`$$`=`$$`T/P`$ (in Myr), $`P_r`$, $`r`$, $`r_2`$ for the terrestrial planets (Venus=V, Earth=E, Mars=M)

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \text{V}& \text{V}& \text{E}& \text{E}& \text{E}& \text{M}& \text{M}& & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & N\hfill & T& P_r& T& P_r& T_c& T& P_r& r& r_2\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \text{JCOs}\hfill & 2000\hfill & 9.3& 6.62& 14& 6.65& 2110& 24.7& 2.03& 1.32& 1.15\\ 10P\hfill & 500\hfill & 24.9& 16.3& 44& 24.5& 1800& 96.2& 5.92& 1.49& 1.34\end{array}`$

For integrations we used the Bulirsh-Stoer method (BULSTO) and a symplectic method. The probabilities of collisions of former JCOs with planets were close for these methods, but bodies got resonant orbits more often in the case of BULSTO. The obtained values of $`T`$ and $`P_r`$ are larger than those in , because in our last runs we considered much larger (than in ) number of JCOs and obtained several former JCOs that moved in orbits with aphelia inside Jupiter’s orbit (mainly with $`Q`$$`<`$4.7 AU) during more than 1 Myr. The probability of collisions with the Earth for 3 former JCOs from such orbits was 1.5 times greater than that for the other 1997 JCOs. About 1 of 300 JCOs collided with the Sun. The analysis of the results of the orbital evolution of JCOs and TNOs showed that, in principle, as it was suggested earlier by T.M. Eneev, the trans-Neptunian belt can provide up to 100% of Earth-crossing objects, but, of course, some of them came from the main asteroid belt. The ratio of the total mass of icy planetesimals that migrated from the feeding zone of the giant planets and collided with the planet to the mass of this planet was greater (by a factor of 3 in our runs) for Mars than that for Earth and Venus.

This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (01-02-17540), INTAS (00-240), NASA (NAG5-10776), and NRC (0158730).


text:
# Iron abundance in hot hydrogen-deficient central stars and white dwarfs from FUSE, HST, and IUE spectroscopyBased on observations obtained with the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE), the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)

## 1 Introduction

PG1159 stars are hot ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=65 000-180 000 K) hydrogen-deficient post-AGB stars with carbon, helium and oxygen as main atmospheric constituents. They are thought to be the result of a late helium shell flash (see e.g. Werner 2001). Since they belong to the disk population and since diffusion effects can be excluded due to ongoing mass-loss, one expects solar iron abundances.

Up to now no iron abundances were determined for these objects, for two reasons. First, iron is highly ionized so that spectral lines have to be looked for in the UV and FUV region. High resolution, high-S/N spectra are required from these mostly faint objects. A few of the brightest were observed with IUE, however, line identification is doubtful or impossible, as we will show. HST spectra of many PG1159 stars are archived; however, in most cases the spectral resolution is not high. In this paper we use all this archival material to make a systematic investigation of iron lines with NLTE model atmospheres. We also use new FUSE spectra of seven PG1159 stars and of the hottest known DO white dwarf for this purpose. Second, spectral analyses require NLTE model atmospheres. Models that include iron opacities for high ionization stages have only recently become available.

## 2 Sample selection and observational data

Our sample comprises all PG1159 stars for which HST and IUE high resolution archival spectra with a minimum acceptable S/N are available. These are 16 out of the 35 objects known. FUSE spectra are available for seven of the program stars. The sample is augmented by four hot non-DA (DO) white dwarfs in order to complete an earlier analysis of DO spectra (Dreizler 1999). The twenty program stars are listed in Table 1. The spectra used for our analysis are listed in Table 2.

### 2.1 FUSE

The FUSE datasets in programs P132 and Q109 were observed for the present study of PG1159 stars, the datasets in program P104 were observed for ISM studies, and the datasets in program M107 were observed for the FUSE calibration program. Each of these datasets is available from the Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute (MAST). All observations were obtained using the 30″$`\times `$30″ LWRS spectrograph aperture. The data were obtained in “timetag” mode, except for P1320501 and M1070201,2,3 datasets, which were obtained in “histogram” (or spectral image) mode. These datasets were all reduced using the standard CALFUSE pipeline, version 1.8.7. These observations exhibit RMS variations in observed flux that are usually less than 1% from one exposure to another, indicating that no significant signal was lost as a result of channel misalignments. The one exception was SiC1 data for exposure 1 of the observation of RX J 2117.1$`+`$3412, for which the flux level was about 20% below that of the other exposures. A description of the FUSE instrument and the channel alignment issues are given by Moos et al. (2000) and Sahnow et al. (2000). For most objects the spectra obtained in different exposures were coaligned by cross-correlating on regions containing narrow interstellar absorption features before combining to produce a spectrum for an entire observation. The resulting spectral resolution was typically about 20 km s-1. The spectra obtained in single exposures for the objects HS2324+397 and PG1707+427 did not have sufficient signal-to-noise ratios to permit cross-correlation, so these spectra were combined without coalignment. In these cases the spectral resolution was somewhat worse, about 25 km s-1 for PG1707+427, and 25–30 km s-1 for HS2324+397.

The observation of K 1-16 required special processing. This observation was obtained during in-orbit checkout very early in the mission, as part of a test to determine both the channel alignment offsets and the primary mirror to spectrograph slit focus offset for each channel. The test consisted of slewing the telescope in 40 1″ steps during each exposure, centered on the LiF1 LWRS aperture. There were a total of 11 scans each in the dispersion and cross-dispersion directions. Because the channels were only crudely aligned at the time of this test, the effective exposure time varied for each channel, from about 38 ksec for LiF1 to only 8 ksec for SiC2. Data were discarded for time periods in which the star was outside of the aperture, or for which the count rate otherwise deviated significantly from the mean. These data were processed using version 1.7.7 of CALFUSE, but the differences between this version and 1.8.7 were not significant for the purposes of this program. Custom processing was added to the pipeline to correct the recorded photon positions for the slewing of the spacecraft across the spectrograph apertures during each exposure. The resulting resolution was about 24 km s-1.

### 2.2 HST and IUE

HST data was retrieved from the MAST. The spectra were taken with the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) with a resolution of 0.06 Å or 0.6 Å. All exposures were made in the FPSPLIT mode which results in four individual spectra. As only the first exposure was wavelength-calibrated, the subsequent exposures were adjusted in wavelength to match the first using cross-correlation.

Reduced SWP spectra were extracted from the IUE Final Archive using preview data. They cover a wavelength range of 1150–1980 Å, with a resolution of about 0.1 Å. If more than one spectrum was available they were co-added using the S/N-ratio as weighting factor.

## 3 Model atmospheres and synthetic spectra

We have calculated a plane-parallel model atmosphere in radiative and hydrostatic equilibrium for each program star with our ALI code (Werner & Dreizler 1999) which can handle line blanketing by the iron group elements. We use the line list of Kurucz (1991). In general the models are similar to those of Deetjen et al. (1999), so we will restrict ourselves to a summary of the model atoms in Table 3. However, higher ionization stages of iron are taken into account due to the higher effective temperature of our program stars.

Sulfur line formation calculations were performed for the central star of K 1-16. The sulfur model atom (IV–VII) has been constructed using the Opacity Project (OP, Seaton et al. 1994) database which is a basic source for energy levels, oscillator strengths, and photoionization cross-sections. Since the OP energy levels are slightly different from laboratory measurements, we have replaced these values by those listed in Bashkin & Stoner (1975). The Grotrian diagram in Fig. 1 shows the levels and line transitions of the VI model ion.

## 4 Iron abundance

For most of the objects the quality of the spectroscopic data is not sufficient to detect iron lines when compared with models with solar Fe abundance (all abundance values are given in mass fractions unless otherwise noted). For these objects we can only conclude that the iron abundance is less or equal solar (Table 1).

### 4.1 PG1159 stars

Before we discuss individual objects, we briefly go into those stars for which a solar abundance of Fe cannot be strictly excluded.

For PG1707+427 the FUSE data is superior to the HST data, however, the S/N of the FUSE spectrum is still too poor to detect potential Fe VI and Fe VII lines. For PG1424+535, HS1517+7403, PG2131+066, MCT0130-1937, PG0122+200, and HS0704+6153 only HST data exist, but their resolution (0.6 Å) is too low. For Abell 43 IUE and HST spectra exist, but with insufficient S/N and resolution, respectively. Hence, for all the objects mentioned in this paragraph, Fe lines remain hidden in the spectra if the abundance is solar.

In contrast to our model predictions no Fe VI or Fe VI/VII lines can be detected in the FUSE spectra of HS2324+397 and PG1520+525, respectively. We derive a slight underabundance of 0.5 dex, but due to the relatively low S/N we must accept that a solar Fe abundance cannot be excluded rigorously. The HST data are not useful because of insufficient resolution (0.6 Å).

For PG1159-035 four co-added IUE spectra were analyzed, with no clear detection of potential Fe VII lines. Also, Fe VII lines are not detectable in the FUSE spectra, hence, Fe is possibly underabundant by 0.5 dex or more.

#### 4.1.1 K 1-16

K 1-16 is an extremely hot PG1159 type central star. Due to its high effective temperature (140 000 K) the principal ionization stages of iron in the line formation regions of the atmosphere are Fe VIII and Fe IX (Fig. 2). A comparison of the excellent FUSE data with model spectra reveals, that Fe VII lines should be easily detectable if the effective temperature is indeed 140 000 K (Rauch & Werner 1997) and if the Fe abundance is solar. Fig. 3, however, shows that the strongest Fe VII model lines cannot be detected in the FUSE spectrum. Varying $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and Fe abundance in the model suggests that either the Fe abundance is lower than one tenth solar or that the effective temperature is higher than 160 000 K. The high $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ would be surprising, because it means that the quoted value, which was determined from optical spectra, would be in error by at least 20 000 K. This is larger than a typical error of 10% for such analyses, however, the high $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ cannot be excluded definitely. Hence we conclude that an Fe underabundance of at least one dex is probably causing the failure to detect Fe VII lines in the FUSE data. Another argument for the Fe underabundance can be given. Two Fe IX lines with relatively large gf-values are known, which are located in the FUSE spectral region, contrary to most other lines of this ion, which are found in the 100–600 Å region. These lines (at 955.84 Å and 973.71 Å) clearly show up in the models with solar Fe abundance, but nothing is seen in the FUSE spectrum at these wavelengths (Fig. 4). This holds particularly for the hotter model (160 000 K), corroborating an underabundance even in the case that $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is higher than previously found.

A final decision about the possibility of an Fe underabundance in K 1-16 would require a high-precision analysis of He, C, O line profiles to fix $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as accurately as possible, using improved optical and UV spectroscopy in combination with the FUSE data. Alternatively, the search for the bulk of strongest Fe VIII and Fe IX lines in the 100-200 Å range could be feasible with the Chandra observatory because K 1-16 is a soft X-ray source detected by ROSAT and EUVE.

The lack of Fe VII lines in the K 1-16 FUSE data supports a result by Holberg et al. (1998). They found no evidence of Fe VII lines in (much less meaningful) IUE spectra, contrary to earlier work by Feibelman & Bruhweiler (1990).

#### 4.1.2 RX J 2117.1$`+`$3412

RX J 2117.1$`+`$3412 is the hottest known PG1159-type central star ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=170 000 K). From the discussion above it is clear, that the iron ionization is so high that Fe VII lines are not detectable, even in excellent data. This is indeed true when inspecting the FUSE spectra. It is interesting to note that earlier identifications of the Fe VII 1239.69 Å line in a high resolution HST/GHRS spectrum (Werner et al. 1996) and in IUE spectra (Feibelman 1999) are therefore most likely wrong. Our model predicts that none of the potential Fe VII lines in the GHRS and IUE range appears. We believe that the observed absorption is in fact an interstellar feature. There are two Mg II lines nearby, at 1239.93 Å and 1240.39 Å. The redshift of the photospheric spectrum (+47.22 km s-1 from Holberg et al. 1998, confirmed by our measurement of the IV 1107.93 Å line) and the blueshift of the ISM lines ($``$2.39 km s-1) conspire in a way that the interstellar Mg II 1239.93 Å line almost coincides with the position of a possible stellar Fe VII line. The same problem arises in the case of KPD 0005$`+`$5106 (see below). Generally, care must therefore be taken when iron is identified in hot stars by means of this Fe VII 1239.69 Å line alone. This can only be regarded as safe when confusion with interstellar Mg II can be excluded. The two Fe IX lines introduced above cannot be identified in the FUSE spectrum (Fig. 4). Like in the case of K 1-16 this could hint at an Fe underabundance and soft X-ray spectroscopy is required for a quantitative analysis.

#### 4.1.3 NGC 246

NGC 246 is also a very hot ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=150 000 K) PG1159 type central star. Numerous IUE high resolution spectra exist which can be co-added. Holberg et al. (1998) find no evidence of the Fe VII lines reported by Feibelman & Bruhweiler (1990). We confirm this result and find that this is due to the high temperature. Better spectra (from HST or FUSE) might be able to detect these lines, which are weak but not completely absent in the solar Fe abundance models. It appears that the tentative identification of lines from even lower ionized Fe VI by Feibelman & Johansson (1995) and Feibelman (1995) is very likely not correct.

#### 4.1.4 NGC 7094

NGC 7094 is a so-called hybrid PG 1159 star, meaning that detectable amounts of hydrogen are present in its atmosphere. We fail to detect iron lines in the IUE and HST spectra of NGC 7094 (Fig. 5). This is in contrast to Feibelman (2000), who claimed identification of several Fe VI and Fe VII lines in the IUE data. This central star is so hot that our model predicts stronger Fe VII than Fe VI lines. One can derive an underabundance of 0.5 dex. Inspecting the superior FUSE data we, again, cannot identify Fe VII lines. Comparison with our model reveals an even higher underabundance of 1–2 dex (Fig. 6).

#### 4.1.5 Abell 78

The central star of the planetary nebula Abell 78 is one of the rare \[WC\]–PG1159 transition object showing spectral signatures of both early \[WC\] spectral type (emission lines) and PG1159 type (absorption lines). As in the case of NGC 7094 only the FUSE spectrum allows one to determine a strict limit to the Fe abundance. A first analysis has been presented recently by Werner et al. (2002) and the result is an underabundance of 1–2 dex.

### 4.2 DO white dwarfs

KPD 0005$`+`$5106 is the hottest known DO white dwarf, showing peculiar emission lines due to ultrahigh ionized light metals (Werner & Heber 1992) and it is the only white dwarf known to have an X-ray corona (Fleming et al. 1993). An upper limit for the Fe abundance can be inferred from the GHRS spectrum (one tenth solar, Fig. 7). As in the case of RX J 2117.1$`+`$3412, the absorption feature near 1240 Å cannot stem from Fe VII, because no other Fe VII lines, neither in the HST nor in the FUSE data, are detectable. We derive an upper limit of log(Fe/He)$`<5`$ (by number).

PG1034+001 is another hot DO white dwarf for which an iron abundance of log(Fe/He)=$``$5 has been derived from Fe VI lines in HST data (Werner et al. 1995). We confirm this result by our re-analysis.

HZ 21 is one of the coolest DO white dwarfs. We confirm the result by Holberg et al. (1998) that only a single photospheric line can be identified in the IUE spectra (He II 1640 Å). The HST spectra are superior in quality, but they only cover wavelength ranges where Fe VI and Fe VII are located. HZ 21 is too cool to ionize iron this strongly. We derive an upper limit of log(Fe/He)$`<4`$.

HD149499B is also a cool DO star. From the absence of Fe V lines in the HST spectrum we derive an upper limit for the Fe abundance: log(Fe/He)$`<5`$.

To conclude our results on the DO stars, the iron abundance is much lower than predicted by diffusion theory (Fig. 8), confirming earlier results on other DO white dwarfs (Dreizler 1999).

### 4.3 Summary of iron line analyses

To summarize this section, we fail to identify iron lines in any PG1159 star. In most objects this is compatible with a solar iron abundance. In three cases (PG1159-035, HS2324+397, PG1520+525) we tentatively propose an interpretation in terms of a slight iron underabundance (0.5 dex). In three cases (K 1-16, NGC 7094, Abell 78) the underabundance is estimated to 1–2 dex.

For three out of four DO white dwarfs investigated in this work we derive an upper iron abundance limit from the absence of respective lines in their spectra. In the case of PG1034+001 the analysis of detected iron lines corroborates an earlier abundance determination.

## 5 Detection of sulfur in K 1-16 and other PG 1159 stars

The FUSE spectrum of K 1-16 allows for the first identification of sulfur in a PG1159 star based on the 933.38/944.52 Å resonance doublet (Fig. 9). It seems that both lines are split into two components, especially the VI 933.38 Å line. The stronger blueshifted components are attributed to the photosphere. Their velocity shift is about $``$40 km s-1 which is in coarse agreement with measurements from IUE spectra ($``$48.07 km s-1, Holberg et al. 1998). Our model fit suggests a solar sulfur abundance.

The VI doublet is also detected in the spectra of RX J 2117.1$`+`$3412, PG1520+525, and PG1159-035.

## 6 Discussion

Whether the iron deficiency in PG1159 stars is related to the same phenomenon observed in metal-poor post-AGB B-A-F supergiants can only be speculated upon. In some cases dust fractionation on the AGB has been invoked to explain the Fe deficiency (Van Winckel et al. 1992), whereas in other cases evidence was found that iron was transformed to heavier elements by s-process neutron captures (Decin et al. 1998). To our opinion it is unlikely that dust fractionation on the AGB is responsible for the iron deficiency in PG1159 stars, because strong post-AGB mass-loss removes layers “cleaned” from iron during the AGB phase.

In the case of PG1159 stars the high C and O abundances result from envelope mixing caused by a late He-shell flash (Herwig et al. 1999). This event also modifies the near-solar abundance ratios of iron-peak elements in the envelope by dredging up matter in which s-process elements were built-up by n-capture on 56Fe seeds during the AGB phase. This scenario can be tested by analyzing the resulting Fe/Ni abundance ratio, because it is significantly changed in the intershell region in favor of Ni by the conversion of 56Fe into 60Ni. The Fe depletion by n-captures typically amounts to a factor of 10 (Busso et al. 1999). In order to roughly estimate the Ni/Fe ratio one can assume nuclear statistical equilibrium. The two most abundant Ni isotopes are 60Ni (26%) and 58Ni (68%). During s-process 58Ni is destroyed (and not synthesized), by conversion into 60Ni. 60Ni is converted to heavier elements 4 times faster than it is produced from 56Fe. Consequently, a ratio Fe/Ni$``$4 results, which is a factor of five below the solar value. This could be detected by high resolution HST and FUSE UV spectroscopy of PG1159 stars, but only in objects that are cooler than the three hot stars for which the strong Fe deficiency has been found. This is because in the hot PG1159 stars Ni VII lines are the prevailing nickel features but they are located in the inaccessible EUV region. Interestingly, Asplund et al. (1999) have indeed found that in Sakurai’s object, which is thought to undergo a late He-shell flash, Fe is reduced to 0.1 solar and Fe/Ni$``$3. This and other s-process signatures might also be exhibited by Wolf-Rayet central stars and PG1159 stars.

More quantitative results from nucleosynthesis calculations in appropriate stellar models have been presented recently (Herwig et al. 2002) and inclusion of nuclear networks in evolutionary model sequences will become available in the near future.

Most recent results presented at the IAU Symposium 209 (Planetary Nebulae, Canberra) confirm that iron deficiency among H-deficient post-AGB stars is not restricted to PG1159 stars, as can be expected from evolutionary considerations. As already mentioned, the \[WC\]-PG1159 transition object Abell 78 is iron deficient (Werner et al. 2002) and three Wolf-Rayet central stars are iron deficient, too. Gräfener et al. (2002) report a low Fe abundance in SMP 61, an early type \[WC5\] central star in the LMC. Its abundance is at least 0.7 dex below the LMC metallicity. Crowther et al. (2002) find evidence for an iron underabundance of 0.3–0.7 dex in the Galactic \[WC\] stars NGC 40 (\[WC8\]) and BD+30 3639 (\[WC9\]).

A general iron deficiency among PG1159 stars would also have implications for asteroseismology. Roughly half of all PG1159 stars are GW Vir pulsators and frequency analyses have revealed interesting results about the interior structure of these stars (e.g. Winget et al. 1991). There is still a debate about details of the pulsation driving mechanism. While it is accepted that cyclic ionization of carbon and oxygen just beneath the photosphere is the main driver, the iron opacity also does play a role (Saio 1996). In light of our iron abundance analysis of the pulsator K 1-16 it would be interesting to re-address the problem of pulsation driving.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Falk Herwig for useful discussions. HST data analysis in Tübingen is supported by the DLR under grant 50 OR 9705 5. JLD is supported by the DFG under grant We 1312/23-1.