text:
# Charm and leptons

## 1 Introduction

Observables related to charm and leptons are of great relevance in heavy ion collisions considering the significant information that they have revealed over the last years. The low mass dielectron yield measured by the CERES collaboration has provided evidence for in-medium effects on the $`\rho `$ meson. The $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern observed by the NA50 collaboration is believed to be an important signature of the QGP. The intermediate mass dimuon excess in A-A reactions at SPS has been first attributed to an increase of the open charm cross-section. At the beginning of this year, the first measurement of the open charm cross-section in heavy ion collisions has been carried-out at RHIC by the PHENIX collaboration. On the other hand, the actual mechanism for charmonium production in heavy ion reactions is a subject of intensive current debate. Indeed, the new scenarios which have been recently proposed differ totally from the standard approach in their predictions. At RHIC they imply a significantly larger $`J/\psi `$ yield than that resulting from the standard suppression scenario. This makes the first $`J/\psi `$ measurements from PHENIX of crucial importance.

## 2 Low mass dileptons at SPS

Studies of low mass dielectrons at the SPS continue to attract a great interest since the observation of an excess beyond the expected sources in S-U reactions at $`200A\mathrm{GeV}`$  and in Pb-Au reactions at $`158A\mathrm{GeV}`$ . The enhancement is located in the invariant mass range $`0.2<m<0.7\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. It is found to be more pronounced at low $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ and to increase with centrality. The final analysis of the $`40A\mathrm{GeV}`$ Pb-Au data presented at this conference  confirms the preliminary results reported at the last Quark Matter conference : the data taken at $`40A\mathrm{GeV}`$ exhibit an even larger enhancement ($`5.1\pm 1.3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 1.0(\mathrm{syst})`$) than at $`158A\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`2.9\pm 0.3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.6(\mathrm{syst})`$). This is probably due to the maximum baryonic density reached in Pb-Au collisions at the lower beam energy. Note that, within errors, the measured dielectron yield is, in the considered invariant mass range, similar at both beam energies such that the larger excess observed at $`40A\mathrm{GeV}`$ actually results from a lower magnitude of the sum of known hadronic decay sources. The enhancement can be well accounted for by considering reduction in mass or broadening in width of the $`\rho `$ meson in the hot and dense medium (see  for a review and  for a recent update). Unfortunately, the present experimental resolution does not allow to disentangle the two scenarios (this might be improved with the analysis of the data taken in 2000). Another approach, recently proposed, is based on dileptons from a simple parameterization of a thermal source . This approach is very successful in describing also the intermediate mass dilepton yield and the direct photons at SPS (see below). The derived space-time averaged temperature is $`170(145)\mathrm{MeV}`$ at $`158(40)A\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is interesting to note that the temperature at $`158A\mathrm{GeV}`$ coincide with the expected temperature of the phase transition. Its maximum is located at $`210\mathrm{MeV}`$ suggesting that the system originates from the deconfined region .

## 3 Intermediate mass dileptons at SPS

In the intermediate mass range (IMR, $`1.5<m<2.5\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$), like in the case of the low mass region, an excess of dileptons is seen compared to known sources in A-A reactions. This has been observed by the HELIOS/3  and NA50  collaborations. An updated analysis was presented at the last Quark Matter conference . The enhancement is found to increase linearly with $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}`$ and reaches a factor $`2.1`$ for the most central Pb-Pb events. Surprisingly, the kinematical distributions of the dimuon excess are compatible with those expected from open charm decay . These findings have triggered a lot of theoretical activities with various interpretations: open charm enhancement , $`D`$ meson final state rescattering , secondary hadron production , secondary Drell-Yan production , $`\eta _c`$ production , thermal dilepton production , secondary meson-baryon interactions , in-medium Drell-Yan production . Some of the proposed scenarios fail in reproducing the kinematical distributions of the excess, some fail in its centrality dependence and some underpredict its magnitude. The most successful description of the data has been achieved by means of thermal dileptons  (see also ). Indeed, with a common thermal source one can simultaneously reproduce the low mass dielectron yield from CERES, the IMR dimuons from NA50 and HELIOS/3 as well as the direct photons from WA98 . However, it should be mentioned that a recent investigation of the centrality dependence of the IMR dimuon excess leads to a source temperature which is significantly larger than that estimated from central events only . This could leave room for a partial contribution from one or some of the other effects listed above.

One should finally note that, from the experimental point of view, this kind of analysis requires a thorough understanding of the combinatorial background. This is because, in contrast to narrow resonances, the present broad signal does not clearly stick-out of the background. In particular, special attention should be paid to situations with a production asymmetry between positive and negative leptons and a large signal which will lead to an incorrect background subtraction and therefore to a biased extracted signal .

## 4 Open charm at RHIC

The first (indirect) measurement of the open charm cross-section in heavy ion collisions has been carried-out recently by the PHENIX collaboration via analysis of single electron spectra in Au-Au at $`\sqrt{s}=130\mathrm{GeV}`$ . After subtracting all known sources from the total distribution the remaining electron spectra are, in the explored $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ range, in good agreement with electron spectra from open charm decay as predicted using PYTHIA (tuned to reproduce existing hadron-nucleon data at lower beam energies and then extrapolated to Au-Au at RHIC). The derived integrated cross-section is in good agreement with PYTHIA and consistent with pQCD NLO calculations. Therefore, in contrast to the SPS IMR dimuon data, there is no need for charm enhancement in order to explain the RHIC single electron spectra. However, because of the present large systematical errors, one cannot firmly exclude in-medium effects on charm production at RHIC. It was actually pointed-out at this conference that the small differences at high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ between the minimum-bias spectrum and the central spectrum could be explained by considering energy loss of charm quarks .

The analysis was repeated for the $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$ data . Here, the determination of the background was done in a completely different way, namely by using a photon converter instead of the cocktail technique which was used for the $`130\mathrm{GeV}`$ data. Again, the data agree well with the expectations from PYTHIA. This holds true for several centrality bins such that, here again, not much room is left for large in-medium effects. However, it is clear that the safest way to make a definite statement about in-medium effects on open charm at RHIC is to compare the Au-Au data to the p-p data. This is hopefully going to be done soon .

Another interesting perspective, with the coming high luminosity runs, is the independent measurement of the open charm cross-section from the dielectron continuum above the $`\varphi `$ meson. All these measurements could provide precious information on open bottom by looking at high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ and high invariant mass. They would be greatly improved by means of high resolution vertex detectors owing to the large $`c\tau `$ of open charm and open bottom hadrons. Note finally that non-direct measurements of open charm (bottom) from semi-leptonic decays bring limited information only. Direct measurements of open charm hadrons remain an important goal of the heavy quark physics program at RHIC.

## 5 Charmonium at SPS

After many years of intensive experimental and theoretical investigations, charmonium production at SPS remains one of the hottest topic in the field (see  for reviews). This is because the observed behaviour of $`J/\psi `$ is believed to exhibit one of the most pronounced deviation with respect to pure conventional hadronic picture.

The so-called “$`J/\psi `$ anomalous suppression” has been observed by the NA50 collaboration with the data collected in 1996 and 1998. It manifests itself by a departure from the “normal” nuclear absorption when looking at the centrality dependence of the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ ratio in Pb-Pb reactions . The ratio is obtained by means of either the standard method or the minimum-bias method. The centrality of the reactions is measured with the neutral transverse energy ($`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$) and the Zero Degree Calorimeter energy ($`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ZDC}}`$). A $`20\%`$ drop is observed at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}40\mathrm{GeV}`$, followed by a decrease at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}100\mathrm{GeV}`$ (Tab. 1).

The NA50 collaboration interprets this pattern as an evidence for deconfinement. In this scenario, the drop results from the melting of $`\chi _c`$111The fraction of $`J/\psi `$ from $`\chi _c`$ decay is $`30\%`$ in $`\mathrm{p}`$-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8\mathrm{TeV}`$  and $`32\%`$ in p-A at $`\sqrt{s}=41.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ . and the decrease from the melting of $`J/\psi `$. This can be checked  by comparing the energy densities derived from the data (Tab. 1) with the expected charmonia dissociation temperatures from recent studies based on the heavy quark potential from LQCD . The data agree with the predictions within $`20\%`$. This is a fairly good agreement considering the uncertainties in the way the energy density is derived from the data. Note however that these studies assume the $`\chi _c`$ decay branching ratio into $`J/\psi `$ in heavy ion reactions to be the same as in p-p.

### 5.1 $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ in central Pb-Pb

The interpretation of the decrease as due to the melting of $`J/\psi `$ is not straightforward in a dynamical picture. Indeed, QGP models which assume two sharp thresholds corresponding to the successive meltings of $`\chi _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ overpredict the data in the decrease (i.e. beyond $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. In fact, it was realized that at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ distribution exhibits the typical knee beyond which there is no further sensitivity to centrality and fluctuations set in . By taking into account these fluctuations, a perfect fit of the data is achieved over all the centrality range with either two thresholds or one gradual threshold . In other words, in the framework of QGP models, the decrease seen in the data cannot be non-ambiguously associated to the melting of $`J/\psi `$.

Furthermore, it has recently been pointed-out that the decrease may hide another effect which has strictly nothing to do with the QGP but which is related to the trigger of the NA50 spectrometer . An event which fulfills the $`J/\psi `$ trigger conditions should have, in average, a smaller $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ than a minimum-bias event because a fraction of $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ is taken away by the $`J/\psi `$. Therefore, in the minimum-bias analysis, the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ ratio is biased because the $`J/\psi `$ yield is measured (under trigger conditions) whereas the Drell-Yan yield is calculated (without trigger conditions). It has been shown in  that this effect leads to an extra depletion of the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})|_{\mathrm{min}\mathrm{bias}}`$ ratio in the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ range of the decrease. Consequently, with $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ fluctuations and $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ loss effects, the comover model provides a very good description of the data up to the most central events . This also holds true for other models based on different scenarios  and would probably also hold true for former models which assume or not the formation of the QGP . In this context the decrease cannot be considered any longer as a valid point to disprove a model which would exhibit a saturation of the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ ratio at high $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$. Note that the trigger $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ loss effect can, in principle, be confirmed or disproved by taking Drell-Yan data at large $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ and/or by measuring at RHIC the $`J/\psi `$ yield at the energy density corresponding to that of the decrease at the SPS.

### 5.2 $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ in peripheral Pb-Pb

At the time of the last Quark Matter conference, the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ data at low $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ were subject to different interpretations. Indeed, as it can be seen from Fig. 8 of , at low $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$, some models underpredict the data, some overpredict the data and some go through the data. On the other hand, the data points below $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}=30\mathrm{GeV}`$ are located above the nuclear absorption curve which means that they show less absorption than in p-A and S-U systems. The same feature is observed at large $`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ZDC}}`$  (i.e. for the same centrality class). This is difficult to understand in the QGP picture since the suppression should be “normal” below the (first) threshold. However, it was believed that, for these peripheral events, the data could be contaminated by beam-air interactions. In order to clarify the situation new data were taken in 2000 with the target placed in the vacuum to minimize off-target interactions. The software was also improved with new methods for rejection of pile-up events and identification of the interaction point. In parallel, more accurate measurements of p-A data were made in order to estimate with better precision the $`J/\psi `$ nuclear absorption cross-section. The updated value is $`\sigma _{J/\psi }^{\mathrm{abs}}=4.4\pm 0.5\mathrm{mb}`$  (the former was $`\sigma _{J/\psi }^{\mathrm{abs}}=6.4\pm 0.8\mathrm{mb}`$ ). The new $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})|_{\mathrm{standard}}`$ data have been presented at this conference . They are consistent with the previously published data for $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}>30\mathrm{GeV}`$. On the contrary, for $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}<30\mathrm{GeV}`$, they lie significantly below the former data and are compatible with the (new) nuclear absorption curve. Consequently, models going through the previous data points at low $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ should strongly deviate from the new data in this $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ range. In particular, this is the case for the comover model .

Conclusion: It has been shown at this conference  that the published peripheral $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ data suffer from a systematical bias due to beam-air interactions (a $`25\%`$ effect at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}=15\mathrm{GeV}`$). It has been argued in  that the central $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})|_{\mathrm{min}\mathrm{bias}}`$ data might be affected by a systematical bias due to trigger $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ loss (a $`20\%`$ effect at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}=120\mathrm{GeV}`$). Very recently, it has been claimed that there might be systematical inconsistencies between the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ data and the $`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{ZDC}}`$ data for semi-central events . As interpretations are often being drawn at a few percent level, it is extremely important that the data are carefully checked for systematical effects. In addition, more stringent tests of the models could certainly be achieved i) by studying simultaneously the centrality dependence of yields together with ratios and ii) by extending investigations to all available observables. The latter should include, in particular, the transverse momentum dependence of the suppression discussed below.

### 5.3 Transverse momentum dependence of the suppression

The $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ suppression was early considered to be the golden observable to prove the existence of the QGP. Traditionally the data are presented in terms of the centrality dependence of the $`<p_\mathrm{t}^2>`$ of $`J/\psi `$ in order to provide evidence for the $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ broadening effect due to initial state parton scattering which is expected in absence of QGP. In a deconfined medium, it was first believed that one should observe additional $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ broadening with increasing centrality . This is because, due to the resonance formation time and screening effects, only high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ $`J/\psi `$ could escape the medium whereas low $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ $`J/\psi `$ would melt. Later on, it was claimed  that an opposite effect should actually happen, namely $`<p_\mathrm{t}^2>`$ flattening or even decreasing. The reason is that high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ $`J/\psi `$ are those which travel through the largest amount of matter and therefore are those which come from the center of the reaction. Since the local density is the highest in the central region these high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ $`J/\psi `$ should be the most QGP suppressed. On the other hand, comovers are expected to produce a weak $`<p_\mathrm{t}^2>`$ flattening .

The NA50 Pb-Pb data  are shown in Fig. 1 (see  for the data taken in 2000 and  for the S-U data at $`200A\mathrm{GeV}`$). They show a smooth increase of $`<p_\mathrm{t}^2>`$ with centrality and a saturation when approaching mid-central reactions. It is astounding to note that the data do not show any significant sign for onsets, steps or drops and it would be remarkable that the two QGP effects mentioned above would exactly cancel each other. Even more striking is the outcome of the comparison with the theory, since the only model which significantly misses the data is the QGP model (first noticed in ). This means that something is inconsistent when looking simultaneously at $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ and at $`<p_\mathrm{t}^2>`$ of $`J/\psi `$. It is therefore of crucial importance to further investigate these data carefully. To this respect, it is also important to stress that one would surely learn much more from the spectra themselves instead of limiting the study to mean values222As illustrated in , the fact that a model gets the mean of a distribution right does not necessarily mean that the full distribution is understood..

Another interesting aspect of the centrality dependence of the $`J/\psi `$ $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ spectra has been presented at this conference . The $`J/\psi `$ inverse slope parameters for p-A, S-U and non-central Pb-Pb reactions fall on a common straight line when plotted as a function of the energy density. However, for the most-central Pb-Pb events one observes a flattening of the apparent temperatures. This could indicate a change in the expansion of the system.

### 5.4 Non-direct charmonium production

Charmonium production from statistical hadronization has been extensively discussed in a parallel session at this conference. This production mechanism is based on a twofold observation . First, because of cross-section considerations, the treatment of charmed hadrons in a standard thermal model cannot be easily justified. Secondly, in central Pb-Pb reactions at SPS the measured $`\psi ^{}/(J/\psi )`$ ratio is $`4\%`$ as predicted by the thermal model. This led to a new scenario for charmonium production : i) all $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs are produced in the early stage via hard scattering; ii) all charm hadrons are produced statistically at the hadronization. The underlying picture is that the charm hadrons either do not form in the early stages or are fully suppressed in the QGP. This scenario can be implemented in the framework of a thermal model by using the formalism described in  where one includes a charm enhancement factor in order to match the multiplicity of directly produced $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs. Since the open charm cross-section has not yet been measured at SPS, it is taken from the predictions of pQCD.

This approach has been studied in detail in the two last years . As shown in  the measured $`J/\psi `$ yield versus $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}`$ in Pb-Pb is qualitatively consistent with the centrality dependence of the nuclear overlap function. In order to reproduce the yields, one needs to enhance the charm cross-section in the model with respect to the predictions from pQCD. This extra charm enhancement amounts to a factor $`2`$. This is surprisingly similar to the open charm-like enhancement needed in order to account for the excess of the IMR dimuon yield observed in central Pb-Pb events at SPS . Another realization of the statistical hadronization model also provides a very good fit of the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{t}`$ dependence of the $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ ratio, albeit with a larger enhancement factor .

An additional experimental indication for statistical hadronization of charmonium at SPS has been put forward in  (see  for the model predictions at RHIC): The $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ spectra of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\pm `$ from WA97 and $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ from NA50 can be simultaneously described in a hydrodynamical picture of hadronizing QGP with $`\mathrm{T}=\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{c}=170\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\overline{v}=0.2`$ ($`\overline{v}`$ is the average transverse flow velocity). This supports the idea of charmonium formation and kinetic freeze-out at the hadronization.

The statistical hadronization model can also be used to predict charmonium yield at RHIC . At RHIC, depending on the beam energy, the total multiplicity of (directly produced) $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs is expected to be smaller than one in peripheral reactions and larger than one in central reactions. Because the statistical hadronization process is strongly correlated to the multiplicity of the $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs, one expects the final $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{N}_{c\overline{c}})`$ ratio to increase or decrease versus centrality depending on the beam energy .

The $`J/\psi `$ statistical hadronization process has been recently incorporated in a modified approach . This approach combines i) directly produced $`J/\psi `$ followed by nuclear absorption and QGP/HG dissociation and ii) statistically produced $`J/\psi `$ as in pure statistical models but without the extra charm enhancement factor. This leads to a good agreement with the NA50 $`(J/\psi )/(\mathrm{DY})`$ data. The agreement is particularly good at the level of the first drop which arises, in this model, from the superposition of direct and statistically produced $`J/\psi `$. Another interesting aspect from this model is the excitation function of the total $`J/\psi `$ yield which is expected to be dominated by direct $`J/\psi `$ at SPS and by statistical $`J/\psi `$ at RHIC, with a minimum at $`\sqrt{s}50\mathrm{GeV}`$. It is important to note that whereas pure statistical models reproduce the measured $`\psi ^{}/(J/\psi )`$ ratio, this approach significantly overpredicts it. This leaves room for additional effects .

Non-direct charmonium states can be produced not only at the hadronization but also in the QGP by means of the so-called kinetic recombination process . This mechanism foresees even larger $`J/\psi `$ yields at RHIC than the statistical hadronization process. Note that all models will face stringent tests with the upcoming data from NA60 at SPS and PHENIX at RHIC.

To conclude on this topic, it is interesting to extrapolate from charmonium production at RHIC to bottomonium production at LHC. Indeed, i) the key parameter for statistical production of charmonium is the number of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs and ii) the expected multiplicity of $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs at LHC is roughly equal to the expected multiplicity of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs at RHIC. Therefore, if statistical production of charmonium is confirmed at RHIC, one could expect the same mechanism to occur at LHC for bottomonium states.

## 6 Charmonium at RHIC

The first charmonium measurements from the PHENIX collaboration are certainly among the most exciting results presented at this conference . The $`J/\psi `$ signal has been extracted in p-p at $`\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ both in the dielectron channel and in the dimuon channel. Although the present statistics is very limited ($`24(36)`$ counts in the dielectron(dimuon) channel), the signal is clearly seen. Thanks to the capability of the PHENIX detector to measure simultaneously the two channels, the first rapidity distribution of $`J/\psi `$ in p-p at $`\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ has been established. The $`J/\psi `$ signal has also been extracted in Au-Au reactions in the dielectron channel. The statistics, even more limited than in p-p, does not allow to draw at present solid conclusions on a possible $`J/\psi `$ suppression or enhancement. However, large suppresion factors as well as large enhancement factors seem to be not likely. This will be improved soon since only half of the collected data from the $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$ run has been analysed so far. In the next two years the statistics will be enhanced by a factor $`75`$ for Au-Au and $`100`$ for p-p. Also of great interest will be the coming charmonium measurements in d-A.

## 7 Next steps

Apart from the forthcoming measurements at RHIC and the analysis of remaining SPS data, new generation experiments are presently being completed or designed.

The HADES experiment  at GSI will soon shed light on the DLS low mass dielectron puzzle . The NA60 experiment  at SPS will continue in line with the investigations made by NA50 and, in particular, measure the open charm cross-section and the $`\psi ^{}`$. The ALICE experiment  will bring essential information regarding charm and leptons at LHC. Looking even forward into the future, the CBM experiment , at the GSI future facility, will allow a new beam energy domain to be explored with simultaneous measurements of low mass dielectrons, charmonia and open charm.

## Acknowledgements

Stimulating discussions with A. Andronic, R. Averbeck, P. Braun-Munzinger, M.I. Gorenstein, J.Y. Ollitrault, L. Ramello and J. Stachel are gratefully acknowledged. Many thanks to J.P. Cussonneau, C. Finck, R. Granier de Cassagnac and F. Staley for technical support, to the speakers who provided their slides prior to their talk and to the organizers of the conference.


format: text

text:
# DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE H𝛼 KERNELS AND HARD X-RAY SOURCES IN A SOLAR FLARE

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In the impulsive phase of a solar flare, precipitations of nonthermal electrons from the corona generate radiation from denser layers, such as the transition region and/or the upper chromosphere. This radiation is often observed in hard X-rays (HXRs) or microwaves. Precipitations of nonthermal electrons also cause radiation sources in H$`\alpha `$ because of rapid thermalization or other mechanisms. Therefore, H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources show a high correlation in their locations and light curves (Kitahara & Kurokawa, 1990). However, the difference between the spatial distributions of H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources is also well known. H$`\alpha `$ images sometimes show elongated brightenings, called H$`\alpha `$ flare ribbons, with many H$`\alpha `$ kernels within them. The size of elemental H$`\alpha `$ kernels is considered to be about $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ or even smaller (Kurokawa, 1986), which is larger than the spatial resolution achieved with H$`\alpha `$ instruments ($`0_{}^{\prime \prime }2`$) but is smaller than that with HXR instruments of about $`5^{\prime \prime }`$. On the other hand, HXR images show very few sources, sometimes only one. HXR sources are accompanied by H$`\alpha `$ kernels in many cases, but many H$`\alpha `$ kernels are not accompanied by HXR sources. The only exception to this “lack of radiation sources in HXRs” that is known, is the Bastille Day event on 2000 July 14 (Masuda, Kosugi, & Hudson, 2001). This event shows a clear two-ribbon structure in HXRs such as in H$`\alpha `$.

This difference of spatial distributions may be explained by the difference in radiation mechanisms between HXRs and H$`\alpha `$. The HXR intensity is proportional to the number of accelerated electrons, and is thought to be proportional to the energy release rate (Hudson, 1991; Wu et al., 1986). Therefore, only compact regions where the largest energy release occurred are observable as HXR sources. On the other hand, the mechanisms for H$`\alpha `$ radiation are much more complicated than those for HXR radiation, and to derive the effect of electrons is quite difficult (Ricchiazzi and Canfield, 1983; Canfield, Gunkler, & Ricchiazzi, 1984). Some weaker H$`\alpha `$ kernels may be caused by a secondary effect of precipitation or thermal conduction. However, as we mentioned above, the light curve of each H$`\alpha `$ kernel has a high correlation with that of the total HXR intensity, even if their intensity is not so strong and they do not have an HXR counterpart. We suggest that the difference between the spatial distributions of H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources is caused by the low dynamic range of the HXR data. In the HXR images only the strongest sources are seen, and the weaker sources are buried in the noise. We use the HXR data taken with the hard X-ray telescope (HXT; Kosugi et al. 1991) onboard Yohkoh (Ogawara et al. 1991) in this paper. The dynamic range of the HXT images is about 10. Therefore, if the released energy at the H$`\alpha `$ kernels associated with HXR sources is at least 10 times larger than that at the H$`\alpha `$ kernels without HXR sources, then the difference of appearance can be explained.

In this paper, we measured the photospheric magnetic field strengths at each radiation source seen in H$`\alpha `$ images which have much higher spatial resolution than HXR images. We also estimated the energy release rates based on the magnetic reconnection model (Isobe et al., 2002) at each radiation source. Then we compared the energy release rates with the spatial distribution of radiation sources in an HXR image since they suggest the site where the strong energy release occurred. To examine the difference of the amount of the released magnetic energy, we measured the photospheric magnetic field strengths at each radiation source. In §2 we summarize the observational data and the results. In §3 we discuss the amount of energy release at each radiation source. In §4 the summary and the conclusion are given.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

We observed a large two-ribbon flare (X2.3 on the GOES scale) which occurred in the NOAA Active Region 9415 (S22, W01) at 05:10 UT, 2001 April 10 with the Sartorius Refractor Telescope (Sartorius) at Kwasan Observatory, Kyoto University. The highest temporal and spatial resolutions of the Sartorius data are 1 s and $`1_{}^{\prime \prime }2`$, respectively. The details of the flare were reported in several papers (Asai et al., 2002; Pike and Mason, 2002; Foley et al., 2001). To compare the locations of the HXR radiation sources with those of the H$`\alpha `$ kernels, we used the HXR data taken with HXT, whose temporal and spatial resolutions are 0.5 s and $`5^{\prime \prime }`$, respectively. We also used a magnetogram obtained at 05:18 UT with the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI; Scherrer et al. 1995) onboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO; Domingo, Fleck, and Poland 1995) to measure photospheric magnetic field strengths. The spatial resolution of the MDI image is about $`3_{}^{\prime \prime }9`$.

Figure 1 shows the images of the flare at 05:19 UT in H$`\alpha `$ and HXR. We overlaid the HXR contour image on the H$`\alpha `$ image (in panel B of Fig. 1), to compare the spatial distribution of radiation sources in these two wavelengths. There are many H$`\alpha `$ kernels inside the flare ribbons. In panel A of Figure 1 we can identify ten H$`\alpha `$ kernels by eyes, which are numbered from E1 to E6 and from W1 to W4. Here, “E” and “W”, mean the eastern and the western flare ribbons, respectively.

On the other hand, the HXR image (panel B in Fig. 1) shows only two sources even at the contour level of 10% of the peak intensity. These HXR sources are associated with the H$`\alpha `$ kernels E2 and W2. We confirmed that those H$`\alpha `$ kernels, E2 and W2, are conjugate footpoints in a previous paper (Asai et al., 2002). The soft X-ray images of the flares taken with the Soft X-ray Telescope onboard Yohkoh also show the flare loops which connect E2 and W2. Such differences between the spatial distributions of the H$`\alpha `$ kernels and the HXR sources may be caused by the differences in energy release rates at each radiation source. We measured the magnetic field strengths at each H$`\alpha `$ kernel, both with and without HXR sources, and estimated their energy release rates. Then we compared these rates with the spatial distribution of the HXR sources. The estimation is discussed in the next section. Here, we examine the relation between the photospheric magnetic field strength and the radiation sources.

Figure 2 shows the H$`\alpha `$ image in which the flare ribbons are clearly seen (left panel), and the photospheric magnetogram of the same region obtained with MDI (right panel). The outer edges of the H$`\alpha `$ flare ribbons are plotted by cross signs in both the panels of Figure 2. The magnetic reconnection model indicates that the newest energy release occurs on the outermost flare loops, and the H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources appear at the footpoints of the flare loops, say, at the fronts of the H$`\alpha `$ flare ribbons. Therefore, we measured the photospheric magnetic field strengths along the outer edges of the flare ribbons. The source E4 is excluded from the discussion, because it is not located on the ribbon-front.

Figure 3 shows the photospheric magnetic field strengths along the outer edges of both the H$`\alpha `$ flare ribbons. The left gray plot shows the magnetic strengths for the east ribbon with positive magnetic polarity, and the right black plot is for the west ribbon with negative magnetic polarity. The magnetic field strengths at the H$`\alpha `$ kernels are higher than in the other non-kernel regions, 300 G on average, and those at the HXR sources (E2 and W2) are especially high ($``$ 1000 G). We summarize the magnetic field strengths at each H$`\alpha `$ kernel in Table 1. The photospheric magnetic field strengths of the H$`\alpha `$ kernels accompanied by HXR sources are about 3 times larger than the other H$`\alpha `$ kernels.

## 3 ENERGY RELEASE RATE

In this section, we examine the energy release rates in the flare ribbons, and discuss the relation between the rates and the spatial distribution of the H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources. We assume that the HXR intensity observed with the HXT is proportional to the energy release rate $`dE/dt`$ due to magnetic reconnection. The energy release rate is written as the product of the Poynting flux into the reconnection region $`(4\pi )^1B_{\mathrm{corona}}^2v_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and the area of the reconnection region $`A`$ (Isobe et al., 2002) as follows;

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{corona}}^2}{4\pi }v_{\mathrm{in}}A,$$
(1)
where $`B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$ is the magnetic field strength in the corona and $`v_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the inflow velocity into the reconnection region. For simplicity, we assume that the area of the reconnection region does not change much during the flare and is independent of the magnetic field strength. Therefore, the energy release rate is simply written as $`dE/dtB_{\mathrm{corona}}^2v_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Here, we use magnetic field strengths at the the photosphere $`B_{\mathrm{photo}}`$ instead of those at the corona $`B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$ to estimate the energy release rates, since to measure $`B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$ directly is difficult. We assume that $`B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$ is proportional to $`B_{\mathrm{photo}}`$ in the same ratio all over the flaring region. If this assumption is true, the differences of the energy release rates estimated with $`B_{\mathrm{photo}}`$ are the same as those with $`B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$. From now on, we estimate the energy release rate by using the photospheric magnetic field strength, and we write it simply as $`B`$.

If $`v_{\mathrm{in}}`$ has no dependence on $`B`$, the energy release rate is directly proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength, $`dE/dtB^2`$. Since the H$`\alpha `$ kernels accompanied by HXR radiation have magnetic field strengths about 3 times larger than those without the HXR radiation, the energy release rates at the former are about 9 times larger than those at the latter. The difference in the energy release rates is just comparable to the dynamic range of the HXT ($``$ 10), but is not enough for weaker radiation sources to be buried in noise. At other H$`\alpha `$ kernels, HXR sources should be observed. Therefore, under this assumption the spatial distribution of radiation sources cannot be explained.

This result suggests that $`v_{\mathrm{in}}`$ may have some dependence on $`B`$ as some authors have suggested. Sweet (1958) and Parker (1957) give the relation $`v_{\mathrm{in}}=R_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}v_\mathrm{A}`$, where $`R_m`$ is the magnetic Reynolds number, and $`v_\mathrm{A}`$ is the Alfvén velocity. Here, $`v_\mathrm{A}`$ is expressed as $`v_\mathrm{A}=(4\pi \rho )^{1/2}B_{\mathrm{corona}}B_{\mathrm{corona}}`$, where $`\rho `$ is the mass density. $`R_m`$ is defined as $`R_m=Lv_\mathrm{A}/\eta B`$, where $`L`$ and $`\eta `$ are the characteristic length of the flare region and the magnetic diffusivity, respectively. Therefore, we can derive the relation $`v_{\mathrm{in}}B^{1/2}`$, and then $`dE/dtB^{5/2}`$. On the other hand, Petschek (1964) suggests that $`v_{\mathrm{in}}`$ hardly depends on $`R_m`$, and indicates $`v_{\mathrm{in}}(\mathrm{log}R_m)^1v_\mathrm{A}v_\mathrm{A}B`$. Hence, we can derive the relation $`dE/dtB^3`$. Since $`B`$ at the HXR sources is 3 times larger, these two models of magnetic recconection predict that the energy release is 16 and 27 times stronger for the H$`\alpha `$ sources accompanied by HXR sources than for the other H$`\alpha `$ kernels, respectively. This is sufficiently larger than the dynamic range of HXT, and the difference between the spatial distributions can be explained.

## 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We have examined the difference between the spatial distributions of H$`\alpha `$ kernels and HXR sources. The HXR sources indicate where large energy release has occurred, while the H$`\alpha `$ kernels show the precipitation sites of nonthermal electrons with higher spatial resolution. We measured the photospheric magnetic field strength at each H$`\alpha `$ kernel, and found that the magnetic field strengths at the H$`\alpha `$ kernels accompanied by HXR sources are about 3 times higher than those at the other H$`\alpha `$ kernels (without any HXR sources). We also estimated their energy release rates, by using the photospheric magnetic field strengths and by considering the dependence of $`v_i`$ on $`B`$ as derived by some authors (e.g. Sweet 1958; Parker 1957; Petschek 1964). The estimated energy release rates at the HXR sources are large enough to explain the difference of appearance of the H$`\alpha `$ and HXR images.

The gap in our understanding of large scale structure such as H$`\alpha `$ flare ribbons and compact radiation sources has been well known not only in HXRs, but also in microwaves. Even in SXRs, flare loops often appear only in a part of the whole flaring region and/or seem to connect only a few radiation sources. The lack of radiation sources does not mean that no energy release occurs there. We just cannot “observe” the radiation because of the dynamic ranges of the instrument for those wavelengths.

We compared the photospheric magnetic field strenghts at each H$`\alpha `$ kernel with the spatial distribution of HXR sources, and found that HXR sources appear at strong magnetic regions. However, our result was based on only one event, and the statistical studies about the relation between HXR intensities and magnetic field strengths are needed. We will be able to perform more detailed analysis in the near future by using HXR images, with a higher dynamic range, obtained with the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI).

We firstly acknowledge an anonymous referee for his/her useful comments and suggestions. We wish to acknowledge all the members of Kwasan observatory for their support during our observation, especially Ms. M. Kamobe. We also thank Dr. D. H. Brooks for his careful reading and correction of our paeper. We wish to thank Drs. S. Tanuma, N. V. Nitta, J. Sato, T. Kosugi, K. Shibasaki, for fruitful discussions and their helpful comments. We again would like to thank them for their encouragement. The Yohkoh satellite is a Japanese national project, launched and operated with by ISAS, and involving many domestic institutions, with multilateral international collaboration with the US and the UK. SOHO is a mission of international cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Laughlin’s wavefunctions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^\mathrm{L}=\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^me^{\frac{1}{4}_i|z_i|^2}$$
(1)
actually are good wavefunctions for describing the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE)  at filling factor $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}`$, $`m`$ odd integer. However, the situation at most other filling factors is somewhat less clear. Several attempts are proposed to extend Laughlin’s theory by adopting different approaches and assumptions. In particular, Jain  introduced the composite fermion (CF) concepts. Indeed, Jain’s idea is to explain the FQHE in terms of the integer quantum Hall effect (IQHE) by using the attached flux notion where each electron is assumed to be surrounded by an integer number of flux. Subsequently, by constructing a velocity operator in terms of the standard operator momentum and weakened vector potential, Murthy and Shankar  proposed a Hamiltonian formalism for the FQHE mapped in terms of the CF degrees of freedom.

Recently with Dayi, we proposed  an approach based on noncommutative geometry tools  to describe the FQHE of a system of electrons. In fact, the corresponding filling factor is found to be

$$\nu _{\mathrm{DJ}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\rho (l^2\theta )$$
(2)
which is identified with the observed fractional values $`f=1/3,2/3,1/5,\mathrm{}`$. This approach also allowed us to make a link with the CF approach  of the FQHE by setting an effective magnetic field

$$B_{\mathrm{DJ}}=\frac{B}{1\theta l^2}$$
(3)
similar to that felt by the CF’s.

In this paper we would like to return to our former work  in order to add some relevant applications. Indeed, by considering the experimental data of two different systems exhibiting the FQHE, we determine explicitly the corresponding values of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$. Under some assumptions, we find that $`\theta `$ can be quantized in terms of the magnetic length and the quantization is nothing but what Murthy and Shankar defined when dealing with the FQHE in terms of the CF’s. Moreover, we present a generalization of the Murthy-Shankar approach for the FQHE.

Section 2 is a review of the derivation of the Hall conductivity of a two dimensional system of electrons subject to an external magnetic field and living on both planes, commutative and noncommutative. These serve as a guide in section 3 in order to determine some particular values of $`\theta `$ and in the meantime quantize it. In section 4 after recalling briefly the Murthy-Shankar approach, we show that this approach has a noncommutative nature and therefore there is a more general approach.

## 2 Hall conductivity

In this section we shall review the determination of the Hall conductivity for a two dimensional system of electrons subject to a magnetic field $`B`$. In fact, we start by recalling the commutative case and end up with the noncommutative one.

### 2.1 Commutative plane

A system of an electron living on the plane $`(x,y)`$ and in the presence of an uniform external $`B`$ and $`E`$ fields can be described by the following Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{c}H=\frac{1}{2m}\left[\left(p_x\frac{eB}{2c}y\right)^2+\left(p_y+\frac{eB}{2c}x\right)^2\right]+eEx\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where the gauge is chosen to be symmetric $`\stackrel{}{A}=\frac{B}{2}(y,x)`$ and the scalar potential is fixed to be $`\varphi =xE_x`$.

$`H`$ can be diagonalised simply by considering a couple of creation and annihilation operators. Then, let us define the first pair

$$\begin{array}{c}b^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}}+\frac{eB}{2c}z+\lambda \hfill \\ b=2ip_z+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}+\lambda \hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
and also the second

$$\begin{array}{c}d=2ip_z\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}\hfill \\ d^{}=2ip_{\overline{z}}\frac{eB}{2c}z\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\lambda =\frac{mcE}{B}`$ and $`z=x+iy`$ is the complex coordinate. These sets satisfy the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[b,b^{}]=2m\mathrm{}\omega \hfill \\ [d^{},d]=2m\mathrm{}\omega \hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\omega =\frac{eB}{mc}`$ is the cyclotron frequency. The other commutators vanish. By using the above operators, we can write $`H`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}H=\frac{1}{4m}(b^{}b+bb^{})\frac{\lambda }{2m}(d^{}+d)\frac{\lambda ^2}{2m}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
From the eigenvalue equation

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(9)
we obtain eigenstates and energy spectrum:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n,\alpha )}|n,\alpha >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2m\mathrm{}\omega )^nn!}}e^{i(\alpha y+\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}xy)}(b^{})^n|0>\hfill \\ E_{(n,\alpha )}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}(2n+1)\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{m}\alpha \frac{\lambda ^2}{2m}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha `$.

The corresponding Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ can be derived by using the definition of the related current operator $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, such as

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{J}=\frac{e\rho }{m}(\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A})\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`\rho `$ is the electron density. Moreover, the expectation value of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ can be calculated with respect to the eigenstates $`|n,\alpha >`$ (10). Therefore, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}<J_x>=0\hfill \\ <J_y>=\left(\frac{\rho ec}{B}\right)E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The second equation implies that the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}=\frac{\rho ec}{B}.$$
(13)
Using the definition of the filling factor:

$$\nu =2\pi \rho l_0^2$$
(14)
where $`l_0=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{eB}}`$ is the magnetic length, we can write $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ as

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}=\nu \frac{e^2}{h}$$
(15)
### 2.2 Noncommutative plane

In this subsection, we review a generalization  of the last section in terms of noncommutative geometry . Notations will be slightly changed in order to be coherent with our further analysis. In doing so, let us start by introducing the noncommutativity between the spatial coordinates, such as

$$[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}$$
(16)
where $`\theta ^{ij}=ϵ^{ij}\theta `$ is the noncommutativity parameter and $`ϵ^{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$. Basically, we are forced in this case to replace $`fg(x)=f(x)g(x)`$ by the relation

$$f(x)g(x)=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}_{x^i}_{y^j}]f(x)g(y)|_{x=y}$$
(17)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two arbitrary functions, supposed to be infinitely differentiable. As a consequence, now we are going to deal with quantum mechanics by considering the following algebra

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij}\hfill & & \\ [p^i,x^j]=i\delta ^{ij}\hfill & & \\ [p^i,p^j]=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(18)
Actually, we can write down the noncommutative version of the Hamiltonian (4). In doing so, let us notice that $`H`$ acts on an arbitrary function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ as

$$\begin{array}{c}H\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)=H^{\mathrm{nc}}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r},t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
which implies that $`H^{\mathrm{nc}}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{1}{2m}\left[\left(\gamma p_x\frac{eB}{2c}y\right)^2+\left(\gamma p_y+\frac{eB}{2c}x\right)^2\right]+eE(x\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}p_y)\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`\gamma `$ is a new parameter and defined to be $`\gamma =1\theta l^2`$ and $`l=2l_0`$.

Now, one can use a similar process as in the previous section to diagonalise $`H^{\mathrm{nc}}`$. Let us define the following operators

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}^{}=2i\gamma p_{\overline{z}}+\frac{eB}{2c}z+\lambda _{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{b}=2i\gamma p_z+\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}+\lambda _{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{d}=2i\gamma p_z\frac{eB}{2c}\overline{z}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{d}^{}=2i\gamma p_{\overline{z}}\frac{eB}{2c}z.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
The sets of operators $`(\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{b}^{})`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{d}^{})`$ commute with each other. Moreover, they verify the commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{c}[\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{b}^{}]=2m\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\hfill \\ [\stackrel{~}{d}^{},\stackrel{~}{d}]=2m\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ and the $`\lambda _\pm `$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\gamma \omega \hfill \\ \lambda _\pm =\lambda \pm \frac{emE\theta }{4\gamma \mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
To ensure these equations hold and for further analysis, we assume that the condition $`\theta l^2`$ is satisfied. In terms of the above creation and annihilation operators, the Hamiltonian $`H^{\mathrm{nc}}`$ takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{1}{4m}(\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{b}^{})\frac{\lambda _+}{2m}(\stackrel{~}{d}^{}+\stackrel{~}{d})\frac{\lambda _{}^2}{2m}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
As before, we can solve the eigenvalue equation

$$H^{\mathrm{nc}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{nc}}=E^{\mathrm{nc}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{nc}}$$
(26)
to get the eigenstates:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(n,\alpha ,\theta )}^{\mathrm{nc}}|n,\alpha ,\theta >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2m\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega })^nn!}}e^{i(\alpha y+\frac{m\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2\mathrm{}}xy)}(\stackrel{~}{b}^{})^n|0>$$
(27)
and the corresponding eigenvalues:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_{(n,\alpha ,\theta )}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }}{2}(2n+1)\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \lambda _+}{m}\alpha \frac{m}{2}\lambda _{}^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha `$.

The conductivity resulting from the Hamiltonian $`H^{\mathrm{nc}}`$ is determined by defining the current operator $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{nc}}`$ on the noncommutative plane as

$$\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\frac{e\rho \gamma }{m}(\gamma \stackrel{}{p}+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{a})$$
(29)
where the $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ vector is

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{a}=(0,\frac{meE\theta }{2\mathrm{}\gamma }).\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
Its expectation value is calculated with respect to the eigenstates $`|n,\alpha ,\theta >`$ (27) and is found to be

$$\begin{array}{c}<J_x^{\mathrm{nc}}>=0\hfill \\ <J_y^{\mathrm{nc}}>=\left(\gamma \frac{\rho ec}{B}\right)E.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Therefore, the Hall conductivity on the noncommutative plane of electrons, denoted by $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{nc}}`$, is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{nc}}=\gamma \frac{\rho ec}{B}$$
(32)
and as before we can define an effective filling factor

$$\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_0\rho }{B}$$
(33)
corresponding to an effective magnetic field:

$$B_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{B}{\gamma }$$
(34)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{hc}{e}`$ is the unit flux. To close this section, let us notice that the commutative analysis is recovered if the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is switched off.

## 3 Measurement and quantization of $`\theta `$

Before we start, let us mention that in our work  we offered two interpretations for equation (32). In particular (32) can be seen as a result of the FQHE at fractional filling factor $`f`$. Identifying

$$\nu _{\mathrm{eff}}|_{\theta =\theta _\mathrm{H}}=f$$
(35)
we find

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi B}\left(1f\frac{B}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0\rho }\right)$$
(36)
which tells us when $`\theta `$ is fixed to be $`\theta _\mathrm{H}`$, one can envisage the Hall effect on noncommutative plane as the usual fractional quantum Hall effect.

### 3.1 Measurement

Next, we determine explicit values of $`\theta `$ by using experimental observations. Such measurements are possible since we actually have a relation (36) governing the present parameters. Basically, to measure $`\theta `$ one can use experimental data where $`f`$ and the corresponding magnetic field are well-known. To do this task, we should fix the FQHE system and the corresponding ingredients. For instance, let us consider two different systems of electrons:

GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure:
This system was the subject of many investigations dealing with the FQHE at low temperature and high mobility. In , the authors obtained some measurements by considering the present system of electron density $`\rho =1.510^{11}cm^2`$. Their experimental data was reported as follows: The energy gap of the FQHE state at $`\nu =4/3`$ is $`0.27K`$ at $`B=7.3T`$, while it is $`0.19K`$ at $`B=5.9T`$ for $`\nu =5/3`$ state.

At this stage, we can have a fixed value of the noncommutativity parameter. Indeed, the magnetic length can be measured in terms of the magnetic field such as

$$l_0[\mathrm{m}]=25.6510^9[B(T)]^{1/2}.$$
(37)
On the other hand, let us rewrite (36) as follows

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}[\mathrm{m}^2]=4l_0^2\frac{2f}{\pi \rho }.$$
(38)
Now, we can have an explicit value of $`\theta `$ corresponding to the above experimental data. Therefore for the $`\nu =4/3`$ state, we obtain

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}|_{\nu =4/3}=\mathrm{0.2055\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(39)
while the $`\nu =5/3`$ state leads us to have

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}|_{\nu =5/3}=\mathrm{0.2617\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(40)
This is a way to give some hints on spatial noncommutativity. Moreover, another possibility is given in terms of Aharonov-Bohm effect, where an experiment is proposed to measure $`\theta `$ .

GaAs-Al0.3Ga0.7As heterostructure:
Here we are going to give a table including some experimental results and the corresponding measurement of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$. The above system is considered in  and their results are listed in the table. Therefore, from the author’s observation and equation (38), one can end up with a table involving a summary of the values for the quantized Hall conductivity of the various FQHE and the corresponding values of $`\theta `$:

| $`\nu `$ | $`\rho `$ $`(\mathrm{cm}^2)`$ | $`B`$ $`(\mathrm{kG})`$ | $`4l_0^2`$ $`(\mathrm{cm}^2)`$ | $`\theta `$ ($`\mathrm{cm}^2`$) | $`\frac{\theta }{4l_0^2}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1/3`$ | $`\mathrm{1.53\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`190`$ | $`\mathrm{0.138510\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.000257\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.001855 |
| $`2/3`$ | $`\mathrm{2.42\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`150`$ | $`\mathrm{0.175446\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.000020\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.000113 |
| $`2/5`$ | $`\mathrm{2.13\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`220`$ | $`\mathrm{0.119622\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.000008\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.000066 |
| $`3/5`$ | $`\mathrm{2.13\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`147`$ | $`\mathrm{0.179026\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.000393\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.002195 |
| $`5/3`$ | $`\mathrm{2.06\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`53`$ | $`\mathrm{0.496545\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.018780\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.037821 |
| $`3/7`$ | $`\mathrm{2.13\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`206`$ | $`\mathrm{0.127751\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | $`\mathrm{0.000405\hspace{0.33em}10}^{11}`$ | 0.003170 |

From this table we observe that the ratio $`\frac{\theta }{4l_0^2}`$ is very much smaller than one, which means that $`\theta 4l_0^2`$. Therefore, for this system the corresponding effective magnetic field can be approximated as

$$B_{\mathrm{eff}}B+\frac{B\theta }{4l_0^2}.$$
(41)
### 3.2 Quantization

Once the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is linked to the fractional filling factor (36), then one can ask about the quantization of $`\theta `$ in terms of the magnetic length $`l_0`$. To clarify this point, let us demand that $`\sigma _H`$ is nothing but referring to the IQHE, namely

$$\sigma _H=i\frac{e^2}{h}$$
(42)
where $`i`$ is integer value. Then, (36) can be written as

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}=4l_0^2\left(1\frac{f}{i}\right)$$
(43)
this tells us that $`\theta `$ is actually quantized either fractionally or integrally. Now we would like to make contact with the Murthy-Shankar $`c^2`$ parameter , which is related to the CF theory. Indeed, let us consider the case where the filling factor $`f`$ is identified to the Jain series

$$f=\frac{i}{2ip+1}$$
(44)
where $`p=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Now injecting (44) in (43), we find

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}=4l_0^2\left(\frac{2ip}{2ip+1}\right).$$
(45)
Setting $`k=ip=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, we obtain

$$\theta _\mathrm{H}=4l_0^2\left(\frac{2k}{2k+1}\right).$$
(46)
Therefore the fractional value $`\frac{2k}{2k+1}`$ is exactly the quantity $`c^2`$ defined recently by Murthy and Shankar  to formulate a Hamiltonian for the FQHE in the CF basis. Then, we can write the above relation as

$$\frac{\theta _\mathrm{H}}{4l^2}=c^2.$$
(47)
We will come back to the Murthy-Shankar method in the next section when we will talk about the CF’s.

## 4 Composite fermions

In this section, we show that the recent results obtained by Murthy and Shankar concerning the CF’s are particular cases of what is derived before  by considering electrons moving on the noncommutative plane. CF’s are particles carrying an even number $`2p`$ $`(p=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ of flux quanta (vortices). They have the same charge, spin and statistics as the usual particles, but they differ from them since they experience an effective magnetic field

$$B^{}=B\pm 2p\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(48)
Before going on, we note that a system of electrons living on the noncommutative plane in the presence of an external magnetic field $`B`$ can be seen as a set of CF’s subject to an effective magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and living on the usual plane. This statement is supported by the following relation

$$B_{\mathrm{eff}}|_{\theta =\theta _\mathrm{c}}=B^{}$$
(49)
where $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is given in (34). This equation leads us to have

$$\theta _\mathrm{c}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{\pi B}\left[1\pm (12p\frac{\rho \mathrm{\Phi }_0}{B})^1\right].$$
(50)
### 4.1 Murthy-Shankar approach

In this subsection, we are going to review shortly the recent development of Murthy and Shankar  for the FQHE. Indeed, the authors considered a CF Hilbert space, where each fermion is described by a coordinate $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, by constructing the following operator

$$\stackrel{}{\pi }=\stackrel{}{p}+e\stackrel{}{A}^{}$$
(51)
where the weakened vector potential $`A^{}`$

$$A^{}=\frac{A}{2ps+1}$$
(52)
is what the CF sees, where $`p`$ and $`s`$ are integers. In terms of these variables, the electron guiding center $`\stackrel{}{R}_e`$ takes the form

$$\stackrel{}{R}_e=\stackrel{}{r}\frac{l^2}{(1+c)}\widehat{\stackrel{}{z}}\times \stackrel{}{\pi }$$
(53)
where the c parameter is given by

$$c^2=\frac{2ps}{2ps+1}.$$
(54)
It is easy to see that

$$[R_{ex},R_{ey}]=il_0^2.$$
(55)
Actually, $`\stackrel{}{R}_e`$ can be written in terms of the CF guiding center and cyclotron coordinates $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$, such that

$$\stackrel{}{R}_e=\stackrel{}{R}+c\stackrel{}{\eta }.$$
(56)
Another pair of guiding center-like coordinates commuting with $`\stackrel{}{R}_e`$ can be defined

$$\stackrel{}{R}_v=\stackrel{}{R}+\frac{1}{c}\stackrel{}{\eta }$$
(57)
which can also be mapped in terms of $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{R}_v=\stackrel{}{r}+\frac{l^2}{c(1+c)}\widehat{\stackrel{}{z}}\times \stackrel{}{\pi }\hfill \\ [R_{vx},R_{vy}]=il^2/c^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
These correspond to the guiding center coordinates of a particle of charge $`c^2=2ps/(2ps+1)`$, which is precisely the charge of an object that must pair with the electron to form the CF called pseudo-vortex coordinate, since it has the same charge as a 2s-fold vortex in Laughlin states. Since $`\stackrel{}{R}_v`$ has a magnetic algebra charge of $`c^2`$, and there is one pseudo-vortex per electron, one can see that it is always at filling factor:

$$\nu ^{}=\frac{\nu }{c^2}=\frac{1}{2s}$$
(59)
corresponding to the bosonic Laughlin wavefunctions :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^L=\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^{2s}e^{\underset{i}{}\frac{c^2|z_i|^2}{4}}$$
(60)
For many speculations about this approach and related matters, one can see the author’s original work .

### 4.2 Noncommutative nature

We show that the Murthy-Shankar approach has a noncommutative nature and therefore there is a theory more general and is actually noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ dependent. In fact, we have seen in the beginning of this section that the CF theory can be envisaged as a particular theory of electrons moving on the NC plane and this statement is governed by equation (50). To process, let us write (50) as follows

$$\frac{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{4l_0^2}=\frac{4p\pi \rho l_0^2}{4p\pi \rho l_0^2\pm 1}.$$
(61)
Remembering that the filling factor is given by $`\nu =2\pi \rho l_0^2`$, putting this in relation (61), we find

$$\frac{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{4l^2}=\frac{2p\nu }{2p\nu \pm 1}.$$
(62)
In a similar way and for the same reason as we have seen in the last subsection, let us define a noncommutative filling factor as

$$\nu _{\mathrm{nc}}^{^{}}=\frac{\nu ^{}}{\theta _\mathrm{c}/4l^2}$$
(63)
for any filling factor $`\nu ^{}`$ characterizing the quantum Hall effect. It is equivalent to

$$\nu _{\mathrm{nc}}^{^{}}=\nu ^{}\left(1\pm \frac{1}{2p\nu }\right)$$
(64)
and the corresponding wavefunctions can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{nc}}=\underset{i<j}{}(z_iz_j)^{1/\nu _{\mathrm{nc}}^{^{}}}e^{\frac{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{16l^2}\underset{i}{}|z_i|^2}.$$
(65)
This may be a general way to see that the Murthy-Shankar method is in fact a particular case of noncommutative analysis. To prove this statement, let us demand that $`\nu `$ is referred to the IQHE by fixing $`\nu i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, we end up with

$$\frac{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{4l^2}|_{\nu i}=\frac{2ip}{2ip\pm 1}$$
(66)
showing that

$$\frac{\theta _\mathrm{c}}{4l^2}|_{\nu ^{}i}=c^2$$
(67)
Moreover, equation (64) becomes

$$\nu _{\mathrm{nc}}^{^{}}|_{\nu i}=\nu ^{}\left(1\pm \frac{1}{2ip}\right).$$
(68)
Fixing $`\nu ^{}`$ to be $`\frac{i}{2ip\pm 1}`$, we obtain

$$\nu _{\mathrm{nc}}^{^{}}|_{\nu i}\nu ^{}=\frac{1}{2p}$$
(69)
which is nothing but the Murthy-Shankar filling factor (59). Therefore we arrived to conclude that considering the weakened vector potential $`A^{}`$ seen by CF’s is equivalent to having a set of particles living on noncommutative space. Clearly, this analysis gives one example among other applications of noncommutative geometry in physics and shows how NC can serve to study some condensed matter physics phenomena.

## 5 Conclusion

By exploring the experimental data of some fractional quantum Hall systems a measurement of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is given. In fact, two different heterostructures: GaAs/AlGaAs and GaAs-Al0.3Ga0.7As are considered and showing different values of $`\theta `$. For the first system, we obtained the $`\theta `$ values corresponding to the filling factors $`\frac{4}{3}`$ and $`\frac{5}{3}`$. While for the second one several values are determined and a comparison with respect to the magnetic length was given, see table. This measurement gives some hint on spatial noncommutativity.

On the other hand, we developed an analysis in terms of noncommutative geometry to generalize the recent Murthy-Shankar proposal and also to prove that their proposal has in fact a noncommutative origin.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank P. Bouwknegt for his kind invitation to participate in a workshop on Noncommutative Geometry and Fractional Quantum Hall Effect at the University of Adelaide (02-06 August 2002), and also for his warm hospitality during my stay at his Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics where the present work has been completed. I am grateful to Ö.F. Dayi for his helpful comment and P. Dawson for reading the manuscript.


text:
# Taste-Changing in Staggered Quarks

## 1 INTRODUCTION

### 1.1 Motivation

Accurate lattice simulations of the Standard Model require three light flavours of dynamical quarks. The Improved Staggered-quark formalism is the only one capable of delivering large numbers of configurations with small quark masses anytime in the near future. This formalism, however has many non-degenerate pions whose masses do *not* vanish for zero quark mass. The residual masses come from mixing between the staggered copies of the quarks, and vanish like $`a^2`$.

Naïve staggered quarks suffer from poorly convergent perturbative expressions and large pion splittings which can be suppressed by the use of fat links . Staggered quarks which are improved to $`𝒪(\alpha _sa^2,a^4)`$  significantly reduce splittings in the pion spectrum  and have small renormalisations . A related scheme with small pion splittings is the HYP action .

To further reduce these undesirable splittings there are three alternatives: (I) to reduce $`a`$ at considerable cost; (II) to correct for them using modified chiral perturbation theory  or (III) to further improve the quark action. In this work we show how to quantify and reduce the effects of these interactions by further improvement. Firstly we look at taste-changing in naïve quarks where one has physical intuition and the calculation is easier, then we convert to staggered quarks and present our results and conclusions.

## 2 TASTE-CHANGING

### 2.1 Naïve Quarks

Naïve quarks have an exact symmetry:

$$\text{quark}(p0)\text{quark}(p\zeta \pi /a)$$
(1)
where $`\zeta =(1,0,0,0)`$, $`(1,1,0,0)`$, … giving 16 degenerate copies of every quark, one in each corner of the Brillouin zone. These doublers can mix by exchanging a very hard gluon as shown in figure 1. This gluon is highly virtual with momentum $`𝒪(\pi /a)`$ and thus the quark-quark interaction is effectively a purely perturbative contact interaction at typical lattice spacings.

The tree-level interaction of figure 1 was understood and completely removed with the improved staggered action by using smearing to suppress high-momentum gluon emission from quarks . To further reduce the splitting we turn to one-loop taste-changing diagrams of which there are five for massless quarks. Each quark line has an odd number of gamma-matrices and therefore the spinor structure must be a combination of $`\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _{5\mu }`$; while the colour structure is singlet or octet. In principle there is a different coefficient for every current contact interaction between all combinations of the four corners of the Brillouin zone, 164 in total, although momentum conservation eliminates some. The doubling transformation can be applied separately to each quark line, however, and along with rotational invariance leaves only four independent interactions labelled by $`\zeta ^2`$ in each of the two spinor and two colour channels.

### 2.2 One-loop Corrections

The calculations are easiest using (improved) naïve quarks, and naïve quark operators are easily converted to the familiar *spinor*$``$*taste* staggered operators. Ignoring gluons we have charge eigenstate currents:

$`\overline{\psi }\gamma _n\xi _s\psi |_{\text{staggered}}`$
$`()^{\overline{s}x}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\left[\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _s^{}\gamma _n\psi (x+\mathrm{\Delta }x_{ns})\pm \text{h.c.}\right],`$ (2)
where $`n,s`$ are 4-vectors of 0’s and 1’s (like $`\zeta `$), $`\overline{s}=_{\nu \mu }s_\nu (mod2)`$,

$`\gamma _n={\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\gamma _\mu \right)^{n_\mu },`$ (3)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{ns}=n+s(mod2)`$ and $`\eta `$ a phase factor for hermiticity. The $`ns`$ current corresponds to naïve momentum transfer $`\zeta \pi /a=\overline{s}\pi /a`$. Armed with our map we can translate all the naïve interactions to get the most general counter-terms:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=\alpha _s^2{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\text{coeff})^2\left[\overline{\psi }\gamma _s\xi _t\psi \right]^2`$
$`+\alpha _s^2{\displaystyle \underset{s,t,a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\text{coeff})^2\left[\overline{\psi }\gamma _s\xi _tT^a\psi \right]^2,`$ (4)
where the sum is over all one- and three-link currents which are Hermitian taste non-singlets with colour singlets and octets. Adding these terms to the tree-level action will cancel the one-loop taste-changing and suppress the pion splittings by about one power of $`\alpha _s`$. The coefficients for improved staggered quarks with improved glue are shown in table 1; all are around 1, decreasing with $`\zeta ^2`$, but the final column is zero at this order.

## 3 New Staggered Quark Actions

This calculation gives us a tool to perturbatively investigate the taste-changing in tree-level actions. We investigated several significant modifications to the improved staggered quark action to try and reduce those coefficients and thereby avoid some or all of the four-quark operators. We tried partial re-unitarisation, adding an irrelevant term, and smearing the Lepage term from $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^2}{4}`$ to $`(1+a\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^+a\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^{})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^2}{4}`$. The best modification was this Broadened Lepage Term \[BLT\] which reduces to negligible the more expensive “3-Link” contact terms as shown in the lower half of table 2. Some early simulation results for pions splittings with this action are already available .

To go further and remove the remaining one-loop taste-changing terms requires implementing the contact terms in a simulation.

Each four-quark operator can be individually removed in a simulation with the following trick:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=icJ\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^2J^2`$ (5)
because the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is non-propagating. This addition requires (8+1)μ $`\varphi `$’s per lattice site, but $`icJ\varphi `$ terms are all one-link currents like the action, and can be easily accumulated in the calculation of the improved action with no change to the inverter. However the coefficients are imaginary and therefore may cause positivity problems because $`icJ\varphi `$ will be Hermitian unlike the rest of the quark action, in which case simulation with real coefficients and without allows extrapolation in the amount of taste-changing.

## 4 Summary

Taste-changing interactions are now well understood and can be reduced. We recommend the Improved Staggered BLT action as a better tree-level improvement. One-loop corrections allow alteration of the amount of taste-breaking either to reduce it or to quantifiably estimate the errors it induces. Comparison perturbative and simulation results with the extra one-loop terms vs the HYP action are expected soon.

### Acknowledgement

QM and GPL are supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0098631, HDT by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, and JH, CD and EF acknowledge European Community’s Human potential programme under HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/LatticeQCD.


text:
# Gravitational wave-frequencies and energies in hypernovae

## 1 Introduction

Stellar mass black holes surrounded by a torus of a few tenths of a solar mass may form in prompt core-collapse of young massive stars by conservation of mass and angular momentum, as in the Woosley-Paczynski-Brown scenario of hypernovae (Woosley, 1993; Paczyński, 1998; Brown et al., 2000). These are transient systems which are interesting from the point of view of the first law of thermodynamics. A torus surrounded a rapidly rotating black hole develops a suspended accretion state for the lifetime of rapid spin of the black hole (van Putten, 2001) – generally a secular timescale. The torus catalyzes some 10% of black hole spin-energy into gravitational radiation, with additional winds, thermal and MeV neutrino emissions (van Putten & Levinson, 2002). Gravitational radiation is emitted by a finite number of mass multiple moments produced by a Papaloizou-Pringle instability (Papaloizou & Pringle, 1984; Goldreich et al., 1986; van Putten, 2002); torus winds form analogously to pulsar winds, and MeV temperatures develop by internal heating due to shear in response to competing torques acting on the inner and the outer face of the torus. Similar considerations apply to black hole-torus systems formed in black hole-neutron star coalescence, provided that the black hole spins rapidly.

The predicted gravitational radiation may be determined by upcoming gravitational wave experiments LIGO (Abramovici et al., 1992), VIRGO (Bradaschia et al., 1992), TAMA (Masaki et al., 2002) and others, possibly in combination with any of the bar or sphere detectors presently being developed. Accurate prediction of the gravitational wave-frequency is important in estimating the expected signal to noise ratios (e.g., Cutler & Thorne (2002)), or in the design of dedicated experiments, such as dual recycling interferometry (Harry et al., 2002).

In this Letter, we quantify the relation between the gravitational wave-frequency and the associated energetics in torus winds. In a hypernova, these wind energies deposit their momenta onto surrounding remnant envelope, providing enhanced kinetic energies to matter ejecta. Wind energies determined from observational data on kinetic energies in GRB-supernova events (e.g., (Reeves et al., 2002)) and their remnants hereby provide a means for constraining the gravitational wave-frequency, and circumventing uncertainties in model parameters.

The energetics of black hole-torus systems in suspended accretion depends on the mass of the black hole and the angular velocity of the torus. Hypernovae are believed to involve stellar mass black holes of about $`414M_{}`$, consistent with the observed mass distribution in soft X-ray transients. The angular velocity of defines the efficiency of the catalytic conversion of black hole spin-energy as well as the frequency of gravitational radiation (at various multipole moments). Yet, it is difficult to determine from first principles, and it becomes of interest to consider ways to constrain the angular frequency of the torus from the output in torus winds. The specific approach presented here considers the the phenomenology of torus winds, as well as a detailed calculation on the energy output in gravitational radiation, winds and thermal and neutrino emissions.

The fate of the torus wind energies is determined by its nearby environment. We here propose that the torus wind energy is largely deposited within and onto the surrounding remnant stellar envelope, in the form of radiation and kinetic energy, respectively. We thus attribute the X-ray line-emission energies in matter ejecta in GRB-supernova associated events (e.g., (Reeves et al., 2002; Ghisellini et al., 2002)) to irradiation from within, as the expanding envelope reaches optical depth of order unity. We note that the deposition of torus wind energies is essentially that of a point explosion, given the relatively short durations of activity at hand (about 20 s in association with a long gamma-ray burst).

It has further been suggested that hypernovae may be associated with supershells (Efremov et al., 1998; Kim et al., 1999) which are X-ray bright (Wang, 1999). Indeed, these X-ray bright features appear to be distinct from collective supernovae (Bunne et al., 2001). A baryonic component to torus winds represents ejecta, which may further account for chemical enhancements in the companion stars in some of the soft X-ray transients (Brown et al., 2000), e.g., GRO J1655-40 (Israelian et al., 1999) and V4148Sgr (Orosz et al., 2002).

A GRB-hypernova association is receiving increasing support from the association of long gamma-ray bursts with supernovae, as in notably in GRB 980425/1998bw (Galama et al., 1998) and, more recently, GRB 011121 (Bloom et al., 2002), GRB 011211 (Reeves et al., 2002) and GRB 020405 (Price et al., 2002). Indeed, long GRBs are associated with star-forming regions (Bloom et al., 2002), and hence possibly with young massive stars in binaries. This appears to be consistent with a host environment in molecular clouds (Price et al., 2002). In turn, this suggests closer consideration of an association of hypernovae and their remnants in molecular clouds.

Calorimetry on systems consisting of a torus in suspended accretion around a rapidly spinning black hole therefore can be approached as follows. First, the beamed output in true GRB energies $`E_\gamma `$ has been determined to be a few times $`10^{50}`$ergs (Frail et al., 2001), which is indicative of ultrarelativistic baryon poor jets of somewhat larger energies. Second, the energy $`E_w`$ in torus winds can be determined from energies associated with matter ejecta and their remnants in the host environment, the impact on a binary companion star in a remnant soft X-ray transient, and from beaming in GRBs when derived from collimation by winds. Third, the energy emitted in gravitational radiation of $`E_{gw}6\times 10^{53}`$erg for a ten solar mass extreme Kerr black hole may be determined by upcoming gravitational wave experiments. A fourth energy deposition in MeV neutrinos is ulikely to be detectable in the foreseeable future, given the relatively large distances of these transient events. The energies $`E_w`$ and $`E_{gw}`$ are both produced by the torus and are a function of its angular velocity. This suggests determining $`E_w`$ in an effort to predict $`E_{gw}`$ and hence the frequency $`f_{gw}`$ of gravitational radiation, as $`E_{gw}`$ and $`f_{gw}`$ are closely related.

We shall derive simplified expressions for the fractions $`E_{gw}/E_{rot}`$, $`E_w/E_{rot}`$ and in dissipation $`E_{diss}/E_{rot}`$, relative to the rotational energy $`E_{rot}`$ of the black hole. These results are used to define an observational constraint on the torus-to-black hole angular velocity by the energy emitted in torus winds. This serves to circumvent otherwise uncertain physical parameters, notably the viscosity in the torus which provides coupling between the inner and the outer face. We propose to determine $`E_w`$ from calorimetry on hypernova ejecta and their remnants. Accurate prediction of the gravitational wave spectrum from wind energies will be useful in designing dedicated experiments for searches for gravitational radiation from hypernovae.

## 2 Multipole moments in wide tori

Quite generally, a torus tends to develop instabilities in response to shear. This can be studied analytically in the approximation of incompressible fluid about an unperturbed angular velocity

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_T(a/r)^q,`$ (1)
where $`q3/2`$ denotes the rotation index and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_TM^{1/2}/a^{3/2}`$ (Papaloizou & Pringle, 1984). In the inviscid limit, we are further at liberty to consider the evolution of irrotational modes in response to initially irrotational perturbations to the underlying flow (vortical if $`q2`$) by Kelvin’s theorem. This approach shows the Papaloizou-Pringle instability (Papaloizou & Pringle, 1984) to also operate in wide tori (van Putten, 2002). The neutral stability curves of the resulting buckling modes can be described in terms of the critical rotation index $`q_c=q_c(b/a,m)`$ as a function of the minor-to-najor radius $`b/a`$. Quadratic fits to these stability curves are

$`q_c(b/a,m)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2.49(b/a)^2+1.73& (m=2)\hfill \\ \hfill 6.47(b/a)^2+1.73& (m=3)\hfill \\ \hfill 12.4(b/a)^2+1.73& (m=4)\hfill \\ \hfill 20.0(b/a)^2+1.73& (m=5)\hfill \\ \hfill 0.85m^2(b/a)^2+1.73& (m>5)\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
Instability sets in above these curves, stability below. We note that for $`m=2`$ the critical value $`q_c=2`$ obtains for

$`b/a=0.3225,`$ (8)
associated with the Rayleigh stability criterion for the azimuthally symmetric wave mode $`m=0`$. For large $`m`$, we use the numerical result of critical values $`b/a=0.56/m`$ for $`q=2`$.

A quadrupole buckling mode radiates gravitational waves at close to twice the angular frequency of torus (van Putten, 2002). Because the buckling mode represents an internal flow of energy and angular momentum from the inner to the outer face of the torus, in which total energy and angular momentum of the wave remain zero, it is not subject directly to the Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz instability. Nevertheless, it is stimulated by gravitational radiation-backreaction forces, as derived in the approximation of the Burke-Thorne potential (van Putten, 2002).

## 3 Energy output from a torus in suspended accretion

The suspended accretion state is described by balance of energy and angular momentum, pertaining to gravitational radiation, Poynting flux-dominated winds, thermal and neutrino emissions (van Putten, 2001):

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\tau _+=\tau _{}+\tau _{rad},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\tau _{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_T\tau _{rad}+P_d,\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
where $`P_d`$ denotes dissipation in thermal and neutrino emissions, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T=(\mathrm{\Omega }_++\mathrm{\Omega }_{})/2`$ is the angular velocity of the torus, defined as the mean of the angular velocities of the inner and and outer faces with angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$. The inner and outer faces are subject to Maxwell stresses, giving rise to torques $`\tau _+`$ (ingoing) and $`\tau _{}`$ (outgoing). In what follows $`2\pi A`$ shall denote the active magnetic flux supported by the torus, representing open magnetic field-lines connected to infinity and the horizon of the black hole. These are endowed with no-slip/slip boundary conditions, and thereby assume the angular velocity of the torus. The remainder of magnetic field-lines are inactive, making up a toroidal ‘bag’ of closed field-lines, both on the inner and the outer face, similar to the closed field-lines in pulsar magnetospheres (Goldreich & Julian, 1969; van Putten, 2001). Thus, $`\tau _{}=A^2f_w^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ associated with a fraction $`f_w`$ of flux in torus winds to infinity, and $`\tau _+=(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_+)A^2f_H^2`$ associated with a fraction $`f_H`$ of torus winds entering the black hole. With this definition, $`f_w+f_H=1`$.

We consider shear stresses and the resulting dissipation in the torus to be due to turbulent magnetohydrodynamical flow, in response to competing torques acting on the inner and outer face. These competing torques promote super-Keplerian and sub-Keplerian motions, and hence the torus assumes a geometrically thick shape. By dimensional analysis, we consider the constitutive relation $`P_d=\gamma A_r^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^2`$ with $`\gamma `$ a factor of order unity and $`A_r=Rh<B_r^2>^{1/2}`$ denoting the root mean square of the radial flux averaged over the interface between the two faces with contact area $`2\pi Rh`$. The detailed structure of the magnetohydrodynamical flow which develops determines the ratio $`\gamma A_r^2/A^2`$, which parametrizes the effective viscosity. The constitutive law for $`P_d`$ thereby contains one free parameter. In what follows, we parametrize the relative strength of the net radial magnetic field as

$`z=\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{a}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma A_r^2}{A^2}}\right),`$ (12)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ denote the major and the minor radius of the torus, respectively. This choice of parametrization (12) is such that $`z`$ becomes independent of the aspect ratio $`b/a`$, whenever the magnetohydrodynamical flow develops a flat infrared spectrum up to the first geometrical break $`m^{}=[a/b]`$ in the azimuthal wave-number.

A leading order expansion in the minor radius $`b`$ of (1) obtains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =\mathrm{\Omega }_T(1\pm \delta )`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a=\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ denoting the mean angular velocity of the torus and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ the average angular velocity of the inner and the outer face. Here,

$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{qb}{2a}}`$ (13)
denotes the slenderness ratio of the torus. In particular, we have $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}q\mathrm{\Omega }_Tb/a`$. The equations (11) can be now be solved for

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_T}{\mathrm{\Omega }_H}},`$ (14)
and the energy output $`E_{gw}`$ in gravitational radiation. Explicit expressions for the energy output $`E_w`$ and $`E_d`$ in winds and the combined dissipation in heat and neutrino emissions. The model parameters are, therefore, the rotation index $`q`$, the dimensionless magnetohydrodynamical viscosity $`z`$, the slenderness ratio $`\delta `$, the ratio of angular velocities $`\eta `$, in addition to flux fractions $`f_H`$ and $`f_w`$.

### 3.1 Estimate of $`\eta `$

The first equation of (11) may be used to eliminate $`\tau _+`$ in the second equation, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _{rad}=\mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\tau _{}P_d`$, which obtains

$`P_d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Omega }]\tau _{rad}+[\mathrm{\Omega }]\tau _{}.`$ (15)
With the constitutive ansatz for $`P_d`$ given above, it follows that $`\tau _{rad}=2A_r^2[\mathrm{\Omega }]2\tau _{}.`$ The luminosity in gravitational becomes $`L_{gw}\mathrm{\Omega }_T\tau _{rad}`$, in view of the fact that the lower order multipole moments are essentially in corotation with the torus. Here,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_T\tau _{rad}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2A^2\left[2\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_r^2}{A^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Omega }]}{\mathrm{\Omega }_T}}\right)2f_w^2\right]=\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_T^2A^2,`$ (16)
where $`\alpha =2qz2f_w^2`$ by $`[\mathrm{\Omega }]/\mathrm{\Omega }_T=qb/a`$. With forementioned expression for $`\tau _+`$, the first equation of (11) with (16) obtains $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_+)f_H^2=f_w^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}+\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Writing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =\mathrm{\Omega }_T\pm [\mathrm{\Omega }]/2`$, we obtain

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{f_H^2}{\alpha +f_H^2+f_w^2+\delta (f_H^2f_w^2)}}.`$ (17)
### 3.2 Estimate of $`E_{gw}`$

An expression for the luminosity $`L_{gw}`$ in gravitational radiation may be obtained, upon noting that most of the black hole luminosity is irradiated into the torus, i.e.: $`L_H\mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+`$. (Output along an open flux-tube by the black hole in association with a GRB is subdominant; van Putten & Levinson (2002).) We write $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T^2f_H^2=\eta \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_Hf_H^2A^2=\eta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_T/\mathrm{\Omega }_+\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_+\tau _+\mathrm{\Omega }_H/(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$ for substitution in (16) after multiplication by $`\alpha /f_H^2`$. By (17) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+=\mathrm{\Omega }_T(1+\delta )`$, we have $`L_{gw}/L_H=\alpha ^1f_H^2\eta /(1+\delta \eta (1+\delta )^2)`$, i.e.: $`L_{gw}/L_H\alpha /(\alpha +f_w^2+\delta (\alpha +f_H^2+f_w^2)),`$ upon neglecting terms of the order $`\eta \delta `$ and higher. The total rate of conversion of rotational energy of the black hole, including dissipation in the horizon (Thorne et al., 1986), is given by $`\dot{E}_H=\mathrm{\Omega }_H(\mathrm{\Omega }_H\mathrm{\Omega }_+)f_H^2A^2`$ over a duration $`T=E_{rot}/\dot{E}_H`$. The ratio of energy released in gravitational radiation as a fraction of the rotational energy $`E_{rot}`$, therefore, becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{gw}}{E_{rot}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \eta }{\alpha +f_w^2+\delta (\alpha +f_H^2+f_w^2)}}.`$ (18)
## 4 Energy estimates for symmetric flux distribution

Consider a symmetric flux-distribution, given by equal fractions of open magnetic flux on the inner and the outer face:

$`f_H=f_w=1/2.`$ (19)
Writing (17) in the form of $`\eta =f_H^2/(2qz+(1+\delta )(f_H^2f_w^2))`$, it reduces to $`\eta =1/8qz.`$ A fiducial value of $`\eta =0.15`$ obtains by considering the Rayleigh value $`q=2`$ and $`z=0.56`$, which attributes the radial modes in the infrared magnetohydrodynamical spectrum to an equipartition between the unstable Papaloizou-Pringle buckling modes. The estimate (18) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{gw}}{E_{rot}}}={\displaystyle \frac{8qz2}{8qz(8qz(1+\delta /4)1)}}.`$ (20)
The energy released in winds satisfies $`E_w=\alpha ^1f_w^2(1\delta )^2E_{gw}`$, whereby

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_w}{E_{rot}}}={\displaystyle \frac{(1\delta )^2}{8qz(8qz(1+\delta /4)1)}}.`$ (21)
Finally, (15) shows that the energy radiated by dissipation in the torus satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_d}{E_{rot}}}=\delta {\displaystyle \frac{E_{gw}}{E_{rot}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{1\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_w}{E_{rot}}}.`$ (22)
The case of strong viscosity (large $`z`$) and small $`\delta `$ reduce these expressions further to the three fractions

$`E_{gw}/E_{rot}\eta ,E_w/E_{rot}\eta ^2,E_d/E_{rot}\eta \delta .`$ (23)
In association to GRBs, we attribute a minor output of black hole-spin energy with the formation of a baryon poor jet of energy $`E_j`$ along an open magnetic flux-tube of the black hole. A universal horizon half-opening angle defines $`E_j\theta _H^4`$ to be standard, and a generally small fraction of rotational energy of the black hole (van Putten & Levinson, 2002). The simplest geometrical relationship obtains when $`\theta _H`$ is given by the poloidal curvature of the magnetic field, i.e., $`\theta _H10^o(6M/a)`$. Without fine-tuning, this gives a small fraction $`E_j/E_{rot}10^3`$ released in baryon poor outflows, accompanied by a spread of one order of magnitude in response to a spread in torus radius by a factor of two – in agreement with the observed GRB energies $`E_\gamma `$ (Frail et al., 2001). The associated wind energies $`E_w/E_{rot}(M/a)^3`$ vary somewhat less.

## 5 Frequency estimate of quadrupole radiation

The expressions (23) provide a link between the energy $`E_w`$ in torus winds and the frequency in quadrupolar gravitational radiation, set by the angular velocity $`\eta `$ of the torus. We propose to estimate $`\eta `$ from $`E_w`$, to circumvents uncertainties in $`qz`$. This gives a frequency of quadrupole gravitational radiation given by $`f_{gw}1/(2\pi M)(E_w/E_{rot})`$, or

$`f_{gw}470\text{Hz}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_w}{4\times 10^{52}\text{erg}}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7M_{}}{M}}\right)^{3/2}.`$ (24)
The wind-energy scale of $`4\times 10^{52}`$erg corresponds to $`\eta =0.1`$ and $`M=7M_{}`$. We can refine (24) by including a factor $`(12\eta )/(1\delta /2)`$, in view of (20) and (21). Higher order multipole moments are present for a torus of increasingly smaller width (see §2), which emit at commensurably higher frequencies, and probably at somewhat lower intensities.

## 6 Calorimetry on ejecta and hypernova remnants

Torus wind energies impact the remnant stellar stellar envelope from within. This results in enhanced kinetic energies in matter ejecta in GRB-supernova associated events and, ultimately, impact the host environment. For GRB 011211 (Reeves et al., 2002), we have

$`E_wm_{ej}\beta _{ej}2\times 10^{52}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{ej}}{20^o}}\right)^2\text{erg}`$ (25)
for ejecta of mass $`m_{ej}`$ with half-opening angle $`\theta _{ej}`$ and $`\beta _{ej}=v_{ej}/c`$, where $`v_{ej}=0.1c`$ is the velocity of the ejecta in terms of the velocity of light $`c`$. At present, the angle $`\theta _{ej}`$ is not constrained observationally. It may be larger than the GRB beaming angle, in which case we should see an over abundance of hypernovae with dim or no GRBs. We remark that only beamed outflows – baryon poor from the black hole – have sufficiently high luminosiy density per steradian to plow through a stellar envelope (MacFadyen & Woosley, 1998).

As the envelope expands, its optical depth reaches order unity and is irradiated from within by the accumulated remnant radiation from the torus wind energies. We attribute the observed X-ray line-emissions to this continuum emission, whose energies are on the order of $`10^{52}`$ erg (Ghisellini et al., 2002).

Follow-up calorimetry may be pursued on hypernova remnants, possibly on X-ray bright supershells. This could be pursued by comparing this population in a nearby galaxy with with the true GRB-hypernova event rate of about $`5\times 10^4`$ times the supernova rate (Woods & Loeb (1998), including beaming), and identification of X-ray point sources (see Brown et al. (2000)).

## 7 Conclusions

We quantify the energetics of a torus in suspended accretion against a magnetic wall around a rapidly rotating black hole formed in hypernovae. The torus catalyzes most of the black hole-spin energy, radiating a major fraction in a band limited burst of gravitational radiation. The frequency sweep is about ten percent during the conversion of half the rotational energy of an extreme Kerr black hole. The durations should agree with the de-redshifted distribution of $`T_{90}`$ of long GRBs (Fig. 1 in van Putten (2002)).

In the slender torus limit, simplified expressions are derived for energies emitted in gravitational radiation, winds and dissipation in the torus. We attribute the narrow distribution in observed true gamma-ray energies to baryon poor jets produced in an open magnetic flux-tube on the black hole to geometry without fine-tuning: the fraction of rotational energy released in baryon poor outflows is set by a horizon half-opening angle $`\theta _H`$ given by the poloidal curvature of the magnetic wall.

The frequency of gravitational radiation is strongly correlated to the energy output in torus winds by (24). We attribute the energies associated in matter ejecta in GRB-supernova events to the deposition of torus wind energy within and onto the surrounding remnant stellar envelope. We propose to hereby constrain the expected frequency of gravitational radiation by calorimetry on these matter ejecta and their remnants in the host environment. The latter may be pursued by statistics on the kinetic energies in matter ejecta, and by calorimetry on hypernova remnants in association with molecular clouds, conceivably in the form of X-ray bright supershells.

Acknowledgment. The author thanks B.-C. Koo and S. Kim for stimulating discussions on supershells, and the referee for a helpful review. This research is supported by NASA Grant 5-7012 and an MIT C.E. Reed Fund.