text:
# Viscous Corrections to Spectra, Elliptic Flow, and HBT Radii

## 1 Viscous Corrections

Ideal hydrodynamics describes a wide variety of data from heavy ion collisions . In particular ideal hydrodynamics successfully predicted the observed elliptic flow and its dependence on mass, centrality, beam energy, and transverse momentum. Nevertheless, the hydrodynamic approach failed in several respects. First, above a transverse momentum $`p_T1.5\text{GeV}`$ the particle spectra deviate from hydrodynamics and approach a power law. Second, HBT radii are significantly too large compared to ideal hydrodynamics . Considering the partial success of ideal hydrodynamics, viscous corrections may provide a natural explanation for these failures.

For an ideal Bjorken expansion, the entropy per unit space-time rapidity $`(\tau s)`$ is conserved. For a viscous Bjorken expansion the entropy per unit rapidity increases as a function of proper time

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\tau s)}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{4}{3}\eta }{\tau T}},`$ (1)
where $`\eta `$ is the shear viscosity. In this equation and below we have neglected the bulk viscosity. For hydrodynamics to be valid, the entropy produced over the time scale of the expansion (to wit, $`\tau \frac{\frac{4}{3}\eta }{\tau T}`$) must be small compared to the the total entropy ($`\tau s`$). This leads to the requirement that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{\tau }}1,`$ (2)
where we have defined the sound attenuation length as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\frac{\frac{4}{3}\eta }{sT}`$. Perturbative estimates of the shear viscosity in the plasma give $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{\tau }1`$. Below we take $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{\tau }=\frac{1}{3}`$, assuming that non-perturbative effects shorten equilibration times.

Viscosity modifies the thermal distribution function. This modification influences the observed particle spectrum and HBT correlations. The formal procedure for determining the viscous correction to the thermal distribution function is described in references . However, the basic form of the viscous correction can be intuited without calculation. First write $`f(p)=f_o(1+g(p))`$, where $`f_o(\frac{pu}{T})`$ is the equilibrium thermal distribution function and $`g(p)`$ is the first viscous correction. $`g(p)`$ is linearly proportional to the spatial gradients in the system. Spatial gradients which have no time derivatives in the rest frame and are therefore formed with the differential operator $`_\mu =(g_{\mu \nu }u_\mu u_\nu )^\nu `$ . For a baryon free fluid, these gradients are $`_\alpha T`$, $`_\alpha u^\alpha `$, and $`_\alpha u_\beta `$, where $`_\alpha u_\beta _\alpha u_\beta +_\beta u_\alpha \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }_\gamma u^\gamma `$. $`_\alpha T`$ can be eliminated in favor of the other two spatial gradients using the condition that $`T^{\mu \nu }u_\nu =ϵu^\mu `$ and the ideal equations of motion. $`_\alpha u^\alpha `$ leads ultimately to a bulk viscosity and will be neglected in what follows. Finally, $`_\alpha u_\beta `$ leads to a shear viscosity. If $`g(p)`$ is restricted to be a polynomial of degree less than two, then the functional form of the viscous correction is completely determined,

$`f=f_o(1+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{T^3}}p^\alpha p^\beta _\alpha u_\beta ).`$ (3)
For a Boltzmann gas this is the form of the viscous correction adopted in this work. For Bose and Fermi gasses the ideal distribution function in Eq. 3 is replaced with $`f_o(1\pm f_o)`$ .

The coefficient $`C`$ is directly related to the sound attenuation length. Indeed, using the distribution function in Eq. 3 to determine the stress energy tensor, yields a relationship between the shear viscosity $`\eta `$ and the coefficient $`C`$,

$`T^{\mu \nu }=T_o^{\mu \nu }+\eta ^\mu u^\nu ={\displaystyle d^3p\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{E}f_o(1+\frac{C}{T^3}p^\alpha p^\beta _\alpha u_\beta )}.`$ (4)
For a Boltzmann gas, Eq. 4 yields $`C=\frac{\eta }{s}`$.

The thermal distribution function is now completely determined. In the next section this correction is used to calculate corrections to the observables used in heavy ion collisions.

## 2 Corrections to Spectra, Elliptic Flow, HBT Radii

To quantify the effect of viscous corrections on spectra and HBT radii, I generalize the blast wave model. In the blast wave model used here, the matter undergoes a boost invariant Bjorken expansion and decouples at a proper time of $`\tau _o=6.5\text{Fm}`$ at a temperature of $`T_o=160\text{MeV}`$. The matter is distributed uniformly up to a radius of $`R_o=10.0\text{Fm}`$, with velocity profile up to a maximum velocity $`u_o^r=0.5c`$ 111In contrast to common practice $`u^r=\gamma v^r`$ is linearly rising: $`u^r=u_o^r\frac{r}{R_o}`$. The blast wave model with these parameters closely models the output of a full hydrodynamic simulation  and gives a reasonable fit of the data.

The spectrum of produced particles is given by the Cooper-Frye formula,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{d^2p_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu f}`$ (5)
$`dN_o+\delta dN`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu f_o}+\delta f.`$ (6)
Fig. 2 shows

the ratio of the correction compared to the ideal spectrum, $`\frac{\delta dN}{dN_o}`$.

To understand this figure qualitatively, consider a Bjorken expansion of infinitely large nuclei. The longitudinal pressure is reduced , $`p_L=p\frac{4}{3}\frac{\eta }{\tau }`$. Because the shear tensor is traceless, the transverse pressure is increased, $`p_T=p+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\eta }{\tau }`$. Thus, the matter distribution is pushed out to larger $`p_T`$ by the shear in the longitudinal direction. More mathematically, the ratio of the corrected spectrum to the uncorrected spectrum is given by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta dN}{dN_o}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{4\tau }}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_T}{T}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_T}{T}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{K_3(\frac{m_T}{T})}{K_1(\frac{m_T}{T})}}1\right)\right\}.`$ (7)
For large $`p_T`$ we find, $`\frac{\delta dN}{dN_o}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{4\tau }\left(\frac{p_T}{T}\right)^2`$. Eq. 7 reproduces the shape and dependence of the full viscous blast wave calculation shown in Fig. 2.

Viscous corrections become of order one when the $`p_T`$ of the particle approaches $`1.4`$ GeV. This signals the breakdown of the hydrodynamic approach. In fact, ideal hydrodynamics generally fails to reproduce the single particle spectra above $`p_T`$ of 1.5 GeV. Viscosity provides a ready explanation for this breakdown.

In non-central collisions elliptic flow is calculated using the spectrum indicated in Eq. 5. In non-central collisions, the matter is assumed to have a cylindrical distribution but the flow velocity has an elliptic component, $`u^r(r,\varphi )=u_o^r\frac{r}{R_o}(1+2u_2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ))`$. For non-central collisions the parameters are: $`u_o=0.5,u_2=0.1,R_o=6\text{Fm}`$ and $`\tau _o=4.0\text{Fm}`$. As illustrated in Fig. 2, viscosity reduces elliptic flow by a factor of three.

Next consider viscous corrections to HBT radii. The HBT radii are calculated with the method of variances. First the ideal radii parameters are displayed in Fig. 4. The results

are typical of the blast wave parametrization. Next the viscous correction to the blast wave results are illustrated in Fig. 4.

Viscous corrections to $`R_L^2`$ and $`R_O^2`$ are large and negative. This may be understood qualitatively by again considering a simple Bjorken expansion of infinite nuclei. The longitudinal pressure is reduced, $`p_L=p\frac{4}{3}\frac{\eta }{\tau }`$. Therefore the $`p_z`$ distribution ($`\frac{dN}{dp_zd\eta }`$) is narrower. However, by boost invariance the single particle distribution ($`\frac{dN}{dyd\eta }`$) is a function of $`\left|y\eta \right|`$, which yields the relation,

$`m_T{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dp_zd\eta }}|_{\eta =0}=\tau {\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dydz}}|_{y=0}.`$ (8)
The $`z`$ distribution ($`\frac{dN}{dydz}`$) at mid rapidity is therefore narrower because the longitudinal pressure is reduced. This implies that $`R_L^2z^2`$ decreases due to the viscous longitudinal expansion. In summary, viscosity provides a simple explanation for the very large radii predicted by ideal hydrodynamics.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by DE-AC02-98CH10886.


format: text

text:
# STELLAR RADIOACTIVITIES AND DIFFUSE GAMMA-RAY LINE EMISSION IN THE MILKY WAY

## 1 Introduction

Shortly after the discovery of the phenomenon of radioactivity, radionuclides revealed to be unique ”’probes” in our study of the cosmos and important agents in its evolution (radioactive dating of the Earth, meteorites and stars; radioactive heating of planetary and supernova interiors; radioactive origin of abundant stable nuclei, like 56Fe, and of isotopic anomalies in meteorites, etc).

As most other stable nuclei, radionuclides are produced in stellar interiors and ejected in the interstellar medium through stellar winds and explosions (nova or supernova). In a few cases, concerning extra-solar objects, the characteristic $`\gamma `$-ray line signature of their radioactive decay has been detected and used as a probe of a large variety of astrophysical sites; indeed, $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy with cosmic radioactivities has grown to a mature astrophysical discipline in the last decade. See. e.g. Diehl and Timmes 1998, Arnould and Prantzos 1999, Knödlseder and Vedrenne 2001, for recent reviews; also, the proceedings of the Astronomy with Radioactivities Conference, organised every two years, nicely reflects the status of that discipline (web site: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/gamma/science/lines/workshops/radioactivity.htm  ).

In this review I shall focus on radioactivities produced by massive stars (SNII and WR stars); radioactivities produced by exploding white dwarfs (novae and SNIa) are reviewed by Hernanz (this volume).

## 2 A short history of stellar radioactivities and $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy

The main theoretical ideas underlying $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy emerged slowly in the 60ies, while observational evidence came only about 20 years later. This history is largely dominated by two rather independent “programmes” of research: an astronomical one, seeking for the explanation of the late lightcurves of supernovae, and a nucleosynthetic one, seeking for the origin of the most abundant heavy nucleus, 56Fe. An exceptionally clear and vivid account of that history is given in the text of Clayton (1999), on which much of this section is based.

In the early 50ies, the exponential decline of the late lightcurves of SNIa was attributed to the radioactive decay of 7Be (Borst 1950) or 59Fe (Anders 1959) or 254Cf (Anders 1959, Burbidge et al. 1956), all those nuclei having half-lives of $``$45-55 days. In his PhD thesis (1962), the mineralogist T. Pankey Jr suggested that 56Fe is produced as unstable 56Ni, and that the radioactive chain 56Ni$``$56Co$``$56Fe can explain the lightcurves of supernovae; however, his suggestion went completely unnoticed by astronomers and nuclear physicists alike. Indeed, up to the mid-sixties it was thought that 56Fe is produced as such in stellar interiors (Hoyle 1946; Burbidge et al. 1957; Fowler and Hoyle 1964), through the so-called “e-process”, despite the fact that the issue of its ejection in the interstellar medium (which might modify its abundance) was far from being clear. The role of explosive Si-burning, leading to the production (and natural ejection from supernovae) of doubly-magic 56Ni was clarified through semi-analytical calculations of Bodansky et al. (1968), after hints from pioneering numerical nucleosynthesis calculations of Truran et al. (1966). Based on those results, Colgate and McKee (1969) convincingly argued that the radioactive chain 56Ni$``$56Co$``$56Fe powers the lightcurves of supernovae; as time goes on, an increasing percentage of that power escapes the SN ejecta (which become progressively more transparent to $`\gamma `$-rays) and as a result the optical light curve declines more rapidly (by a factor of 2 every $``$55 days) than the amount of 56Co (half-life: 77 days).

The implications of those ideas for $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy were studied in the 60ies at the Rice University, where Clayton and Craddock (1965) first calculated the expected $`\gamma `$-ray flux and spectrum from the Crab remnant, on the assumption that the 254Cf hypothesis was correct; finding that extremely large overabundances of other heavy elements (Os, Ir, Pt) should be obtained in that case, they expressed doubts on the correctness of that hypothesis. After this “false-start”, the implications of 56Ni production in Si-burning were fully clarified in the landmark paper of Clayton, Colgate and Fishman (1969), which opened exciting perspectives to the field by suggesting that any supernova within the local group of galaxies should be detectable in $`\gamma `$-ray lines.

In the 70ies D. Clayton identified most of the radionuclides of astrophysical interest (i.e. giving a detectable $`\gamma `$-ray line signal); for that purpose he evaluated their average SN yields, by assuming that the corresponding daughter stable nuclei are produced in their solar system abundances. Amazingly enough (or naturally enough, depending on one’s point of view) his predictions of average SNII radionuclide yields (Table 2 in Clayton 1982) are in excellent agreement with modern yield calculations, based on full stellar models and detailed nuclear physics (see Fig. 1). Only the importance of 26Al escaped Clayton’s (1982) attention, perhaps because its daughter nucleus 26Mg is produced in its stable form, making the evaluation of the parent’s yield quite uncertain. That uncertainty did not prevent Arnett (1977) and Ramaty and Lingenfelter (1977) from arguing (on the basis of Arnett’s (1969) explosive nucleosynthesis calculations) that, even if only 10-3 of solar 26Mg is produced as 26Al, the resulting Galactic flux from tens of thousands of supernovae (during the $``$1 Myr lifetime of 26Al) would be of the order of 10-4 cm-2 s-1.

In the case of 26Al nature appeared quite generous, providing a $`\gamma `$-ray flux even larger than the optimistic estimates of Ramaty and Lingenfelter (1977): the HEAO-3 satellite detected the corresponding 1.8 MeV line from the Galactic center direction at a level of 4 10-4 cm-2 s-1(Mahoney et al. 1984). That detection, the first ever of a cosmic radioactivity, showed that nucleosynthesis is still active in the Milky Way; however, the implied large amount of galactic 26Al ($``$3 M per Myr, assuming steady state) was difficult to accomodate in conventional models of galactic chemical evolution if SNII were the main 26Al source (Clayton 1984), since 27Al would be overproduced in that case; however, if the “closed box model” assumption is dropped and infall is assumed in the chemical evolution model, that difficulty is removed, as subsequently shown by Clayton and Leising (1987).

Another welcome mini-surprise came a few years later, when the 56Co $`\gamma `$-ray lines were detected in the supernova SN1987A, a $``$20 M star that exploded in the Large Magellanic Cloud. On theoretical grounds, it was expected that a SNIa (exploding white dwarf of $``$1.4 M that produces $``$0.7 M of 56Ni) would be the first to be detected in $`\gamma `$-ray lines; indeed, the large envelope mass of SNII ($``$10 M) allows only small amounts of $`\gamma `$-rays to leak out, making the detectability of such objects problematic (Woosley et al. 1981, Gehrels et al. 1987). Despite the intrinsically weak $`\gamma `$-ray line emissivity of SN1987A, the proximity of LMC allowed the first detection of the tell-tale $`\gamma `$-ray line signature from the famous radioactive chain 56Ni$``$56Co$``$56Fe, thus confirming a 25-year old conjecture (namely, that the abundant 56Fe is produced in the form of radioactive 56Ni).

Those discoveries laid the observational foundations of the field of $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy with radioactivities. The next steps were made in the 90ies, thanks to the performances of the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO). First, the OSSE instrument aboard CGRO detected the 57Co $`\gamma `$-ray lines from SN1987A (Kurfess et al. 1992); the determination of the abundance ratio of the isotopes with mass numbers 56 and 57 offered a unique probe of the physical conditions in the innermost layers of the supernova, where those isotopes are synthesized (Clayton et al. 1992). On the other hand, the COMPTEL instrument mapped the Miky Way in the light of the 1.8 MeV line and found irregular emission along the plane of the Milky Way and prominent “hot-spots” in directions tangent to the spiral arms (Diehl et al. 1995); that map implies that massive stars (SNII and/or WR) are at the origin of galactic 26Al (as suggested by Prantzos 1991, 1993) and not an old stellar population like novae or AGB stars. Furthermore, COMPTEL detected the 1.16 MeV line of radioactive 44Ti in the Cas-A supernova remnant (Iyudin et al 1994); that discovery offered another valuable estimate of the yield of a radioactive isotope produced in a massive star explosion (although, in that case the progenitor star mass is not known, contrary to the case of SN1987A).

After that short historical introduction to the field of $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy, we turn in the next section into a discussion of the theoretically predicted yields of radioactivities from massive stars, the associated uncertainties and the relevant observational constraints.

## 3 Stellar Radioactivities: Yields, constraints, detectability

### 3.1 Overview

All nuclei (except for the primordial isotopes of H and He and those of Li, Be and B) are thermonuclearly synthesized in the hot and dense stellar interiors, which are opaque to $`\gamma `$-rays. Released $`\gamma `$-ray photons interact with the surrounding material and are Compton-scattered down to X-ray energies, until they are photoelectrically absorbed and their energy is emitted at longer wavelengths. To become detectable, radioactive nuclei have to be brought to the surface (through vigorous convection) and/or ejected in the interstellar medium, either through stellar winds (AGB and WR stars) or an explosion (novae or supernovae). Their detection provides then unique information on their production sites.

The intensity of the escaping $`\gamma `$-ray lines gives important information on the yields of the corresponding isotopes and the physical conditions (temperature, density, neutron excess etc.) in the stellar zones of their production, as well as on other features of the production sites (extent of convection, mass loss, hydrodynamic instabilities, position of the “mass-cut” in SNII, etc.). The shape of the $`\gamma `$-ray lines reflects the velocity distribution of the ejecta, modified by the opacity along the line of sight and can give information on the structure of the ejecta (see e.g. Burrows 1991 for the potential of $`\gamma `$-ray lines as a tool of supernova diagnostics). Up to now, only the 0.847 MeV 56Co line from SN1987A and the 1.8 MeV 26Al line from the inner Galaxy have been resolved (both with the same instrument, the balloon borne GRIS spectrometer), but their “message” is not quite understood yet.

Obviously, radionuclides of interest for $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy are those with high enough yields and short enough lifetimes for the emerging $`\gamma `$-ray lines to be detectable. On the basis of those criteria, Table 1 gives the most important radionuclides (or radioactive chains) for $`\gamma `$-ray line astronomy, along with the corresponding lifetimes, line energies and branching ratios, production sites and nucleosynthetic processes.aaaThe 511 keV line of e+-e- annihilation is, in fact, the first $`\gamma `$-ray line ever detected (Johnson et al. 1972), although its origin (probably related to the radionuclides of Table 1) and spatial distribution in the Galaxy are not well understood yet (see Kinzer et al. 2001, and references therein).

When the lifetime of a radioactive nucleus is not very large w.r.t. the timescale between two nucleosynthetic events in the Galaxy, those events are expected to be seen as point-sources in the light of that radioactivity. In the opposite case a diffuse emission along the Galaxy is expected from the cumulated emission of hundreds or thousands of sources. Characteristic timescales between two explosions are $``$1-2 weeks for novae (from their estimated Galactic frequency of $``$30 yr-1, Della Vale and Livio 1995), $``$50-100 yr for SNII+SNIb and $``$200-400 yr for SNIa (from the corresponding Galactic frequencies of $``$2 SNII+SNIb century-1 and $``$0.25-0.5 SNIa century-1, Tammann et al. 1994, Cappellaro et al. 1997). Comparing those timescales to the decay lifetimes of Table 1 one sees that in the case of the long-lived 26Al and 60Fe a diffuse emission is expected; the spatial profile of that emission should reflect the Galactic distribution of the underlying sources. All the other radioactivities of Table 1 should be seen as point sources in the Galaxy except, perhaps, 22Na from Galactic novae; indeed, the most prolific 22Na producers, O-Ne-Mg rich novae, have a frequency $``$1/3 of the total (i.e. $``$10 yr-1), resulting in $``$40 sources active in the Galaxy during the 3.8 yr lifetime of 22Na.

### 3.2 Yields

Yields of radioactive isotopes produced in SNII are displayed in Fig. 1. On the left part of the diagram, Clayton’s (1982) “educated guess” of those yields is presented for illustration purposes; as discussed in Sec. 2, it is in excellent agreement with modern yield calculations.

In Fig. 1 it appears that the stellar mass does not affect substantially those yields; at least in the 15-25 M mass range, yields do not vary by more than a factor of $``$2-3 (notice, however, that they do not always behave monotonically with mass). Unfortunately, the uncertainties in those yields are difficult to quantify at present, because of the many factors involved: nuclear physics (for instance, the 12C($`\alpha ,\gamma `$) rate or n-capture and n-production cross sections), convection and mass loss prescriptions, position of the mass-cut, neutrino spectra (for some nuclei that may receive conribution from neutrino-induced nucleosynthesis) etc. Taking all those uncertainties into account, it is safe to assume that theoretical yields at present are uncertain by at least a factor of 2 (and, quite probably, by much larger factors). In particular, the yield of all Fe-peak radioactivities (including 44Ti) are quite sensitive to the position of the mass-cut; some discussion on relevant constraints is given in Sec. 3.3. Here we proceed to a comparison between results of 2 recent calculations, by Rauscher et al. (2002 or RHHW2002) and Chieffi and Limongi (2002 or CL2002), performed with state-of-the-art stellar evolution models (including mass loss and a simulation of the explosion) and extended nuclear reaction networks with updated physics. These results illustrate well current uncertainties for 26Al and 60Fe, two radioactivities produced outside the stellar Fe-core.

\- In the case of 26Al, the overall agreement is rather good: the RHHW2002 yields are larger by a factor of 2.5 on average than those of CL2002, the difference been more pronounced in the 15 M star than in the 25 M case. The two calculations converge in the more massive stars, where 26Al production is dominated by pre-explosive nucleosynthesis in the Ne and H shells. In lower mass stars 26Al production is dominated by explosive Ne-burning; several factors may then explain the differences between the two calculations: the detailed pre-supernova structure through which the shock-wave runs; the amount of seed nuclei (23Na, 25Mg etc) which are products of C-burning and depend thereoff on the carbon abundance left off from He-burning, that is on the 12C($`\alpha ,\gamma `$) reaction rate; the $`\nu `$-induced nucleosynthesis (included in RHHW2002 but not in CL2002), etc.

\- In the case of 60Fe the situation is not as satisfactory as for 26Al. 60Fe is mainly produced by explosive Ne-burning, through neutron captures on stable 56Fe and 58Fe; its yield depends on the available amount of 22Ne, which releases those neutrons through 22Ne($`\alpha `$,n), as well as on available 58Fe. There is a factor of $``$10 difference between the two calculations, for both the 15 M and the 25 M stars. An explanation of such a large difference appears difficult, especially when the non-monotonic behaviour of the RHHW2002 yields of 60Fe with stellar mass is taken into account: according to RHHW2002, the $``$20 M region marks the transition from exoergic convective carbon burning (for M$`<`$20 M) to stars where energy production from central C-burning just compensates for neutrino losses (M$`>`$20 M); the effect of that transition on the 60Fe yields has not been investigated yet. Notice that the 60Fe yields of RHHW2002 are much larger than those of the previous calculations of that same group (Woosley and Weaver 1995). Notice also that the 60Fe yields of RHHW2002 are larger than the corresponding ones of 26Al, a situation that is not encountered either in CL2002 or in Woosley and Weaver (1995).

### 3.3 Constraints

The issue of the 60Fe and 26Al yields in massive stars is of importance, in view of current observational constraints and forthcoming INTEGRAL measurements (see Sec. 4.2). Fig. 1 displays some other observational constraints on SNII radioactivities, obtained for SN1987A (paralellograms for 56Ni, 57Co and 44Ti, for a 18-20 M star) and for other supernovae (on the right of the figure; the corresponding stellar mass is irrelevant in the latter case).

In the case of SN1987A, the 56Ni yield (0.07 M) is obtained through extrapolation of the supernova lightcurve, assumed to be powered by 56Co decay, to the day of the explosion (e.g. Arnett et al. 1989). The yield of 57Co is obtained in three different ways: a) through the measured intensity of the 0.122 Mev line of 57Co and assuming a low optical depth for those photons; b) through the study of the late bolometric lightcurve of SN1987A and assuming that it is dominated by 57Co decay at days 1100-2000 (this analysis is far less straightforward than in the case of 56Ni); c) through an analysis of the infrared emission lines of the ejecta. All those methods converge to a value of 57Co mass of $``$ 3 10-3 M (see Fransson and Kozma 2002). Finally, the yield of 44Ti is evaluated through methods (b) and (c), albeit with substantial difficulties, due to the complex physics of supernova heating and coooling involved and the role of positrons; current estimates give values in the 0.5-2 10-4 M range (Fransson and Kozma 2002), while Sollerman (2002) suggests an upper limit of 1.1 10-4 M.

These observational constraints compare rather well with theoretical predictions for 18-20 M stars (the estimated progenitor mass of SN1987A, on the basis of its optical luminosity, e.g. Arnett et al. (1989)). Notice, however, that model results in Fig. 1 correspond to stars calculated with initial metallicity Z=Z, while the progenitor of SN1987A presumably had LMC metallicity, namely Z$``$0.3 Z. Notice also that Thielemann et al. (1996) obtain a larger 44Ti yield for the 20 M star (1.7 10-4 M), due to a difference in the way of simulating the explosion: the “thermal bomb” they use leads to a larger entropy and more important $`\alpha `$-rich freeze-out than in the case of the piston-driven explosion adopted by RHHW2002. Such a high 44Ti yield is marginally detectable by INTEGRAL (see next section).

Data on the right of Fig. 1 concern 56Ni yield estimates for extragalactic SNII. Based on a sample of 8 SNIIP (the “standard” SNII, with a “plateau” in the optical lightcurve) and assuming a bolometric correction similar to the one of SN1987A, Sollerman (2002) finds a mean value of 0.075 M with a standard deviation of 0.03 M. He notices, however, that SNII with much lower and higher yields than the “canonical” one have also been found. In the former case belong SN1994W: the extremely rapid fading of its lightcurve suggests a 56Ni yield lower than 0.015 M. On the other hand, SN1998bw is the most 56Ni-rich supernova today: detailed modelling of its late emission requires 56Ni yields of 0.5-0.9 M, and simple arguments lead to a lower limit of 0.3 M (Sollerman et al. 2002). Thus, it appears that the 56Fe yield of massive stars is far from being a “universal constant” of $``$0.075 M, a fact that may have interesting implications for stellar models as well as galactic chemical evolution, especially concerning the observed scatter of abundance ratios in halo stars (Ishimaru et al. 2002).

Finally, the 44Ti yield of CasA is inferred from the 1.16 MeV line flux of 44Sc decay detected by COMPTEL (3.3$`\pm `$0.6 10-5 cm-2 s-1) and the CasA distance (3.4 kpc) and age (320 yr) and amounts to $``$1.7 10-4 M(Iyudin et al. 1999). An independent evaluation of the 44Ti yield in CasA came recently, through detection of the low energy decay lines of 44Ti by Beppo-SAX: the detected flux at 68 and 78 keV implies a 44Ti mass of 1-2 10-4 M, depending on the modelisation of the underlying continuum spectrum (Vink et al. 2001; Vink and Laming this volume). These yields are larger than the average 44Ti yields of RHHW2002 (see Fig. 1), typically by a factor of $``$3, but compatible with those of Thielemann et al. (1996). Notice, however, that these estimates suffer from uncertainties related to the ionisation state of the SN remnant; an ionised medium could slow down the electron-capture decay of that radionuclide and explain the observed flux with a smaller yield (see Mochizuki et al. 1999).

### 3.4 Detectability

For tutorial purposes, we present in Fig. 2 a schematic view of the $`\gamma `$-ray line emissivity of a “typical” SNII, over three different timescales: 10 years, 10 centuries and a few Myrs. The figure is based on the yields of Fig. 1 and is calculated by assuming a SN1987A-like opacity for the ejecta.

Notice that, if the RHHW2002 yields of 60Co are correct, the 60Co lines might dominate the $`\gamma `$-ray line emission of the SN for a couple of years, between 5 and 8 years after the explosion; that possibility was suggested by Clayton (1982) for very young SN remnants in the Milky Way. Unfortunately, the expected flux from SN1987A was below the sensitivity limits of instruments aboard CGRO and it will also be below the detection threshold of INTEGRAL (which is launched $``$15 years after the explosion, while 60Co has a mean life of 7.6 yr). The role of 60Co for the late lightcurve of SN1987A was studied in Timmes et al. (1996). It may well be that the current difficulties in modelling the late bolometric lightcurve of that supernova and its infrared line emissivity (see previous section) may be, at least partially, due to an inadequate account of the energy input from that isotope.

The expected 1.16 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray line flux from 44Ti in SN1987A ($``$10-5 cm-2 s-1) lies at the detection limit of INTEGRAL and will be one of the prime targets of the SPI instrument aboard that satellite. Even a 3-$`\sigma `$ upper limit would bring important information on the position of the mass-cut and the explosion mechanism of that supernova, since 44Ti yield is more sensitive to the mass-cut than other isotopes (e.g. Timmes et al. 1996). On the other hand, Fig. 2 reveals also that 44Ti from centuries-old SN remnants in the Milky Way should be detectable by INTEGRAL; here again, a positive detection will reveal hitherto unknown Galactic SN remnants, while a negative result is expected to place interesting constraints on the frequency of the production sites of that isotope and on the corresponding yields. Indeed, on the basis of Woosley and Weaver (1995) yields Timmes et al. (1996) estimate that, in order to explain the solar abundance of 44Ca, one has to invoke either a higher SN frequency in the Galaxy or high 44Ti yields or production of 44Ca in rare events, like sub-Chandrasekhar mass SNIa. An analysis of COMPTEL map of the inner Galaxy in the light of 1.16 MeV suggests that the first two possibilities should be excluded, otherwise more and/or brighter “hot-spots” than actually observed should be found by COMPTEL (The et al. 2000). In that respect, it is interesting to notice that tantalizing hints for 44Ti emission from the nearby source GRO J0852-4642, a previously unknown supernova remnant, were recently reported (Iyudin et al. 1998, Aschenbach et al. 1999; but, see also Schönfelder et al. 2000).

Long -lived radioactivities are difficult to detect from individual sources, even with next generation instruments. For instance, in the case of 26Al, an exceptionally close site (closer than $``$0.3 kpc) is required for its 1.8 MeV line to be detectable by INTEGRAL; the Vela region might offer just such a chance, in view of some intriguing hints from COMPTEL observations (see Sec. 4.4). In the following we shall focus on the long-lived radioactivities 26Al and 60Fe. During their $``$Myr lifetimes the collective emission from tens of thousands of sources gives rise to a diffuse emission along the plane of the Milky Way; only the 26Al emission has been detected up to now.

## 4 Diffuse $`\gamma `$-ray line emission from long-lived 26Al and 60Fe in the Milky Way

### 4.1 Overview

COMPTEL is the only instrument with imaging capabilities that detected the Galactic 1.8 MeV line emission (Fig. 3). The data shows clearly a diffuse, irregular, emission along the Galactic plane, allowing to eliminate: i) a unique point source in the Galactic centre and/or a nearby local bubble in that direction; ii) an important contribution of the Galactic bulge, signature of an old population and iii) any class of sources involving a large number of sites with low individual yields (like nova or low mass AGB stars), since a smooth flux distribution is expected in that case (Diehl et al. 1995). Identification of some of the observed features (“hot-spots”) with tangents to spiral arms seems quite plausible and suggests that massive stars are at the origin of 26Al (Prantzos and Diehl 1996).

Estimates of the galactic mass of 26Al rely on assumptions about the spatial distribution of the underlying sources. All plausible disk models tested by the COMPTEL team yield a mass of $``$2 M. Introducing a spiral structure to the axisymmetric disk models improves the fit to the data and implies that between 60 and 100 $`\%`$ of the 26Al may lie on the spiral arms (Diehl et al. 1998). It should be noticed that the derived spatial distribution of 26Al depends on the method of analysis. As shown by Knödlseder et al. (1999) some imaging analysis methods lead to all-sky maps with more pronounced localised features than some others; still, the irregular nature of the 1.8 MeV emission along the Galactic plane and the localised “hot-spots” are revealed by all imaging methods, in a statistically significant way (Plüschke et al. 2001a).

### 4.2 Sources of 26Al and the role of 60Fe

The 26Al yields presented in Fig. 1 concern massive stars exploding as SNII. Even more massive stars ($`>`$30 M) may produce substantial amounts of 26Al during central (hydrostatic) H-burning and eject them through their powerful stellar winds, in the WR stage (Prantzos and Cassé 1986); the WR yields are relatively well determined (e.g. Meynet et al. 1997), but the explosive yields of those stars (which ultimately explode as SNIb) are very poorly known at present.

Under the most favorable conditions (highest possible yields for SNII allowed by current uncertainties; accounting for the strong metallicity dependence of WR yields, which favours sources in the inner Galaxy; adopting a mildly steep IMF, i.e. with the Salpeter slope of -1.35 instead of the Scalo slope of -1.7), it turns out that both SNII and WR can account for $``$2 M/Myr of 26Al(e.g. Prantzos and Diehl 1996). It may well be that both classes of sources contribute equally to the Galactic 26Al(a coincidence not “stranger” than the quasi-equality between the solar abundances of s- and r- elements, or between the contributions of the dark matter and dark energy to the density of the Universe). However, it is interesting to see whether independent constraints can be used to distinguish between the SNII and WR contributions and identify a dominant component (assuming that there is one).

One such constraint is the flux ratio of the $`\gamma `$-ray lines of 60Fe (1.17 and 1.33 MeV) and 26Al (1.8 MeV). Indeed, 60Fe is predicted to be co-produced with 26Al in SNII (in almost the same zones and in similar amounts, Fig. 1), but not in WR stars. If SNII dominate galactic 26Al production, an important 60Fe emission is then expected (flux ratio: $`\frac{{}_{}{}^{60}Fe}{{}_{}{}^{26}Al}`$ = $`\frac{Y_{60}/60/\tau _{60}}{Y_{26}/26/\tau _{26}}`$, where Y represent yields averaged over the IMF and $`\tau `$ the corresponding decay lifetimes); if WR stars are dominant, the $`\gamma `$-ray line flux ratio of 60Fe/26Al is expected to be extremely low.

The $`\frac{{}_{}{}^{60}Fe}{{}_{}{}^{26}Al}`$ ratio of SNII depends on stellar models (and slightly on the IMF). The Woosley and Weaver (1995) yields lead to a flux ratio of 0.16 (Timmes et al. 1995), and so do the recent ones of CL2002 (note that the absolute 60Fe and 26Al yields of CL2002 are $``$ 4 times lower than those of WW1995); however, the most recent results of the Santa Cruz group (RHHW2002) lead to a surprisingly large flux ratio $`\frac{{}_{}{}^{60}Fe}{{}_{}{}^{26}Al}`$$``$0.4. On the other hand, current observational upper limits, obtained by GRIS (Naya et al. 1998) and COMPTEL (Diehl 2000) are close to 0.15. It appears then that: a) the RHHW2002 yields can produce $``$1 M of Galactic 26Al, but should be excluded by the non-detection of 60Fe; b) the CL2002 yields produce a Galactic 26Al mass of $``$0.4 M, too low to explain the detected 1.8 MeV flux. Taken at face value, the most recent SNII yields apparently exclude SNII as dominant sources of Galactic 26Al. Does this mean that WR stars constitute a viable alternative?

WR stars can indeed provide $``$2 M/Myr of 26Al (Meynet et al. 1997), provided that the strong metallicity dependence of the yields is taken into account. Moreover, Knödlseder (1999) showed that a map of the ionising power from massive stars (derived from the COBE data, after correction for synchrotron contribution) corresponds to the 1.809 MeV map of galactic 26Al in all significant detail; assuming a standard stellar initial mass function, his calculation reproduces consistently the current galactic supernova rate and massive star population from both maps, and suggests that most of 26Al is produced by WR stars of high metallicity in the inner Galaxy. Finally, Knödlseder et al. (2001) point out that one of the prominent “hot-spots” in the COMPTEL 1.8 MeV sky-map, the Cygnus region, is an association of massive stars with no sign of recent supernova activity. All these observational and theoretical indices favour WR stars as dominant 26Al contributors. However, in that case, the 1.8 MeV longitude profile (or, equivalently, the 26Al radial profile) should be steeper than observed (see Fig. 5).

In summary, there is no satisfactory explanation at present for the flux of the 1.8 MeV line and its spatial distribution in the Milky Way. INTEGRAL is expected to provide a more detailed spatial profile than COMPTEL and to put more stringent limits (or, perhaps, to detect) emission from 60Fe. Only when the nature of the major 26Al sources is clarified it will become possible to tackle the question of their Galactic distribution (i.e. with any yield dependence on metallicity - or other factors - properly taken into account).

### 4.3 The 26Al line width: a hint for mixing of SN ejecta in the ISM?

The width of the 26Al line was already discussed by Ramaty and Lingenfelter (1977) who pointed outh that 26Al ejected from SN should deccelerate in the ISM in a timescale short compared with its decay timescale; as a consequence, the emitted $`\gamma `$-ray line should be quite narrow (narrower than the $``$2 keV width imposed by Galactic rotation), making its detection relatively easy.

The HEAO-3 Ge detectors found the line to be narrow indeed: FWHM$`<`$3 keV (Mahoney et al. 1984); however, the GRIS instrument measured a FWHM=5.4$`\pm `$1.4 keV, $``$3 times larger than HEAO-3 and much larger than allowed by Galactic rotation (Naya et al. 1996). If real, that large width can be interpreted either as kinematic (with the bulk of 26Al moving with velocities $``$540 km/s) or thermal (with most 26Al atoms brough to temperatures T$``$4.5 108 K). The thermal origin seems improbable, since it would imply that all 26Al is produced in $``$200 mini-starburst regions in the inner Galaxy regions (Chen et al. 1997). A non-thermal origin could be understood if 26Al nuclei are incorporated in dust grains, which are launched by the SN explosion (Chen et al. 1997), or accelerated by the SN shock wave (Ellison et al. 1997) or repeatedly accelerated by SN shocks (Sturner and Naya 1999).

The SPI instrument of INTEGRAL will clarify that issue, by measuring the line width and also the latitude distribution of the line emission. Already, COMPTEL measurements imply a vertical scaleheight of $`<`$220 pc for the 26Al distribution and suggest that the velocity of the bulk of 26Al has not as large a component perpendicularly to the Galactic plane as suggested by the kinematic interpretation of the GRIS measurements (Oberlack 1997).

### 4.4 26Al “hot-spots”: monitoring stars, superbubbles and young stellar associations

The study of individual “hot-spots” revealed by COMPTEL bears on our understanding of the evolution of young stellar associations (in the cases of Cygnus, Carina and Centaurus-Circinus) and even individual stars (in the case of Vela).

The Cygnus regions was studied with population synthesis models by two groups (Cervinho et al. 2001, Plüschke et al. 2001b). The resulting morphology of the 1.8 MeV emission compares well with the COMPTEL data. However, in the case of Carina, the predicted absolute flux is smaller (by a factor of 5-20) than detected by COMPTEL (Knödlseder et al. 2001). That discrepancy may imply something interesting, either for the (in)completeness of the stellar census of that association or for the 26Al yields. INTEGRAL will establish more accurately the morphology of those “hot-spots” and further test the “massive star group” origin of 26Al.

Another target of importance for future 1.8 MeV studies is the Orion/Eridanus region. COMPTEL surveys of the anticenter region show significant (5 $`\sigma `$) extended emission towards the south of the Orion molecular clouds. That emission could be attributed (Diehl 2002) to 26Al ejected by the prominent Orion OB1 association and expanded into the low density cavity of the Eridanus bubble. The exansion of supernova ejected into a previously formed cavity of peculiar shape (and not into a medium with radial symmetry) is a novel and interesting field of study, opened by COMPTEL and left for INTEGRAL to explore.

Finally, the Vela region offers the opportunity to measure (or put upper limits on) 26Al yields from individual sources. The morphology of the rather extened 1.8 MeV emission detected by COMPTEL does not allow identification with any of the three known objects in the field (the Vela SNR, the closest WR star $`\gamma `$2 Vel and SNR RX-J0852-4622); all three objects lie closer than 260 pc, according to recent estimates. COMPTEL measurements are compatible with current yields of SNII (in the case of Vela SNR) and marginally compatible with current yields of $`\gamma `$2 Vel (Oberlack et al. 2000). INTEGRAL measurements in the Vela region are then expected to place more stringent constraints on stellar models.

## 5 Summary

The aim of Gamma-Ray Astronomy with Radioactivities, as explicitly defined by the “founding fathers” of the field in the 60ies (see Sec. 2) was to probe stellar nucleosynthesis as well as supernova structure and energetics. This original aim was reached in a spectacular way in the case of SN1987A (which, however, remains today - and, probably, for sometime in the future - a unique object in that respect).

On the other hand, the legacy of HEAO-3 and COMPTEL set new aims to the field of Gamma-Ray Astronomy with long-lived Radioactivities: to probe the large-scale distribution of active nucleosynthesis sites in the Galaxy and the properties/history of any clusterings in that distribution (young stellar associations, individual objects). INTEGRAL is expected to perform this next step.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Roland Diehl for his critical suggestions and comments.

## References


text:
# Energy landscape - a key concept in the dynamics of liquids and glasses

## 1 Introduction

In the authors view, our present foggy picture of the glass transition begins to show some cornerstones of a future solid theoretical building, namely the energy landscape concept (Goldstein 1968; Johari and Goldstein 1970, 1971; Stillinger 1995), the mode coupling theory (Bengtzelius et al1984; Götze and Sjögren 1992) together with the realization (Bengtzelius et al1984; Angell 1988) that the critical temperature of this theory marks the onset of thermally activated motion between the minima of the energy landscape, and, finally, the calculation of the Kauzmann temperature from the interatomic potentials (M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$zard and Parisi 1996, 1999). These theories explain, at least in principle, the dynamics above and around $`T_c`$ as well as the thermodynamics near to the calorimetric glass transition $`T_g`$, leaving only the fragility (Angell 1988; Böhmer et al1993; Angell 1995) without a solid theoretical foundation.

The present paper expands this view in a bit more detail in the next two sections. Section 4 addresses the relaxation in glasses at temperatures well below $`T_g`$ in terms of thermally activated jumps in an ensemble of independent asymmetric double-well potentials (the ADWP (Asymmetric Double Well Potential) (Pollak and Pike 1972) or Gilroy-Phillips model (Gilroy and Phillips 1981)). Section 5 considers the effect of the interaction between different relaxation centers, which is shown to become dominant at the glass transition. Section 6 compares the prediction of a mean field treatment to experimental data on the breakdown of the shear modulus. Conclusions are given in Section 7.

## 2 $`T_c`$: The onset of thermally activated motion

The mode coupling theory of the glass transition (Götze and Sjögren 1992) does not require the concept of the energy landscape. In fact, its most impressive experimental proof was found in colloids (Pusey and van Megen 1986; van Megen and Underwood 1994), which do not have an energy landscape.

On the other hand, the dynamics of the undercooled liquid at lower temperatures is dominated by thermally activated hopping between different valleys of the energy landscape. The conjecture (Bengtzelius et al1984; Angell 1988) of an onset of this thermally activated motion at the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the mode coupling theory has found more and more support from numerical simulations of model glass formers (Schrøder et al2000; Angelani et al2000; Broderix et al2000; but see also Doliwa and Heuer 2002, which stress the important role of thermal activation above $`T_c`$). The main result is illustrated in Fig. 1, adapted from Angelani et al(2000). As one lowers the temperature towards $`T_c`$, the average number of saddle points of the energy landscape on which the system finds itself at a given moment in time decreases. This number extrapolates to zero at $`T_c`$. At $`T_c`$, one still finds a finite number of unstable instantaneous normal modes. However, these stem from shoulders of the potential with a negative curvature rather than from true saddle points. They give rise to the fast picosecond motion (Angell 1995), but they do not dominate the long time dynamics.

Above $`T_c`$, the separation of the $`\alpha `$-process (the elementary process of the flow) from the microscopic picosecond motion (Franosch et al1998) in an undercooled liquid seems to be reasonably well described by the mode coupling theory. This was demonstrated by neutron (Knaak et al1988; Frick et al1991; Wuttke et al1993) and light scattering experiments (Li et al1992; Sokolov 1998; Wiedersich et al2000a) on ionic, molecular and polymeric glass formers, as well as in a number of numerical simulations (Kob and Andersen 1995a, 1995b; Nauroth and Kob 1997; Kammerer et al1998a, 1998b). There are more examples (Götze 1999). One finds the proper scaling relations for the time and temperature dependence of the $`\alpha `$-process and the fast picosecond $`\beta `$ process, consistent with the exponents determined from the temperature dependence of the viscosity above $`T_c`$. As a general rule (Sokolov 1998), one finds $`\tau _\alpha (T_c)10^7`$ s, a bit longer than the originally considered value (Goldstein 1968; Angell 1988) of $`10^9`$ s.

Note this does not imply a perfect fit of theory and experimental data. Though one observes the expected power law behaviour of the viscosity in many liquids (Taborek et al1986), accurate dielectric data in salol show a temperature dependence of the power law exponent of $`\tau _\alpha `$ even well above $`T_c`$ (Stickel et al1995). Quantitative checks of the theory are at present impeded by the difficulty to calculate $`T_c`$ and the exponents for most real glass formers.

Nevertheless, the mode coupling theory is a true microscopic theory, which in principle allows to calculate its parameters from a knowledge of the interatomic potentials. The results obtained so far seem to show that one can identify the critical temperature of this microscopic theory with the temperature at which the system leaves the saddle points of the energy landscape to settle in its valleys. Below $`T_c`$, one expects a gradual transition to thermally activated energy landscape dynamics. Though there is no generally agreed description of this landscape dynamics, there is at least a microscopic theory (M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$zard and Parisi 1996, 1999) for the thermodynamics of the undercooled liquid at this lower temperature.

## 3 Calculating the Kauzmann temperature

This further important theoretical progress of the last decade concerns an old concept from the thermodynamics of the glass transition, the Kauzmann temperature. The concept stems from the experimental observation that the entropy difference between undercooled liquid and crystal seems to extrapolate to zero at a finite temperature, the Kauzmann temperature $`T_K`$, at which the glass former in principle condenses into a single structural configuration. Since the viscosity depends on the number of accessible configurations, one expects a divergence of the viscosity at about the same temperature (an excellent review of the older empirical attempts to model the thermodynamics and kinetics of the undercooled liquid has been given by Jäckle (1986)). In this general sense, the Kauzmann temperature is not only important for the thermodynamics, but also for the dynamics close to $`T_g`$. In fact, the empirical Adam-Gibbs model identifies the temperature $`T_K`$ with the Vogel-Fulcher temperature $`T_0`$ of the empirical VFT (Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann) or WLF (Williams-Landel-Ferry (Ferry 1980)) relation

$$\tau _\alpha =\tau _0\mathrm{e}^{A/(TT_0)},$$
(1)
where $`\tau _0`$ is a microscopic time and $`A`$ is a second parameter of this empirical relation. If one looks more closely (Stickel et al1995, 1996; Hansen et al1997), the Vogel-Fulcher relation does not describe the temperature dependence of $`\tau _\alpha `$ very well. From this data collection, one rather feels that each glass former behaves differently below $`T_c`$. Nevertheless, the general tendency of a divergence of the viscosity as the glass former looses its configurational entropy cannot be denied.

M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$zard and Parisi (1996, 1999) have devised a recipe to calculate the entropy and the Kauzmann temperature from the pair potentials of a given glass former, thus providing the Kauzmann extrapolation scheme with a theoretical solidity which it lacked before. The calculation assumes an undercooled liquid below $`T_c`$ which spends most of its time vibrating in a local minimum of the free energy, with only occasional jumps into a neighboring minimum. In this situation, one assumes the validity of the harmonic approximation for the motion within the single well. Using the replica concept, one calculates the free energy as a function of temperature and finds a nonzero Kauzmann temperature. This is again a microscopic theory, because it allows to calculate the heat capacity and the Kauzmann temperature from the pair potentials between the atoms. Though the Kauzmann temperature itself might still prove to be an artefact of the mean-field approximation of the calculation, the calculated heat capacity above this temperature resembles measured data above $`T_g`$ both in shape and size.

The next section proceeds to a phenomenological model of the thermally activated energy landscape dynamics in the low-temperature glass phase.

## 4 ADWP or Gilroy-Phillips model

The ADWP (Asymmetric-Double-Well-Potential) (Pollak and Pike 1972) or Gilroy-Phillips model (Gilroy and Phillips 1981) is a member of a family of three glass models, which are essentially one and the same model applied to three different situations (the other two are the tunneling model (Phillips 1981) and the soft-potential model (Parshin 1994)). The basic idea is to simplify the multiminimum situation of the energy landscape to an ensemble of independent double-well potentials for local structural rearrangements with a broad distribution of different barrier heights $`V`$ and asymmetries $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the two minima (see Fig. 2) - an inherently heterogeneous description of the dynamics of the glass phase (for a review on the heterogeneity of undercooled liquids see Richert 2002).

Consider a single relaxing entity, i.e. a single barrier of height $`V`$ separating two neighboring energy minima. Fig. 2 shows schematically the energy as a function of the configurational coordinate going from one minimum to the other. In numerical simulations of model glasses, one finds that this configurational coordinate involves the motion of about five to fifty atoms in the center of the relaxing entity (Heuer and Silbey 1996; Schober and Oligschleger 1996) . There is no reason why the two minima should have the same energy, so there will be an energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between them. A further characteristic of the two adjacent minima is the coupling of this relaxing entity to the external shear strain $`ϵ`$. This is given by the coupling constant $`\gamma `$, defined such that the asymmetry changes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ`$ under the applied shear strain $`ϵ`$.

With these three energies, the barrier height $`V`$, the asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the coupling constant $`\gamma `$, one can quantify the contribution of this single relaxing entity to the dynamical mechanical behaviour of the viscoelastic medium. The relaxation time $`\tau _V`$ is given by the Arrhenius relation

$$\tau _V=\tau _0\mathrm{e}^{V/k_BT},$$
(2)
where $`\tau _0`$ is a microscopic time of the order of 10<sup>-13</sup> seconds, $`V`$ is the energy of the barrier between two energy minima of the system, and $`T`$ is the temperature.

In the simplest possible approximation, the free energy $`F`$ of the single relaxation center reads

$$F=k_BT\mathrm{ln}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ}{2k_BT}\right)\right].$$
(3)
Its second derivative with respect to the shear distortion $`ϵ`$ is

$$\frac{^2F}{ϵ^2}=\frac{\gamma ^2}{4k_BT\mathrm{cosh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }/2k_BT)}$$
(4)
The second derivative determines the contribution of the specific relaxing entity to the difference between the shear moduli at infinite and zero frequency. The main influence on the shear modulus is due to relaxation in potentials with asymmetries smaller than $`k_BT`$; for larger asymmetries the influence decreases rapidly because of the square of the hyperbolic cosine in the denominator.

We assume a number density function $`n(V,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of these local structural relaxations, which varies little if $`V`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ change by energies of the order $`k_BT`$. Integrating over the asymmetry (Buchenau 2001), we obtain a net difference $`\delta G`$ between the infinite and the zero frequency shear moduli due to relaxations with barrier heights between $`V`$ and $`V+\delta V`$

$$\frac{\delta G}{G\delta V}=\frac{\gamma ^2n(V,0)}{G}f_0(V),$$
(5)
where $`G`$ is the infinite frequency shear modulus. This relation defines $`f_0(V)`$, the barrier density function without interaction.

In the frozen glass phase, one expects a frozen-in distribution of barrier heights and asymmetries and thus a temperature-independent $`f_0(V)`$. One can check that by looking at the distribution with low and high frequencies; according to the Arrhenius relation, eq. (2), one should be able to observe the same barrier height at different temperatures. Such checks have been done for a number of different glass formers. As long as one stays at temperatures much lower than the glass temperature, one finds impressive agreement with the idea of a temperature-independent barrier density function. One example is vitreous silica up to 300 K, glass temperature 1473 K (Wiedersich et al2000b). Another one is polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) below 80 K, glass temperature 383 K (Buchenau et al2002). For higher temperatures, however, the barrier density function tends to increase with increasing temperature (Surovtsev et al1998, Caliskan et al2002).

As will be shown in the next section, one has to expect such an increase, because the interaction between different relaxation centers determines the dynamics close to the breakdown of the shear modulus. In this view, the Johari-Goldstein $`\beta `$-process, a broad relaxation maximum close to the $`\alpha `$-process which shows an Arrhenius behaviour both below and above $`T_g`$ (Johari and Goldstein 1970, 1971; Kudlik et al1999) corresponds to a peak in $`f_0(V)`$, strongly enhanced by the proximity of the breakdown.

## 5 The 1/3-rule

For the purpose of this and the following section, let us assume that the decomposition of the complex energy landscape into an ensemble of single relaxation centers or single relaxing entities is a reasonable and solid basis. In a mean-field scheme, the interaction between the single entity and all the others is taken into account by embedding the single center into the viscoelastic medium, calculating the viscoelastic properties selfconsistently.

The first implication of this mean-field assumption is that the asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is no longer fixed, but changes on the Maxwell time scale, because the viscoelastic medium is free to flow. Consequently, the term $`\gamma ϵ`$ in eq. (3) can adapt on the Maxwell time scale, thus changing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to a different value. The Maxwell time $`\tau _M`$ is given by the shear viscosity $`\eta `$ and the infinite frequency shear modulus G

$$\tau _M=\eta /G,$$
(6)
where all three quantities depend on temperature, the infinite frequency shear modulus $`G`$ only weakly, but the two other quantities drastically.

A change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not mean that the energy landscape itself flows; to take a three-dimensional example, the barrier is like a ridge between two sloping valleys with different slope; going along the ridge changes the height difference of the two valleys. In this example, the coordinate along the ridge could correspond to the external shear strain; then one has a continuous change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It could also correspond to the configurational coordinate of another relaxing entity in the neighborhood, which changes the local shear strain at the given relaxation center in a discontinuous way.

It is interesting to consider the consequences of a freely changing value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Taking eq. (3) literally, one calculates a Boltzmann factor of the relaxing entity

$$\mathrm{exp}(F/k_BT)=2\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2k_BT),$$
(7)
which has its lowest value at the symmetric case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, and diverges with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This latter feature is of course unphysical, because one cannot expect to gain energy without limit by increasing the asymmetry of such a local entity. However, the consideration shows that one must expect a relatively low probability for the symmetric case, because it is energetically unfavorable. In fact, both the number of tunneling states and the excess entropy of the frozen glass seem to decrease in selenium upon aging (Johari 1986).

As soon as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is able to change, the relaxing entity has an additional possibility to find its thermal equilibrium, namely by lowering the energy of the minimum in which the system happens to find itself. It is therefore natural to assume that relaxation centers with high barriers, whose relaxation time exceeds the Maxwell time, do not contribute to the viscoelastic properties of the medium, while those with shorter relaxation times have time to equilibrate by jumps over the barrier and do contribute. The two barrier regimes are separated by the Maxwell barrier $`V_M`$ with

$$V_M=k_BT\mathrm{ln}(\tau _M/\tau _0).$$
(8)
Consider the energetics of a single double-well, with a barrier low enough to equilibrate within the Maxwell time. Suppose a small constant shear strain $`ϵ`$ is switched on at time zero, with the population of the minima of the double-well in thermal equilibrium with respect to zero shear strain. The new thermal equilibrium requires a number of jumps

$$\delta n=\frac{\gamma ϵ}{4k_BT\mathrm{cosh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }/2k_BT)}.$$
(9)
In order to calculate the energy $`\delta U`$ carried to the heat bath, we have to multiply the number of jumps $`\delta n`$ with the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ`$. Therefore these jumps transport the energy

$$\delta U=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ϵ+\gamma ^2ϵ^2}{4k_BT\mathrm{cosh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }/2k_BT)}$$
(10)
from the macroscopic shear stress energy to the heat bath. The term on the right hand side linear in $`ϵ`$ must be compensated by other relaxing entities with opposite sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (otherwise there would be no initial equilibrium). If one compares the second quadratic term $`\delta U_2`$ with the second derivative of the free energy in eq. (4), one finds that it is twice as high as the free energy decrease $`\delta F`$ calculated from eq. (4)

$$\delta F=\frac{\gamma ^2ϵ^2}{8k_BT\mathrm{cosh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }/2k_BT)}=\frac{1}{2}\delta U_2,$$
(11)
which determines the reduction of the shear modulus by the barrier. The physical reason for this is the reduced entropy; spending the energy one has spanned an entropic spring. Thus the reduction of the shear modulus is only half that expected from the spent energy. This is in principle textbook knowledge for a Debye relaxation, but is explained here again, because it is essential for the understanding of the glass transition.

In a Gedankenexperiment, let the thermally equilibrated relaxation center return from the actual asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ`$ in the strained state to its original asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, say by appropriate jumps in the surroundings which change the local strain at the center. In principle, this return would again require the energy $`\delta U`$, to be taken again from the macroscopic stress energy. However, this return occurs on the Maxwell time scale, which is long compared to the relaxation time of the relaxation center. Therefore the population of its two minima adapts adiabatically. The number of backjumps is again the same $`\delta n`$, but now the asymmetry reduces gradually from $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the course of the process, reducing the average energy per jump to $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma ϵ/2`$. This means one needs only the energy $`\delta U_2\delta F=\delta F`$ to return.

Now imagine this happens for all relaxation centers with barriers lower than the Maxwell barrier of eq. (8) in the undercooled liquid. Then one returns to an unstrained equilibrium in the strained state. This means a full relaxation of the initial stress, as in the true flow process characterized by the Maxwell time. Naturally, our Gedankenexperiment is a rather improbable realization of this process, because in the real process a given relaxation center will almost never return to its initial asymmetry, though the macroscopic stress relaxes back to zero. However, this special realization allows to keep track of the energy contributions.

In this cycle from the initial equilibrium to a new equilibrium in the strained state, each barrier with $`\tau _V`$ smaller than $`\tau _M`$ takes the energy $`3\delta F`$ from the stress energy, $`2\delta F`$ in the initial equilibration and $`\delta F`$ on the Maxwell time scale. The direct reduction of the shear modulus, the one expected if there were no interaction between different barriers, corresponds only to a single $`\delta F`$. The energy $`3\delta F`$ is taken from the potential energy in the strain field, reducing it to zero. One arrives at the conclusion that the stress relaxation occurs when the noninteracting relaxation centers reduce the shear modulus by one third of its infinite frequency value. To put it differently, the interaction between relaxing entities reduces the number needed to bring the long time shear modulus down to zero by a factor of three.

In terms of the barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$, this means

$$_0^{V_M}f_0(V)𝑑V=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(12)
This is the 1/3-rule, which allows to calculate the Maxwell barrier (and from the Maxwell barrier, the shear viscosity) for a given barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$. The barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$ in turn can be determined from measurements at times shorter than the Maxwell time. To do this, one needs a quantitative treatment of the interaction between different relaxation centers, which is the topic of the next section.

The 1/3-rule provides a qualitative understanding of the fragility: As the temperature increases, $`f_0(V)`$ is expected to increase, because symmetric double-well potentials are energetically unfavorable, as pointed out at the beginning of this section. This implies that $`V_M`$ decreases with increasing temperature, as one indeed observes in experiment. The problem is to make this understanding quantitative. One could hope to use the theoretical tools of M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$zard and Parisi (1996, 1999) to achieve this end.

## 6 The breakdown of the shear modulus

The 1/3-rule, eq. (12), can be derived independently (Buchenau 2002) from the assumption

$$\frac{\delta G}{G\delta V}=f_0(V)\frac{G^2}{G(\tau _V)^2}\mathrm{e}^{\tau _V/\tau _M}f(V).$$
(13)
Eq. (13) is a generalization of the definition of the barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$ without interaction, eq. (5), to describe the enhancement of the effect of a single relaxation center by the interaction, together with the cutoff at the Maxwell time. The equation defines a barrier density function $`f(V)`$ with interaction, which can then be used to calculate the full shear response.

One can justify the quadratic enhancement factor assuming a constant strain applied at time zero. The relaxation will tend to equilibrate at the time $`\tau _V`$, when the square of the stress - a measure of the remaining stress energy - is reduced by precisely this factor, while the number of jumps required for the equilibration may be taken to be unchanged. If the number of jumps and the distortion remain unchanged, the energy and the free energy contribution remain unchanged. This implies that the reduction of the stress energy by the relaxation is also unchanged. This in turn increases the apparent barrier density function $`f(V)`$ by the square of $`G/G(\tau _V)`$. A physical interpretation of this increase are lower-barrier jumps, taking place in the neighborhood after a jump of the central entity.

One can do a selfconsistent calculation of $`f(V)`$ for a given $`f_0(V)`$ by inserting the expression for $`G(\tau _V)`$ in terms of $`f(V)`$ into eq. (13). This leads to an integral equation for $`f(V)`$ with the approximate solution (Buchenau 2002)

$$f(V)=\frac{f_0(V)\mathrm{exp}(\tau _V/\tau _M)}{\left[3_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(\tau _V/\tau _v)\mathrm{exp}(\tau _V/\tau _M)f_0(v)𝑑v\right]^{2/3}},$$
(14)
where the Maxwell time is again given by the 1/3-rule, eq. (12).

The denominator of eq.(14) tends toward zero as $`V`$ approaches the Maxwell barrier. Therefore the breakdown of the shear modulus occurs in a rather dramatic way. The relaxing entities at this critical barrier value receive a strong enhancement, to such an extent that one is tempted to assume a separate $`\alpha `$-process which has nothing to do with the secondary relaxations. In fact, this more or less unconscious assumption underlies most of the present attempts to understand the glass transition (Ediger et al1996). The above mean-field treatment shows such an assumption to be unnecessary; what one sees at the glass transition are simple Arrhenius relaxations of no particularly large number density, blown up to impressive size by the small denominator of eq. (14).

Once $`f(V)`$ is known, one can determine the frequency dependence of the complex shear modulus at the frequency $`\omega `$ from the two relations

$$G^{}(\omega )=G_0^{\mathrm{}}f(V)\frac{\omega ^2\tau _V^2dV}{1+\omega ^2\tau _V^2}$$
(15)
and

$$G^{\prime \prime }(\omega )=G_0^{\mathrm{}}f(V)\frac{\omega \tau _VdV}{1+\omega ^2\tau _V^2}.$$
(16)
One must expect $`f_0(V)`$ and, consequently, $`f(V)`$ to be a different function for each glass former. In many of the cases, however, one should be able to approximate $`f_0(V)`$ by the constant value $`f_0(V_M)`$ for barriers close to $`V_M`$. Such a choice is also suggested by the appearance of a constant loss term (Kudlik et al1999; Ngai 2000; Sokolov et al2001) in many glass formers just below $`T_g`$. A constant loss term corresponds to a constant $`f(V)`$. In the model with a barrier-independent $`f_0(V)`$, $`f(V)`$ decreases and approaches $`f_0(V)`$ as one goes from the Maxwell barrier to lower barriers. For this generic case, one can calculate $`G^{}`$ and $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ at the breakdown of the shear modulus and compare the result to measured data.

There are some good mechanical shear measurements over many decades in frequency at $`T_g`$ (Christensen and Olsen 1994; Christensen and Olsen 1995; Behrens et al1996; Donth et al1996). Fig. 3 shows data for $`G^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$, normalized to the peak maximum. The continuous line is calculated from the model assuming $`f_0(V)=const`$ and using eqs. (14) and (16). As can be seen from Fig. 3, the fit is only good for the two polymers polystyrene and poly(vinyl acetate); the two molecular glass formers show a much stronger decay of $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ towards the high frequency end. For these, the model gives a peak in the imaginary part of the shear modulus which is too small and too broad; the real breakdown of the shear modulus is more dramatic than the mean field calculation. A better fit requires an increase of $`f_0(V)`$ at the Maxwell barrier (the dashed line in Fig. 3). One can rationalize this increase; it might be necessary to reach a large peak in $`f_0(V)`$ before the shear modulus breaks down.

Dielectric measurements (Kudlik et al1999) provide much more accurate peak shapes than mechanical ones. However, these data are usually presented as real and imaginary part of the dielectric constant, which is essentially a susceptibility. The model discussed here calculates moduli. These should be identical with the dielectric ones as long as the weighting of the relaxation centers according to the electric dipole moments corresponds to the one of the mechanical shear coupling constants. A comparison requires a conversion of the dielectric constants to dielectric moduli (Dyre 1991), which changes the peak shape considerably. Christensen and Olsen (1994) show three examples where dielectric moduli data give exactly the same peak shape as mechanical shear modulus data.

## 7 Conclusions

There begins to be a general agreement that the mode coupling theory of the glass transition (Götze and Sjögren 1992) is the proper microscopic theory for the separation of the structural relaxation time from the microscopic picosecond time scale in undercooled liquids. However, the structural relaxation time of real liquids does not diverge at the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the theory. It rather reaches a a typical value between a nanosecond and a microsecond (Sokolov 1998), indicating a crossover to a different flow mechanism.

Numerical simulations (Schrøder et al2000; Angelani et al2000; Broderix et al2000; but see also Doliwa and Heuer 2002) corroborate the old conjecture (Bengtzelius et al1984; Angell 1988) that at $`T_c`$ the system leaves the saddle points of the energy landscape to settle in the valleys.

At still lower temperatures, one can use the approximation of harmonic energy minima, with only occasional thermally activated jumps in between. This is the starting point of a second microscopic theory (M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$zard and Parisi 1996, 1999) for the entropy of the undercooled liquid, which allows to calculate the puzzling heat capacity at the calorimetric glass transition from the interatomic potentials. These two theories provide some microscopic insight (though one could wish for theories which are easier to handle).

The breakdown of the shear modulus at the calorimetric glass transition has as yet no microscopic explanation. One can show that it cannot be treated in terms of independent double-well relaxation centers (Pollak and Pike 1972; Gilroy and Phillips 1981), because the interaction becomes dominant at this breakdown, reducing the number of relaxation centers needed for the breakdown by a factor of three (the 1/3-rule). A mean-field treatment (Buchenau 2002) of the interaction allows to calculate the shear response at the breakdown. The comparison to measured data shows agreement in some glass formers, but a more pronounced breakdown in others. One can rationalize this finding by postulating a rise of the barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$ at the Maxwell barrier for the latter ones.

A disappointing feature of the relaxation center picture is that one needs a whole temperature-dependent function, the barrier density function $`f_0(V)`$, to describe the dynamics around $`T_g`$. It is not enough to classify glass formers as type A or B (Kudlik et al1999), depending on whether $`f_0(V)`$ shows a strong peak (Johari-Goldstein peak) below $`V_M`$ or not. On the other hand, this is a logical consequence of the validity of the energy landscape idea, because the energy landscape is different in different glass formers. If all relaxation centers up to the Maxwell barrier contribute to the flow process, then the description of its temperature and frequency dependence cannot be done by a single parameter. Below $`T_c`$, each glass former develops its own identity, a conclusion supported by experiment (Stickel et al1995, 1996; Hansen et al1997).

An enlightening talk on the current theories of the glass transition by R. Schilling at the Heraeus Summer School 2002 in Chemnitz was very helpful. Discussions with W. Götze, A. Heuer, R. Richert and H. R. Schober are gratefully acknowledged.

## References