text:
# IceCube - the next generation neutrino telescope at the South Pole

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The successful deployment and operation of the AMANDA detector have shown that the Antarctic Ice sheet is an ideal medium and location for a large neutrino telescope. The detection of atmospheric neutrinos in agreement with expectations  established AMANDA as a neutrino telescope. Searches for neutrinos from Supernova , dark matter , point sources of muon neutrinos  and diffuse sources of high energy electron  and muon neutrinos  have demonstrated the physics potential of a deep ice neutrino detector. However, a much larger detector is needed to reach a sensitivity required for the detection of many predicted neutrino fluxes. Current and proposed detectors at sites in the northern hemisphere are discussed in . IceCube is a projected under ice neutrino detector consisting of 4800 PMT on 80 strings distributed over an area of 1 km2 (figure 1) and instrumented at a depth between 1400 m and 2400 m. Detailed documentation can be found in . A surface airshower detector consisting of 160 stations over 1 km2 augments the deep ice component by providing a tool for calibration, background rejection and air shower physics. The Monte-Carlo simulation tools used to determine and optimize the performance of IceCube are verified with AMANDA data. They correctly describe the cosmic ray muon flux and the atmospheric neutrino flux .

One of the principal objectives of IceCube is the detection of sources of high energy neutrinos of astrophysical origin. IceCube is sensitive to all neutrino flavors over a wide range of energies. Muons can be observed from about $`10^{11}eV`$ to $`10^{18}eV`$ and beyond. Cascades, generated by $`\nu _e`$, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`\nu _\tau `$, and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ can be observed and reconstructed at energies above $`10^{13}eV`$. Tau events can be identified above energies of about a PeV. Interaction with the Earth will modulate the neutrino fluxes emerging at an underground detector.

The potential backgrounds of large underground detectors are downgoing cosmic ray muons, atmospheric neutrinos, and the dark noise signals detected in photomultipliers. The simulated trigger rate of downgoing cosmic ray muons in IceCube is 1700 Hz while the rate of atmospheric neutrinos ($`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) at trigger level is about 300/day. Depending on the type of signal to be searched for this background is rejected using direction, energy, and neutrino flavor. At energies below $``$1 PeV, neutrino astronomy must focus on upward going neutrinos. At energies above 1 PeV, the cosmic ray muon background disappears while the low energy cosmic ray background can be rejected using an energy rejection cut. The background contribution from dark noise is not significant because the total dark noise rate of the optical sensor in situ is expected to be less than 0.5 kHz.

The highest sensitivity for astrophysical point sources can be achieved with muons. The muon channel stands out for two reasons. 1.) Muons allow a very good angular resolution of $`0.7^{}`$ over a wide energy range. 2.) The effective volume for muons exceeds the geometric volume of the detector by factors of 10 to more than 50 depending on energy. Due to the long range of high energy muons the interaction of the $`\nu _\mu `$ can take place at distances of tens of kilometers outside of the detector. We will focus on the muon detection because it provides the benchmark sensitivity for some of the fundamental goals of high energy neutrino astronomy.

## 2 DETECTOR DESIGN

The detector consists of 4800 photomultipliers arranged on 80 strings at depths of 1400 to 2400 m. The strings are arranged in a regular spaced grid covering a surface area of 1 km2 as shown in figure 1. A surface component of 160 ice Cherenkov tanks provides a detector for air showers with an energy threshold of about 1 PeV. Each string consists of a 60 optical modules (OM) spaced at 17 m. The geometric arrangement and the total number of OM and strings is a result of MonteCarlo simulations with a variety of different geometries. The photomultiplier signals will be digitized inside the pressure housing . The digitized signals are given a global time stamp with a precision of $`<`$5 ns and transmitted to the surface. The digital messages are sent to a string processer, a global event trigger and event builder. All time calibrations will be automated. The geometry of the detector will be known to a precision of better than 2 m initially after the deployment. It will be calibrated more precisely ($`<1`$ m) with light flashers on board the OM and with cosmic ray muons. Both methods have been applied successfully in AMANDA. High energy signals and complex events can be calibrated with powerful lasers deployed with the detector. The absolute orientation can be calibrated with coincidences with the surface air shower component, IceTop, and over longer time scales, with the observations of the shadow of the moon. Once events are built in the surface DAQ, data will be processed and filtered. A reduced data set will be sent to the Northern hemisphere for further processing and data analysis on a daily basis. Twenty four hour satellite connectivity will be available for important messages. Construction of the detector is expected to commence in the Austral summer of 2004/2005 and continue for 6 years. The growing detector will be in operation during construction, with each string coming online within days after deployment.

## 3 FUNDAMENTAL PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

In detailed simulations we compared the response of the detector to cosmic ray muons, to atmospheric neutrinos and to a hypothetical hard neutrino spectrum as generated by a shock acceleration mechanism . The event rates generated by all three fluxes, normalized to one year of on-time, are listed in table 1. The event rates are given at trigger level (minimum of 5 OM signals within a section of a string) and for full event reconstruction with cuts applied for the rejection of the cosmic ray muon background, which we refer to as “level 2”. Unless specified otherwise, basic background rejection cuts (level 2) are applied for all results shown. With an assumed flux strength of $`E_\nu ^2\times dN_\nu /dE_\nu `$ = 10-7 s-1cm-2sr-1GeV for cosmic neutrinos, a factor of 10 below the current best limit to high energy diffuse neutrinos , we expect more than 1000 signal events. At this stage, both, the background from atmospheric neutrinos and the background from cosmic ray muons amount to roughly $`10^5`$ events atmospheric neutrino induced muon events is based on ) , including about 5000 events attributed to prompt decays of charmed mesons . The application of an energy cut will quickly suppress remaining cosmic ray muon background.

Figure 2 shows reconstructed zenith angle distributions of atmospheric neutrinos and of the injected cosmic neutrino flux. Downgoing atmospheric neutrinos are highly suppressed at the level because low energy cosmic ray muons need to be rejected with energy cuts. The zenith angle distribution of the astrophysical neutrino spectrum is modified little below the horizon. Above the horizon the losses are much smaller than for atmospheric neutrinos because of the harder spectrum. However, no energy cut has yet been applied yet to upgoing muons.

### 3.1 Effective Detector Area

The detector sensitivity can be expressed in several quantities. One possible choice is the “effective detector area”. It is defined as

$$A_{\mathrm{eff}}(E_\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu )=\frac{N_{\mathrm{detected}}(E_\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu )}{N_{\mathrm{generated}}(E_\mu ,\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu )}\times A_{\mathrm{gen}},$$
(1)
where $`N_{\mathrm{generated}}`$ is the number of muons in the test sample that have an energy $`E_\mu `$ at any point within the fiducial volume and an incident zenith angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu `$. We take the point of closest approach to the detector center (which might also lie outside the geometrical detector volume) for the energy dependency. $`N_{\mathrm{detected}}`$ is the number of such events that are triggered or pass the cut level under consideration.

The effective trigger area reaches one square kilometer at an energy of a few hundred GeV. Roughly 50% of all triggered events pass the “standard selection” (Level 2), independent of the muon energy. Figure 3 shows the effective areas for four separate energy ranges as a function of the zenith angle of the incident muon tracks. The detector will provide an effective detection area of one square kilometer for upward moving muons in the TeV range. Above 100 TeV the selection allows for a detection of downgoing neutrinos, i.e. for an observation of the southern hemisphere ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta >0`$). In the PeV range the effective area for downgoing muons is above 0.6 km2, increasing towards the horizon. This means that IceCube can be operated as a full sky observatory for PeV to EeV neutrinos.

#### 3.1.1 Angular resolution

The angular resolution of the detector is an important quantity for the search for neutrinos from point sources. Using the angular resolution of the detector, background events can be more easily eliminated by restricting the search to a small angular region about the known direction of the object under investigation. The median angular resolution (median pointing error) at different zenith angles is shown in figure 4.

The angular resolution is about $`0.7^{}`$ at TeV energies and approaches $`0.6^{}`$ near the horizon. We expect significant improvement of the pointing resolution with further development of the reconstruction algorithms, in particular from including amplitude or waveform information.

## 4 SENSITIVITY TO ASTROPHYSICAL NEUTRINO FLUXES

### 4.1 Diffuse fluxes

Theoretical models of astrophysical fluxes of high energy neutrinos are often linked to the known flux of very high energy cosmic rays, which are believed to be of extragalactic origin, see for example . Many models have been developed that predict the expected flux of neutrinos from the sum of all active galaxies in the universe. First we will consider the sensitivity of IceCube to detect a generic diffuse flux following an $`E^2`$ spectrum. The harder energy spectrum of an astrophysical neutrino flux can be used to discriminate the atmospheric neutrino spectrum from the signal. We use a very simple and robust observable, the number of optical modules which have seen at least one photon, called the channel multiplicity ($`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$), as an energy separation cut. Atmospheric neutrino induced events have typical channel multiplicities (event sizes) of about 30 to 60 channels. The assumed high energy signal flux dominates the atmospheric neutrino background above channel multiplicities of about 200.

The simulated source strength of $`E_\nu ^2\times dN_\nu /dE_\nu =1\times 10^7`$ s-1cm-2sr-1GeV would result in an expectation of 74 signal events in one year of operation, compared to 8 background events from atmospheric neutrinos, after applying an optimal energy cut ($`N_{\mathrm{ch}}>227`$). The background expectation was calculated using the prompt charm prediction of Bugaev et al., according to which, prompt decays of charmed mesons contribute 80% to the final atmospheric sample. After three years of operation an overall flux limit of $`E^2\times dN_\nu /dE_\nu =4.2\times 10^9`$ s-1cm-2sr-1GeVis obtained. This is more than two orders of magnitude below the current limit obtained with AMANDA. This sensitivity would improve by a factor of 2 when using the charm prediction of TIG . It should be noted that the sensitivity for diffuse $`\nu _e`$\- and $`\nu _\tau `$-fluxes may improve the overall sensitivity significantly. The energy spectra of the incident signal and background neutrinos are shown in figure 5. The applied energy cut results in an detection threshold of about 200 TeV. The sensitivity obtained after one year of data taking is already well below the Waxmann and Bahcall diffuse bound .

Apart from the generic case of a $`E^2`$ spectrum, which is typical for scenarios that involve meson production in interactions of Fermi accelerated cosmic rays with matter, we give the sensitivity to two other examples of diffuse models. Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen have calculated an upper bound on the diffuse neutrino flux arising from photohadronic interactions in unresolved AGN jets in the universe. Their flux bound is shown in figure 6 labeled *MPR*, as a function of energy. Also shown is a model by Stecker and Salamon  for proton interactions on the UV thermal photon field in AGN cores, labeled *S*&*S*. When testing the sensitivity of IceCube to these specific models we found that IceCube would be sensitive to a flux of 2% of the *MPR* flux, and $`2.310^3`$ of the Stecker/Salamon flux. Also shown is the GRB flux prediction by Waxmann and Bahcall  (dash-dotted line). Here, the sensitivity limit, defined as a potential exclusion at 90% C.L., was calculated for an observation of 500 bursts (expectation for one year) in the northern sky (see section 4.3).

### 4.2 Sensitivity to Point Sources

An excess of events from a particular direction in the sky indicates the existence of a point source. The angular resolution of $`0.7^{}`$ allows using a search window of one degree radius that greatly reduces the background, while retaining a large fraction of the signal. In order to reject the remaining small number of atmospheric neutrinos we add a soft energy cut by requiring a channel multiplicity of $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$=30. The applied energy cut suppresses atmospheric neutrinos of energies mostly below 1 TeV allowing a essentially background free detection potential for point sources. With these parameters we find an average flux upper limit of $`E_\nu ^2\times dN_\nu /dE_\nu =5.5\times 10^9`$ s-1cm-2GeV after one year of data taking. After five years of operation the sensitivity level would reach $`E^2\times dN_\nu /dE_\nu 1.7\times 10^9`$ s-1cm-2GeV .

### 4.3 Gamma Ray Burst Sensitivity

The origin of the high-energy gamma-ray burst emissions seen by orbiting satellites is still undetermined. If the acceleration mechanisms in these objects involve hadronic processes then the observed fluxes of gamma-rays should be accompanied by neutrinos. The detection of these neutrinos is made easier by using the time stamp and direction provided by the satellite observation. This small duration of gamma ray bursts allows for an essentially background-free search opportunity. Waxman and Bahcall  calculated the expected flux of neutrinos from the sum of all gamma-ray bursts by assuming that the acceleration mechanism is hadronic and is responsible for the observed flux of cosmic rays. The energy spectrum predicted by Waxman and Bahcall is shown in figure 6. A diffuse search for gamma-ray bursts involves summing over the observation time and spatial search windows for many separate bursts.

We considered at the moment an observation only over the northern sky, where the search will not be limited to higher energies due to downgoing CR muon background. A downgoing search would be similar, only it would require a harder energy cut. From the remaining rate of 500 bursts per $`2\pi `$ sr and year we would expect 13 neutrino induced up-going muons at 0.1 background events. For this analysis we used a hypothetical observation duration of 10 seconds and a spatial search cone of $`10^{}`$ centered about the direction of the GRB. The upper limit to the associated GRB flux would be 20% of the flux calculated by Waxmann and Bahcall.

## 5  OTHER SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES

### 5.1  Dark matter

If Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) make up the dark matter of the universe, they would also populate the galactic halo of our own Galaxy. They would get captured by the Earth or the sun where they would annihilate pairwise, producing high-energy muon neutrinos that can be searched for by neutrino telescopes. A favorite WIMP candidate is the lightest neutralino which arises in the Minimal Supersymmetric Model (MSSM). The typical energy of the neutrino-induced muons would be of the order of $`25\%`$ of the neutralino mass. The predicted muon rates from WIMPs annihilating in the Sun range up to $`10^4km^2`$ per year at $``$100 GeV and more than a $`10^4km^2`$ up to energies of $``$1 TeV. Current limits lie at fluxes of several thousand events at energies above 100 GeV. Simulations indicate that IceCube should reach sensitivities below 50 muon events per year for WIMPs from the sun . Analysis methods for WIMP searches be optimized for low energies. IceCube could play a complementary role to future direct detection experiments (like CRESST or GENIUS) for annihilation in the Earth, and may even have a slight advantage over direct detection experiments for certain low-mass WIMP models and annihilation in the Sun.

### 5.2  Cosmic rays and airshowers

Combined with the 1 km2 surface detector IceCube can do unique coincidence and anti-coincidence measurements with high energy air showers. In addition to providing a sample of events for calibration and for study of air-shower-induced backgrounds in IceCube, the surface array will act as a partial veto. All events generated by showers with $`E>10^{15}`$ eV can be vetoed when the shower passes through the surface array. In addition, higher energy events, which are a potential source of background for neutrino-induced cascades, can be vetoed even by showers passing a long distance outside the array. The IceCube-IceTop coincidence data will cover the energy range from below the knee of the cosmic-ray spectrum to $`>10^{18}`$eV. Each event will contain a measure of the shower size at the surface and a signal from the deep detector produced by muons with $`E>300GeV`$ at production. At the high elevation of the South Pole, showers will be observed near maximum so that measured shower size provides a good measure of the total shower size. The combined measurement of the muon-induced signal in IceCube and the shower size at the surface will give a new measure of primary composition over three orders of magnitude in energy. In particular, if the knee is due to a steepening of the rigidity spectrum, a steepening of the spectrum of protons around $`310^{15}`$ eV should be followed by a break in the spectrum of iron at $`810^{16}eV`$. The method to measure the composition has been developed and applied successfully with AMANDA and the surface airshower array SPASE-2 .

### 5.3  SUPERNOVAE

Although the MeV-level energies of supernova neutrinos are far below the AMANDA/IceCube trigger threshold, a supernova could be detected by observing higher counting rates of individual PMTs over a time window of 5-10 s. The enhancement in rate of one PMT will be buried in dark noise signals of that PMT. However, summing the signals from all PMTs over 10 s, significant excesses can be observed. With background rates more than 10 times lower than ocean experiments, IceCube has the potential to see a supernova and to generate an alarm signal.

### 5.4 Cascades and very high energies

Due to its large and regularly instrument volume, IceCube has a high sensitivity for cascades generated by $`\nu _e`$, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`\nu _\tau `$, and $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. Cascades have a superior energy resolution because all energy is deposited on a small volume of $``$10 metres diameter, and the amount of Cherenkov photons scales linearly with the deposited energy. At energies above a few tens of TeV the detector becomes fully efficient to cascade detection with an effective volume comparable to the geometric volume of 1 km3. At energies above 1 PeV chances increase to distinguish tau events from the $`\nu _e`$-induced cascades. Extremely energetic muon events reach effective areas well beyond the geometric area as indicated in figure 3. Effective areas at 1018 eV are estimated to reach more than 2.5 km2. Reconstruction algorithms for the more complex event topologies such as from tau events and for extreme energies beyond 1018 eV are not developed yet. However, the high resolution and high dynamic range data acquisition system of IceCube will provide rich information to extract the physics from such events.

## 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This material is based upon work supported by the following agencies: The U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. OPP-9980474 and OPP-0236449; University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; U.S. Department of Energy; Swedish Research Council; Swedish Polar Research Secretariat; Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Germany); U.S. National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (supported by the Office of Energy Research of the U.S. Department of Energy); Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).


format: text

text:
# ON CONTRACTIONS OF CLASSICAL BASIC SUPERALGEBRAS

## 1 Introduction

Since their discovery , ,  in 1971 the supersymmetry is used in different physical theories such as Kaluza–Klein supergravity , supersymmetric field theories of the Wess–Zumino type , massless higher-spin field theories . Recently the secret theory  (or S-theory) that includes superstring theory and its super p-brane and D-brane  generalizations was discussed. All these theories are build algebraically with the help of some superalgebra in their base. In this work we wish to present a wide class of Cayley–Klein (CK) superalgebras which may be used for constructions of different sypersymmetric models.

For an ordinary Lie groups (or algebras) the title CK was initially used for the short name of the set of a motion groups of a spaces of constant curvature. It is well known that there are $`3^n`$ n-dimensional spaces of constant curvature and their motion groups may be obtained from the orthogonal group $`SO(n+1)`$ with the help of contractions and analytical continuations . Later the notion CK was extend to the case of unitary and symplectic groups (algebras) . The typical (and attractive) property of CK groups is that all of them are depend on the same number of independent parameters as the corresponding simple classical group. On the level of Lie algebras this means that all CK algebras of the same type have the equal dimensions. A basic superalgebras include a simple algebras as an even subalgebras, so it looks quite natural to introduce a new class of superalgebras with CK algebras as an even subalgebras.

A superalgebra as an algebraic structure contain (as compared with Lie algebra) a new additional operation, namely, $`Z_2`$-grading. So under contraction of superalgebra this $`Z_2`$-grading must be conserved. To our knowledge contraction of orthosymplectic superalgebra to the superkinematics was first regarded in . The detailed investigation a class of contraction of $`osp(1|2)`$ and $`osp(1|4)`$ to the kinematical Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ and Galilei superalgebras was made in . Contraction of unitary superalgebra $`Gsu(2)=sl(2|1)`$ as well as their representations was described in . Later the notion of contraction was generalized  to the case of Lie algebra with an arbitrary finite grading group and is known as graded contractions. Nevertheless the particular case of the simplest $`Z_2`$-grading deserve an independent interest. The preliminary results was reported in .

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the orthogonal, symplectic and special linear CK groups and algebras are briefly remind. Section 3 is devoted to the orthosymplectic CK superalgebras. CK unitary superalgebras are regarded in section 4. Casimir operators of the CK unitary and orthosymplectic superalgebras are described in section 5.

## 2  Orthogonal, symplectic and special linear Cayley-Klein algebras

Special linear $`sl(m),`$ orthogonal $`so(m)`$ and symplectic $`sp(2n)`$ algebras are even subalgebras of classical basic superalgebras. On the other hand all of them may be contracted and analytically continued to the set of CK algebras. Lie groups and algebras are in close relations. CK group $`SO(m;j)`$ is defined as the set of transformations of vector space $`𝐑_m(j),`$ which preserve the quadratic form $`x^2(j)=x^t(j)x(j)=x_1^2+_{k=2}^m(1,k)^2x_k^2,`$ where $`(i,k)=_{p=\mathrm{min}(i,k)}^{\mathrm{max}(i,k)1}j_p,(i,i)=1,`$ each parameter $`j_k=1,\iota _k,i,`$ where $`\iota _k`$ are nilpotent $`\iota _k^2=0,`$ commutative $`\iota _k\iota _p=\iota _p\iota _k0`$ generators of Pimenov algebra $`P(\iota ).`$ Cartesian components of vector $`x(j)𝐑_m(j)`$ are $`x^t(j)=(x_1,j_1x_2,\mathrm{},(1,m)x_m)^t,`$ as it is easily follows from $`x^2(j).`$ For $`m\times m`$ matrix $`g(j)SO(m;j)`$ the transformation $`g(j):𝐑_m(j)𝐑_m(j)`$ means that the vector $`x^{}(j)=g(j)x(j)`$ has exactly the same distribution of parameters $`j`$ among its components as $`x(j).`$ This requirement give an opportunity to obtain the distribution of parameters $`j`$ among elements of matrix $`g(j),`$ i.e. to build the fundamental representation of CK group $`SO(m;j)`$ starting from the quadratic form. It is remarkable that the same distribution of the parameters $`j`$ is hold for CK Lie algebra $`so(m;j),`$ namely $`A_{ik}=(i,k)a_{ik},`$ for $`Aso(m;j).`$

The set of transformations $`L(j):𝐑_m(j)𝐑_m(j)`$ with the property $`detL(j)=1`$ form CK special linear group $`SL(m;j)`$ and the corresponding CK algebras $`sl(m;j)`$ are given by the $`m\times m`$ matricies $`l(j),`$ tr $`l(j)=0.`$ Let us stress that in Cartesian basis all matricies from $`SL(m;j),SO(m;j),sl(m;j),so(m;j)`$ have identical distribution of parameters $`j`$ among its elements, i.e. they are of the same type as the matricies with elements from Pimenov algebra $`P(j).`$

CK symplectic group $`Sp(2n;\omega )`$ is defined as the set of transformations of $`𝐑_n(\omega )\times 𝐑_n(\omega ),`$ which preserve the bilinear form $`S(\omega )=S_1+_{k=2}^n[1,k]^2S_k,`$ where $`S_k(y,z)=y_kz_{n+k}y_{n+k}z_k,[i,k]=_{p=\mathrm{min}(i,k)}^{\mathrm{max}(i,k)1}\omega _k,[i,i]=1,\omega _k=1,\xi _k,i,\xi _k^2=0,\xi _k\xi _p=\xi _p\xi _k.`$ The distribution of parameters $`\omega _k`$ among matrix elements of the fundamental representation $`M(\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}H(\omega )& E(\omega )\\ F(\omega )& H^t(\omega )\end{array}\right)`$ of the CK symplectic algebra $`sp(2n;\omega )`$ may be obtained as for orthogonal CK algebras and is as follows: $`B_{ik}=[i,k]b_{ik},`$ where $`B=H(\omega ),E(\omega ),F(\omega ).`$

## 3  Orthosymplectic superalgebras $`osp(m;j|2n;\omega )`$

Let $`e_{IJ}M_{m+2n}`$ satisfying $`(e_{IJ})_{KL}=\delta _{IK}\delta _{JL}`$ are elementary matrices. One defines the following graded matrix

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_m& 0\\ & \\ 0& 0I_n\\ & I_n0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`I_m,I_n`$ are identity matrices. Let $`i,j,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},m,\overline{i},\overline{j}=m+1,\mathrm{},m+2n.`$ The generators of the orthosymplectic superalgebra $`osp(m|2n)`$ are given by

$$E_{ij}=E_{ji}=\underset{k}{}(G_{ik}e_{kj}G_{jk}e_{ki}),E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}=E_{\overline{j}\overline{i}}=\underset{\overline{k}}{}(G_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}e_{\overline{k}\overline{j}}+G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}e_{\overline{k}\overline{i}}),$$

$$E_{i\overline{j}}=E_{\overline{j}i}=\underset{k}{}G_{ik}e_{k\overline{j}}+\underset{\overline{k}}{}G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}e_{\overline{k}i},$$
(2)
where the even (bosonic) $`E_{ij}`$ generate the $`so(m)`$ part, the even (bosonic) $`E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}`$ generate the $`sp(2n)`$ part and the rest $`E_{i\overline{j}}`$ are the odd (fermionic) generators of superalgebra. They satisfy the following (super) commutation relations

$$[E_{ij},E_{kl}]=G_{jk}E_{il}+G_{il}E_{jk}G_{ik}E_{jl}G_{jl}E_{ik},$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}E_{\overline{i}\overline{l}}G_{\overline{i}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}G_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}E_{\overline{j}\overline{l}},$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{k\overline{l}}]=G_{jk}E_{i\overline{l}}G_{ik}E_{j\overline{l}},[E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}E_{i\overline{l}}G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{i\overline{k}},$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=0,\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{k\overline{l}}\}=G_{ik}E_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{ik}.$$
(3)
In the matrix form $`osp(m|2n)=\{MM_{m+2n}|M^{st}G+GM=0\}.`$ If the matrix $`M`$ has the following form: $`M=_{i,j}a_{ij}E_{ij}+_{\overline{i},\overline{j}}b_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}+_{i\overline{j}}\mu _{i\overline{j}}E_{i\overline{j}},`$ with $`a_{ij},b_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}`$ R or C and $`\mu _{i\overline{j}}`$ as the odd nilpotent elements of Grassmann algebra: $`\mu _{i\overline{j}}^2=0,\mu _{i\overline{j}}\mu _{i^{}\overline{j}^{}}=\mu _{i^{}\overline{j}^{}}\mu _{i\overline{j}},`$ then the corresponding supergroup $`Osp(m|2n)`$ is obtained by the exponential map $`=\mathrm{exp}M`$ and act on (super)vector space by matrix multiplication $`𝒳^{}=𝒳,`$ where $`𝒳^t=(x|\theta )^t,`$ $`x`$ is a $`n`$–dimentsional even vector and $`\theta `$ is a $`2m`$–dimensional odd vector with odd Grassmann elements. The form $`inv=_{i=1}^mx_i^2+2_{k=1}^n\theta _{+k}\theta _k=x^2+2\theta ^2`$ is invariant under this action of orthosymplectic supergroup.

We shall define CK orthosymplectic superalgebras starting with the invariant form

$$inv(j;\omega )=u^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1,k)^2x_k^2+2v^2\underset{\overline{k}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}[1,\widehat{\overline{k}}]^2\theta _{\widehat{\overline{k}}}\theta _{\widehat{\overline{k}}}u^2x^2(j)+2v^2\theta ^2(\omega ),$$
(4)
$`\widehat{\overline{k}}=\overline{k}m,`$ when $`\overline{k}=m+1,\mathrm{},m+n`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{k}}=\overline{k}mn,`$ when $`\overline{k}=m+n+1,\mathrm{},m+2n,`$ which is the natural unification of CK orthogonal and symplectic forms. The distributions of contraction parameters $`j,\omega `$ among matrix elements of the fundamental representation of $`osp(m;j|2n;\omega )`$ and the transformations of the generators (2) are obtained in a standart CK manner and are as follows:

$$E_{ik}=(i,k)E_{ik}^{},E_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}=[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}}]E_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}^{},E_{i\overline{k}}=u(1,i)v[1,\widehat{\overline{k}}]E_{i\overline{k}}^{},$$
(5)
where $`E^{}`$ are generators (2) of the starting superalgebra $`osp(m|2n).`$ The transformed generators are subject of the (super) commutation relations:

$$[E_{ij},E_{kl}]=(i,j)(k,l)\left(\frac{G_{jk}E_{il}}{(i,l)}+\frac{G_{il}E_{jk}}{(j,k)}\frac{G_{ik}E_{jl}}{(j,l)}\frac{G_{jl}E_{ik}}{(i,k)}\right),$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}][\widehat{\overline{k}},\widehat{\overline{l}}]\left(\frac{G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}E_{\overline{i}\overline{l}}}{[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{l}}]}+\frac{G_{\overline{i}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}}{[\widehat{\overline{j}},\widehat{\overline{k}}]}+\frac{G_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}E_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}}{[\widehat{\overline{j}},\widehat{\overline{l}}]}+\frac{G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{i}\overline{k}}}{[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}}]}\right),$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=0,[E_{ij},E_{k\overline{l}}]=(i,j)(1,k)\left(\frac{G_{jk}E_{i\overline{l}}}{(1,i)}\frac{G_{ik}E_{j\overline{l}}}{(1,j)}\right),$$

$$[E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}]=[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}][\widehat{\overline{k}},\widehat{\overline{l}}]\left(\frac{G_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}E_{i\overline{l}}}{[1,\widehat{\overline{l}}]}+\frac{G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{i\overline{k}}}{[1,\widehat{\overline{k}}]}\right),$$

$$\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{k\overline{l}}\}=u^2v^2(1,i)[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}](1,k)[1,\widehat{\overline{l}}]\left(\frac{G_{ik}E_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}}{[\widehat{\overline{j}},\widehat{\overline{l}}]}\frac{G_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}E_{ik}}{(i,k)}\right).$$
(6)
For $`u=\iota `$ or $`v=\iota ,\iota ^2=0`$ superalgebra $`osp(m|2n)`$ is contracted to inhomogeneous superalgebra, which is semidirect sum $`\{E_{i\overline{j}}\}+(so(m)sp(2n)),`$ with all anticommutators of the odd generators equal to zero $`\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{k\overline{p}}\}=0.`$

### 3.1 Example: CK contractions of $`osp(3|2)`$

This superalgebra has $`so(3)`$ as even subalgebra therefore their contractions to the kinematical $`(1+1)`$ Poincare, Newton and Galilei superalgebras may be fulfilled according to general CK scheme of the first section. But unlike of two odd generators of $`osp(1|2)`$ the superalgebra $`osp(3|2)`$ has six odd generators. In the basis $`X_{ik}=E_{ki},k,i=1,2,3,F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_{44},E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_{55},H=E_{45},Q_k=E_{k4},Q_k=E_{k5}`$ the generators are affected by the contraction coefficients $`j_1,j_2`$ in the following way

$$X_{ik}(i,k)X_{ik},Q_{\pm k}(1,k)Q_{\pm k}$$
(7)
and $`H,F,E`$ are remained unchanged. Then superalgebra $`osp(3;j|2)`$ is given by

$$[X_{12},X_{13}]=j_1^2X_{23},[X_{13},X_{23}]=j_2^2X_{12},[X_{23},X_{12}]=X_{13},$$

$$[H,E]=2E,[H,F]=2F,[E,F]=H,$$

$$[X_{ik},Q_{\pm i}]=Q_{\pm k},[X_{ik},Q_{\pm k}]=(i,k)^2Q_{\pm i}^2,i<k,$$

$$[H,Q_{\pm k}]=Q_{\pm k},[E,Q_k]=Q_k,[F,Q_k]=Q_k,$$

$$\{Q_k,Q_k\}=(1,k)^2F,\{Q_k,Q_k\}=(1,k)^2E,$$

$$\{Q_k,Q_k\}=(1,k)^2H,\{Q_{\pm i},Q_k\}=\pm (1,k)^2X_{ik}.$$
(8)
The non-minimal Poincare superalgebra is obtained for $`j_1=\iota _1,j_2=i`$ and has the structure of the semidirect sum $`T+(\{X_{23}\}osp(1|2)),`$ where abelian $`T=\{X_{12},X_{13},Q_{\pm 2},Q_{\pm 3}\}`$ and $`osp(1|2)=\{H,E,F,Q_{\pm 1}\}.`$ The Newton superalgebra $`osp(3;\iota _2|2)=T_2+osp(2|2),`$ where $`T_2=\{X_{13},X_{23},Q_{\pm 3}\}`$ and $`osp(2|2)`$ is generated by $`X_{12},H,E,F,Q_{\pm 1},Q_{\pm 2}.`$ Finally the non-minimal Galilei superalgebra may be presented as semidirect sums $`osp(3;\iota _1,\iota _2|2)=(T+\{X_{23}\})+osp(1|2)=T+(\{X_{23}\}osp(1|2)).`$

## 4 Unitary superalgebras $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$

The superalgebras $`sl(m|n)`$ can be generated as a matrix superalgebras by taking matrices of the form

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X_{mm}& T_{mn}\\ T_{nm}& X_{nn}\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
where $`X_{mm}`$ and $`X_{nn}`$ are $`gl(m)`$ and $`gl(n)`$ matrices, $`T_{mn}`$ and $`T_{nm}`$ are $`m\times n`$ and $`n\times m`$ matrices respectively, with the supertrace condition

$$\mathrm{str}(M)=\mathrm{tr}(X_{mm})\mathrm{tr}(X_{nn})=0.$$
(10)
This matrix superalgebra is the set of transformations of the superspace with $`m`$ even coordinates $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$ and $`n`$ odd ones $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n`$.

A basis of superalgebra $`sl(m|n)`$ can be constructed as follows. Define the $`(m+n)^21`$ generators

$`E_{ij}=e_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mn}}\delta _{ij}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e_{kk}+{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{k}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}}e_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}\right),`$ $`E_{i\overline{j}}=e_{i\overline{j}},`$ (11)
$`E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}=e_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mn}}\delta _{\overline{i}\overline{j}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e_{kk}+{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{k}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}}e_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}\right),`$ $`E_{\overline{i}j}=e_{\overline{i}j},`$ (12)
where the indices $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ run from $`1`$ to $`m`$ and $`\overline{i},\overline{j},\mathrm{}`$ from $`m+1`$ to $`m+n`$. The generators of $`sl(m|n)`$ in the Cartan-Weyl basis are given by

$`H_i`$ $`=`$ $`E_{ij}E_{i+1,j+1},1im1,`$
$`H_{\overline{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\overline{i}\overline{i}}E_{\overline{i}+1,\overline{i}+1},m+1\overline{i}m+n1,`$
$`H_m`$ $`=`$ $`E_{mm}+E_{m+1,m+1},`$
$`E_{ij}`$ $`\mathrm{for}sl(m),E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}\mathrm{for}sl(n),`$
$`E_{i\overline{j}}`$ $`\mathrm{and}E_{\overline{i}j}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{part}`$ (13)
and their commutation relations looked as

$`[H_I,H_J]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
$`[H_K,E_{IJ}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{IK}E_{KJ}\delta _{I,K+1}E_{K+1,J}\delta _{KJ}E_{IK}+\delta _{K+1,J}E_{I,K+1},(Km),`$ (15)
$`[H_m,E_{IJ}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{Im}E_{mJ}\delta _{I,m+1}E_{m+1,J}\delta _{mJ}E_{Im}+\delta _{m+1,J}E_{I,m+1},`$ (16)
$`[E_{IJ},E_{KL}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{JK}E_{IL}\delta _{IL}E_{KJ}\mathrm{for}E_{IJ}\mathrm{and}E_{KL}\mathrm{even},`$ (17)
$`[E_{IJ},E_{KL}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{JK}E_{IL}\delta _{IL}E_{KJ}\mathrm{for}E_{IJ}\mathrm{even}\mathrm{and}E_{KL}\mathrm{odd},`$ (18)
$`\{E_{IJ},E_{KL}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{JK}E_{IL}+\delta _{IL}E_{KJ}\mathrm{for}E_{IJ}\mathrm{and}E_{KL}\mathrm{odd}.`$ (19)
CK special linear (or unitary) superalgebras $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ are consistent with the transformations of (super) vectors

$$𝒳^t(j,ϵ)=(x_1,j_1x_2,\mathrm{},(1,m)x_m|\nu (x_{m+1},ϵ_1x_{m+2},\mathrm{},[1,n]x_{m+n}))^t,$$
(20)
where the odd components are denote as $`x_{m+1}=\theta _1,\mathrm{},x_{m+n}=\theta _n`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{i}}=\overline{i}m,\widehat{\overline{k}}=\overline{k}m=1,\mathrm{},n,[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}}]=_{l=\mathrm{min}(\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}})}^{\mathrm{max}(\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}})1}ϵ_l,ϵ_l=1,\xi _l,i,\xi _l^2=0,\xi _l\xi _p=\xi _p\xi _l0.`$ The components of $`𝒳(j;ϵ)`$ are choosen in such a way that the contraction parameters $`ϵ_l`$ of the odd components were independent of the contraction parameters $`j_l`$ of the even ones. The transformations of the standart generators (13) (marked with star) of the special linear superalgebra $`sl(m|n)`$ to the generators of $`sl(m;j|n,ϵ)`$ are given by

$$H_I=H_I^{},E_{ij}=(i,j)E_{ij}^{},E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}=[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^{},ij,\overline{i}\overline{j},$$

$$E_{i\overline{j}}=\nu (1,i)[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}]E_{i\overline{j}}^{},E_{\overline{i}j}=\nu (1,j)[1,\widehat{\overline{i}}]E_{\overline{i}j}^{}.$$
(21)
Nonzero commutators and anticommutators are easily obtained from the corresponding commutation relations (19) of the initial superalgebra $`sl(m|n)`$ in the form

$$[H_K,E_{IJ}]=\delta _{IK}E_{KJ}\delta _{I,K+1}E_{K+1,J}\delta _{KJ}E_{IK}+\delta _{K+1,J}E_{I,K+1},$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{jl}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{il},\hfill & i<j<l,l<j<i,li,\hfill \\ (l,j)^2E_{il},\hfill & i<l<j\mathrm{or}j<l<i,\hfill \\ (i,j)^2E_{il},\hfill & l<i<j\mathrm{or}j<i<i,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{kj}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{kj},\hfill & k<i<j,j<i<k,kj,\hfill \\ (i,j)^2E_{kj},\hfill & i<j<k\mathrm{or}k<j<i,\hfill \\ (i,k)^2E_{kj},\hfill & i<k<j\mathrm{or}j<k<i,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{ji}]=(i,j)^2(E_{ii}E_{jj}),$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{j}\overline{l}}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{\overline{i}\overline{l}},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{j}<\overline{l},\overline{l}<\overline{j}<\overline{i},\overline{l}\overline{i},\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{l}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{\overline{i}\overline{l}},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{l}<\overline{j}\mathrm{or}\overline{j}<\overline{l}<\overline{i},\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{\overline{i}\overline{l}},\hfill & \overline{l}<\overline{i}<\overline{j}\mathrm{or}\overline{j}<\overline{i}<\overline{k},\hfill \end{array}$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{k}<\overline{i}<\overline{j},\overline{j}<\overline{i}<\overline{k},\overline{k}\overline{j},\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{j}<\overline{k}\mathrm{or}\overline{k}<\overline{j}<\overline{i},\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{k}}]^2E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{k}<\overline{j}\mathrm{or}\overline{j}<\overline{k}<\overline{i},\hfill \end{array}$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{j}\overline{i}}]=[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2(E_{\overline{i}\overline{i}}E_{\overline{j}\overline{j}}),$$

$$[E_{ij},E_{j\overline{l}}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}(i,j)^2E_{i\overline{l}},\hfill & i<j,\hfill \\ E_{i\overline{l}},\hfill & i>j,\hfill \end{array}[E_{ij},E_{\overline{k}i}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{\overline{k}j},\hfill & i<j,\hfill \\ (j,i)^2E_{\overline{k}j},\hfill & i>j,\hfill \end{array},$$

$$[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{k\overline{i}}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}E_{k\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{j},\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{j}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{k\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{i}>\overline{j},\hfill \end{array}[E_{\overline{i}\overline{j}},E_{\overline{j}l}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}[\widehat{\overline{i}},\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{\overline{i}l},\hfill & \overline{i}<\overline{j},\hfill \\ E_{\overline{i}l},\hfill & \overline{i}>\overline{j},\hfill \end{array},$$

$$\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{j}l}\}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu ^2[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2(1,i)^2E_{il},\hfill & i<l,\hfill \\ \nu ^2[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2(1,l)^2E_{il},\hfill & i>l,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{k}i}\}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\nu ^2(1,i)^2[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{j}<\overline{k},\hfill \\ \nu ^2(1,i)^2[1,\widehat{\overline{k}}]^2E_{\overline{k}\overline{j}},\hfill & \overline{j}>\overline{k},\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{j}i}\}=\nu ^2(1,i)^2[1,\widehat{\overline{j}}]^2(E_{ii}+E_{\overline{j}\overline{j}}).$$
(22)
For $`\nu =\iota `$ superalgebra $`sl(m|n)`$ is contracted to inhomogeneous superalgebra, which is semidirect sum $`\{E_{i\overline{j}},E_{\overline{i}j}\}+(sl(m)sl(n)),`$ with all anticommutators of the odd generators equal to zero.

### 4.1 Example: CK contractions of $`sl(2|1)`$

The generators of superalgebra $`sl(2;j_1;\nu |1)`$ is given by

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),Z=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$E_{12}=E^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& j_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),E_{21}=E^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ j_1& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$E_{13}=\overline{F}^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \nu \\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),E_{31}=F^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ \nu & 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$E_{32}=F^+=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ 0& \nu j_1& 0\end{array}\right),E_{23}=\overline{F}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \nu j_1\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
and acts on the superspace $`(x_1,j_1x_2|\nu \theta _1).`$ The commutation relations are represented as

$$[H,E^\pm ]=\pm E^\pm ,[E^+,E^{}]=2j_1^2H,[Z,H]=[Z,E^\pm ]=[E^\pm ,\overline{F}^\pm ]=[E^\pm ,F^\pm ]=0,$$

$$[H,\overline{F}^\pm ]=\pm \frac{1}{2}\overline{F}^\pm ,[H,F^\pm ]=\pm \frac{1}{2}F^\pm ,[Z,F^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}F^\pm ,[Z,\overline{F}^\pm ]=\frac{1}{2}\overline{F}^\pm ,$$

$$[E^+,F^{}]=F^+,[E^{},F^+]=j_1^2F^{},[E^+,\overline{F}^{}]=j_1^2\overline{F}^+,[E^{},\overline{F}^+]=\overline{F}^{},$$

$$\{F^+,\overline{F}^{}\}=\nu ^2j_1^2(ZH),\{F^{},\overline{F}^+\}=\nu ^2(Z+H),$$

$$\{\overline{F}^+,F^+\}=\nu ^2E^+,\{\overline{F}^{},F^{}\}=\nu ^2E^{},\{\overline{F}^+,\overline{F}^{}\}=\{F^+,F^{}\}=0.$$
(24)
For $`\nu =\iota `$ we obtain the semidirect sum of the abelian odd subalgebra with the direct sum of the even subalgebras, namely, $`sl(2;j_1;\iota |1)=\{F^\pm ,\overline{F}^\pm \}+(u(1)sl(2)).`$ Two-dimensional contraction $`\nu =\iota ,j_1=\iota _1`$ give in result similar semidirect sum $`sl(2;\iota _1;\iota |1)=\{F^\pm ,\overline{F}^\pm \}+(u(1)sl(2;\iota _1))`$ but with the subalgebra $`sl(2;\iota _1)=\{H,E^\pm \}`$ instead of $`sl(2).`$ Under contraction $`j_1=\iota _1`$ we have the semidirect sum $`sl(2;\iota _1;\nu |1)=\{E^\pm ,F^+,\overline{F}^{}\}+\{H,Z,F^{},\overline{F}^+\}`$ of the subsuperalgebras each of them generated both even and odd generators.

## 5 Casimir operators

The study of Casimir operators plays a grate role in the representation theory of simple Lie algebras since their eigenvalues characterize a representations. In the case of Lie superalgebras their eigenvalues completely characterize a typical representation while they are identically vanishing on an atypical representation. An element $`C`$ of universal enveloping superalgebra $`U(A)`$ commuting with all elements of $`U(A)`$ is called a Casimir operator of superalgebra $`A.`$ The algebra of the Casimir operators of $`A`$ is the $`Z_2`$-center of $`U(A).`$

Casimir operators of the basic Lie superalgebras can be constructed as follows , , . Let $`A=sl(m|n)`$ with $`mn`$ or $`osp(m|n)`$ be a basic Lie superalgebra. Let $`\{E_{IJ}\}`$ be a matrix basis of generators of $`A`$ where $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},m+n`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}I=0`$ for $`I=1,\mathrm{},m`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}I=1`$ for $`I=m+1,\mathrm{},m+n.`$ Then defining $`(\overline{E})_{IK}=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}K}E_{IK},`$ a standard sequence of Casimir operators is given by

$$C_p=str(\overline{E}^p)=\underset{I=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}I}(\overline{E}^p)_{II}=$$

$$=\underset{I,I_1,\mathrm{},I_{p1}=1}{\overset{m+n}{}}E_{II_1}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}I_1}\mathrm{}E_{I_kI_{k+1}}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}I_{k+1}}\mathrm{}E_{I_{p1}I}.$$
(25)
In the case of $`sl(m|n)`$ with $`mn`$ one finds for example $`C_1=0`$ and

$$C_2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_{ij}E_{ji}\underset{\overline{k},\overline{l}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{l}\overline{k}}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{\overline{k}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}(E_{\overline{k}i}E_{i\overline{k}}E_{i\overline{k}}E_{\overline{k}i})\frac{mn}{mn}Y^2.$$
(26)
The diagonal elements of matrix $`\overline{E}`$ are taken in the form $`(\overline{E})_{ii}=E_{ii}+\frac{1}{m}Y,(\overline{E})_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}=E_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}+\frac{1}{n}Y`$ and two conditions on generators: $`_{i=1}^mE_{ii}=0,_{\overline{k}=m+1}^{m+n}E_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}=0`$ are taken into consideration. In the case of $`osp(m|n)`$ one finds $`C_1=0`$ and

$$C_2=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_{ij}E_{ji}\underset{\overline{k},\overline{l}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}E_{\overline{k}\overline{l}}E_{\overline{l}\overline{k}}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{\overline{k}=m+1}{\overset{m+n}{}}(E_{\overline{k}i}E_{i\overline{k}}E_{i\overline{k}}E_{\overline{k}i}).$$
(27)
One has to stress that unlike the algebraic case, the center of $`U(A)`$ for the classical Lie superalgebras is in general not finitely generated. For only Lie superalgebra $`osp(1|2n)`$ the center of its universal enveloping superalgebra is generated by $`n`$ Casimir operators of degree $`2,4,\mathrm{},2n.`$

To obtain Casimir operators of superalgebra $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ we shall proceed in the standart manner. First we get the matrix $`\overline{E}(j;ϵ).`$ For this we put in matrix $`\overline{E}`$ the new generators of $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ instead of the old ones of $`sl(m;n)`$ according to (21) and denote the obtained matrix as $`\overline{E}().`$ In general its elements are undefined for nilpotent values of parameters $`j,ϵ,\nu .`$ So it is necessary to multiply $`\overline{E}()`$ on minimal multiplier which eliminate all undefined expressions in matrix elements, namely, $`\nu (1,m)[1,n].`$ Finally we have

$$\overline{E}(j;ϵ)=\nu (1,m)[1,n]\overline{E}()$$
(28)
with matrix elements $`(kp,\overline{k}\overline{p})`$

$$(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{kk}=\nu (1,m)[1,n](E_{kk}+\frac{1}{m}Y),(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}=\nu (1,m)[1,n](E_{\overline{k}\overline{k}}+\frac{1}{n}Y),$$

$$(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{kp}=\nu (1,k)(p,m)[1,n]E_{kp},(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{\overline{k}\overline{p}}=\nu (1,m)[1,\widehat{\overline{k}}][\widehat{\overline{p}},n]E_{\overline{k}\overline{p}},$$

$$(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{i\overline{k}}=(i,m)[\widehat{\overline{k}},n]E_{i\overline{k}},(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{\overline{i}k}=(k,m)[\widehat{\overline{i}},n]E_{\overline{i}k}.$$
(29)
Maximal multiplier $`\nu (1,m)[1,n]`$ have the diagonal elements and minimal unit multiplier have the matrix elements $`(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{m,m+n}=E_{m,m+n},(\overline{E}(j;ϵ))_{m+n,m}=E_{m+n,m}.`$

The sequence of Casimir operators of $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ is given by

$$C_p(j;ϵ)=\mathrm{str}\overline{E}^p(j;ϵ)=\nu ^p(1,m)^p[1,n]^p\mathrm{str}(\overline{E}())^p.$$
(30)
Indeed, let $`X^{}`$ be an arbitrary generator of $`sl(m|n)`$. Under computing $`[C_p,X^{}]=0`$ we get identical terms but with different signs (plus and minus) so their sum is equal to zero. Under transformation of this commutator to the corresponding commutator of $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ identical terms are multiplied on identical multipliers therefore their sum remains equal to zero, i.e. $`[C_p(j;ϵ),X]=0.`$

Let us illustrate the above expressions on the simple example of $`sl(2;j_1|1)`$ superalgebra. The generators are transformed as follows

$$E_{11}=E_{11}^{},Y=Y^{},E_{12}=j_1E_{12}^{},E_{21}=j_1E_{21}^{},E_{13}=\nu E_{13}^{},$$

$$E_{31}=\nu E_{31}^{},E_{23}=\nu j_1E_{23}^{},E_{32}=\nu j_1E_{32}^{}.$$
(31)
and matrix $`\overline{E}(j_1)`$ according to (28),(29) is given by

$$\overline{E}(j_1)=\nu j_1\overline{E}()=\nu j_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E_{11}+\frac{1}{2}Y& \frac{1}{j_1}E_{12}& \frac{1}{\nu }E_{13}\\ \frac{1}{j_1}E_{21}& E_{22}+\frac{1}{2}Y& \frac{1}{\nu j_1}E_{23}\\ & & \\ \frac{1}{\nu }E_{31}& \frac{1}{\nu j_1}E_{32}& Y\end{array}\right)=$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\nu j_1(E_{11}+\frac{1}{2}Y)& \nu E_{12}& j_1E_{23}\\ \nu E_{21}& \nu j_1(E_{22}+\frac{1}{2}Y)& E_{23}\\ & & \\ j_1E_{31}& E_{32}& \nu j_1Y\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
The first order Casimir operator disappear $`C_1(j_1)=\mathrm{str}\overline{E}(j_1)=0.`$ The second order Casimir operator is as follows

$$C_2(j_1)=\mathrm{str}(\overline{E}(j_1))^2=\nu ^2j_1^2\left(2E_{11}^2\frac{1}{2}Y^2\right)+\nu ^2\left(E_{12}E_{21}+E_{21}E_{12}\right)+$$

$$+j_1^2\left(E_{31}E_{13}+E_{13}E_{31}\right)+E_{32}E_{23}E_{23}E_{32}.$$
(33)
In the case of superalgebras $`osp(M|N)`$ the multiplier in (29) is equal to $`\nu (1,M)[1,\frac{N}{2}]`$ and all formulas for matrix $`\overline{E}(j;ϵ)`$ and matrix elements $`\left(\overline{E}(j;ϵ)\right)_{kp}`$ appear as for the $`sl(m;j|n;ϵ)`$ with substitution $`m=M`$ and $`n=\frac{N}{2}`$. Let us consider the $`osp(1|2;\nu )`$ superalgebra as an example. Their generators are transformed as

$$E_{12}=\nu E_{12}^{},E_{13}=\nu E_{13}^{},E_{23}=E_{23}^{},E_{32}=E_{32}^{},E_{22}=E_{22}^{},$$
(34)
and matrix $`\overline{E}(\nu )`$ is given by

$$\overline{E}(\nu )=\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{1}{\nu }E_{12}& \frac{1}{\nu }E_{13}\\ & & \\ \frac{1}{\nu }E_{13}& E_{22}& E_{23}\\ \frac{1}{\nu }E_{12}& E_{32}& E_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& E_{12}& E_{13}\\ & & \\ E_{13}& \nu E_{22}& \nu E_{23}\\ E_{12}& \nu E_{32}& \nu E_{22}\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
The first order Casimir operator is equal to zero $`C_1(\nu )=\mathrm{str}\overline{E}(\nu )=0`$ and the second order Casimir operator is represented as

$$C_2(\nu )=\nu ^2E_{22}^2+\left(E_{12}E_{13}E_{13}E_{12}\right)\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2\left(E_{32}E_{23}+E_{23}E_{32}\right).$$
(36)
## 6 Conclusion

Using classical CK Lie algebras of different type we have built basic CK superalgebras. Unlike standard procedure  of zero tending parameter contractions in this work are described with the help of nilpotent valued parameters. Such approach gives an opportunity to obtain the distribution of contraction parameters among superalgebra generators starting from quadratic form and hence to build CK superalgebras by means of pure algebraic tools without limiting procedure. Contracted superalgebras are connected with transformations of superspaces with nilpotent cartesian coordinates and represent a wide class of different semidirect sums for different possible contractions. An infinite sequences of Casimir elements of CK superalgebras have been obtained by a suitable transformations of the standard expressions of the corresponding operators of the basic superalgebras. It is our hope that CK superalgebras will be relevant for construction of supersymmetric physical models.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research under Project 01-01-96433.


text:
# Galactic Synchrotron Foreground and the CMB Polarization Measurements

## 1 Introduction

This year is a decade since the first detection of the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background at large angular scales ($`10^0`$) , . Today the CMB anisotropy (CMBA) has been detected also at intermediate ($`(1^010^0)`$) and small angular scales ($`1^0`$), so the CMBA angular spectrum is now reasonably known down to the region of the first and second Doppler peaks , , . Its shape gives information e.g. on the spectrum of the primordial cosmological perturbations or can be used to test the inflation theory but rises new questions to which CMBA cannot answers. Responses can on the contrary be obtained looking at the CMB polarization (CMBP) produced by Thomson scattering of CMB photons on the matter anisotropies at the recombination epoch. In particular one can hope to use CMBP to disentangle the effects of fundamental cosmological parameters like density of matter, density of dark energy etc., effects anisotropy do not separate.This is among the goals of space and ground based experiments like , , , , , ,  and is the main goal of SPOrt a polarization dedicated ASI/ESA space mission on the International Space Station . The relevance of the CMB polarization was remarked for the first time by M. Rees . Since him many models of the expected features of the CMBP have been published (see for instance , , ). They stimulated the search for CMBP, but in spite of many attempts so far no CMB polarization has been detected. This observation is in fact extremely difficult because the expected signal is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the amplitude of the CMBA. Moreover foregrounds and their inhomogeneities cover the polarized fraction of the CMB or mimic CMBP spots, making the signal to noise (CMBP $`/`$ polarized foreground) ratio unfavorable. In this paper we will concentrate on methods for improving this ratio and for disentangling CMBP and polarized foregrounds.

In the microwave range the galactic foregrounds include:

* synchrotron radiation (strongly polarized),
* free-free emission (polarization negligible),
* dust radiation.

Because here we are interested in polarization, in the following we will neglect the free-free emission, whose expected level of polarization is negligible. Moreover the polarized signals produced by dust, if present, (e.g. , ), may be treated as an addition to the synchrotron effects. In fact, as it will appears in the following, the important quantities in our analysis are the statistical properties of the foreground spatial distribution and, by good fortune, the spatial distribution of the dust polarized emission is similar to that of the synchrotron emission, since behind both radiation types there is the same driving force, the galactic magnetic field which alignes dust grains and guides radiating electrons.

Separation of foregrounds and CMBA was successfully solved when the CMB anisotropy was discovered . When we go from CMBA to CMBP the separation of foreground and background however is more demanding and the problem of discriminating foreground inhomogneities from true CMB spots severe. Approaches used in the past e.g. , , , , ) were essentially based on the differences between the frequency spectra of foregrounds and CMB, therefore require multifrequency observations.

In this paper we suggest a different method which takes advantage of the fact that the measured values of the parameters we use to describes the polarization of the diffuse radiation when measured at a given frequency in different directions behave as stochastic variables. Because the mathematical and statistical properties of these variables for synchrotron and CMB are different, we suggest to use statistical methods for analyzing single frequency maps of the diffuse radiation and disentangling their main components, synchrotron and CMBP. This method was proposed and briefly discussed in . Here we present a more complete analysis.

## 2 Polarization Parameters

### 2.1 The Stokes Parameters

Convenient quantities commonly used to describe the polarization status of radiation are the Stokes parameters (see for instance , , ). Let’s assume a monochromatic, plane, wave of intensity I and amplitude $`\sqrt{I}`$. In the observer plane, orthogonal to the direction of propagation of the electromagnetic wave emitted by the electron, we can choose a pair of orthogonal axes $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. On that plane the amplitude vector of an unpolarized wave moves in a random way. On the contrary it describes a figure, the polarization ellipse, when the wave is polarized.

Projecting the wave amplitude on $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ we get two orthogonal, linearly polarized, waves of intensity $`I_l`$ and $`I_r`$,($`I=I_l+I_r`$) whose amplitudes are $`\sqrt{I_l}`$ and $`\sqrt{I_r}`$ respectively. If the original wave of intensity $`I`$ is polarized, $`I_l`$ and $`I_r`$ are correlated: let‘s call $`I_{12}`$ and $`I_{21}`$ their correlation products.

By definition the Stokes parameters are the four quantities: $`I=I_l+I_r`$, $`Q=I_lI_r`$, $`U=I_{12}+I_{21}`$, and $`V=i(I_{21}I_{12})`$.

$`Q`$ and $`U`$ describe the linear polarization, $`V`$ the circular polarization and $`I`$ the total intensity.

The ratio

$$\mathrm{tan}2\chi =\frac{U}{Q}$$
(1)
gives the angle $`\chi `$ between the vector $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and the main axis of the polarization ellipse ($`0<\chi <\pi `$).

Rotating the $`(l,r)`$ coordinate system by an angle $`\varphi `$ we get a new coordinate system $`(\widehat{l},\widehat{r})`$ in which the Stokes parameters become

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{Q}=Q\mathrm{cos}2\varphi U\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \\ \\ \widehat{U}=U\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +Q\mathrm{sin}2\varphi \end{array}$$
(2)
When $`\varphi =\chi =(1/2)\mathrm{arctan}\frac{U}{Q}`$ the axes of the polarization ellipse coincide with the reference axes $`\widehat{l}`$ and $`\widehat{r}`$ (see fig.1).

### 2.2 Electric and Magnetic Modes

To analyze the properties of the CMB polarization it is sometimes convenient to use rotationally invariant quantities, like the radiation intensity $`I`$ and two combinations of $`U`$ and $`Q`$: $`Q+iU`$ and $`QiU`$. The intensity $`I`$ can be decomposed into usual (scalar) spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )`$.

$$I=\underset{l,m}{}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )$$
(3)
The quantities $`Q\pm iU`$ can be decomposed into $`\pm 2`$ spin harmonics , ,  $`Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )`$ 222Alternatively, one can use the equivalent polynomials derived in  :

$$Q\pm iU=\underset{l,m}{}a_{lm}^{\pm 2}Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )$$
(4)
The $`\pm 2`$ spin harmonics form a complete orthonormal system (see, for instance, ,, , ) and can be written , :

$$\begin{array}{c}Y_{lm}^2(\theta ,\phi )=N_{lm}^2P_{lm}^2(\theta )e^{im\phi }\\ \\ Y_{lm}^2(\theta ,\phi )=N_{lm}^2P_{lm}^2(\theta )e^{im\phi }\end{array}$$
(5)
where

$$P_{lm}^s(x)=(1x)^{\frac{\left(m+s\right)}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{\left(sm\right)}{2}}P_{ls}^{(m+s,sm)}(x)$$
(6)
is a generalized Jacobi polynomial, $`s=\pm 2`$ and:

$$N_{lm}^s=\frac{1}{2^s}\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }}\sqrt{\frac{(ls)!(l+s)!}{(lm)!(l+m)!}}$$

is a normalization factor.

The harmonics amplitudes $`a_{lm}^{\pm 2}`$ correspond to the Fourier spectrum of the angular decomposition of rotationally invariant combinations of Stokes parameters.

Because spin $`\pm 2`$ spherical functions form a complete orthonormal system:

$$_{4\pi }Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta _{lm}\delta _{l^{}m^{}}$$
(7)
we can write

$$a_{lm}^{\pm 2}=_{4\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Q(\theta ,\phi )\pm iU(\theta ,\phi )\right)Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}$$
(8)
Following  we now introduce the so called $`E`$ (electric) and $`B`$ (magnetic) modes of these harmonic quantities:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{lm}^E=\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{lm}^{+2}+a_{lm}^2\right)\\ \\ a_{lm}^B=\frac{i}{2}\left(a_{lm}^{+2}a_{lm}^2\right)\end{array}$$
(9)
They have different parities. In fact when we transform the coordinate system $`Oxyz`$ into a new coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{O}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{z}`$, such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{l}}=\stackrel{}{l}\\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{r}}=\stackrel{}{r}\end{array}$$
(10)
the E and B modes transform in a similar way:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}^E=a^E\\ \stackrel{~}{a}^B=a^B\end{array}$$
(11)
$`Q`$ remains identical in both reference systems and $`U`$ changes sign.

It is important to remark that $`a^E`$ and $`a^B`$ are uncorrelated.

In terms of $`Q`$ and $`U`$ we can write:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{lm}^E=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Q\left(Y_{lm}^{+2}+Y_{lm}^2\right)+iU\left(Y_{lm}^{+2}Y_{lm}^2\right)\right)\\ \\ a_{lm}^B=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(iQ\left(Y_{lm}^{+2}Y_{lm}^2\right)U\left(Y_{lm}^{+2}+Y_{lm}^2\right)\right)\end{array}$$
(12)
therefore :

$$(a_{lm}^E)^2(a_{lm}^B)^2=2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(|Q^2||U^2|\right)\left(Y_{lm}^{+2}Y_{lm}^2+Y_{lm}^{+2}Y_{lm}^2\right)$$
(13)
Here $`|Q^2|`$ and $`|U^2|`$ designate values of correlators of delta correlated 2D stochastic fields $`Q`$ and $`U`$. Omitting mathematical details, the correlation equations for $`Q`$ and $`U`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{c}QQ^{}=|Q^2|\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\\ \\ UU^{}=|U^2|\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\\ \\ QU^{}=0\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\delta (\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})\delta (\phi \phi ^{})`$ is the Dirac delta - function on the sphere. (In the following we will sometimes omit indexes $`l`$ and $`m`$).

## 3 Synchrotron Radiation and its Polarization

Synchrotron radiation results from the helical motion of extremely relativistic electrons around the field lines of the galactic magnetic field (see, for instance , , ). The electron angular velocity

$$\omega _e=\frac{eH_p}{m_ec}\frac{m_ec^2}{}=\omega _o\frac{m_ec^2}{}$$
(15)
is determined by the ratio between $`H_p`$, the component of the magnetic field orthogonal to the particle velocity, and $``$, the electron energy. As it moves around the magnetic field lines the electron radiates.

a)Single electron

Until the circular velocity is small ($`v<<c`$, cyclotron radiation) the electron behaves as a rigid dipole which rotates with gyrofrequency (15) in a plane orthogonal to the magnetic field direction and emits a single line. The spatial distribution of the radiation has dumbbell shape (see fig.2):

$$I(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi })(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta })$$
(16)
The radiation is circularly polarized along the dumbbell axis ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$) and linearly polarized in directions orthogonal to it ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=90^{}`$).

When the electron velocity increases the radiation field changes until at $`vc`$, ($``$ $`m_ec^2`$) it assumes the peculiar charachters of synchrotron radiation:

i)radiated power proportional to $``$ 2 and $`H_p^2`$,

ii)continous frequency spectrum so concentrated around:

$$\omega _m=\omega _o\frac{\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}{1{\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}\mathrm{cos}\psi }H_p^2$$
(17)
($`\psi `$ is the angle between the velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, see fig.3), that in a given direction emission can be assumed monochromatic,

iii)radiation almost totally emitted in the forward direction of the electron motion, inside a narrow cone 333the symmetry plane($`\mathrm{\Theta }=90^{}`$) of the cyclotron dumbbell beam, seen by a fast moving observer ($`vc`$) becomes a cone folded around the direction of movement of aperture (see fig.4)

$$\psi \frac{m_ec^2}{}$$
(18)
Inside that cone ($`\mathrm{cos}\psi 1`$) the frequency is maximum and equal to

$$\omega _{m,o}\omega _o\left(\frac{}{m_ec^2}\right)^2,$$
(19)
In the opposite direction ($`\mathrm{cos}\psi 1`$) intensity and frequency are sharply reduced.

iv)radiation 100 $`\%`$ linearly polarized when seen along the surface of the emission cone.Inside the cone the linear polarization is still dominant but a small fraction of circular polarization exists, ($`Vo(\frac{m_ec^2}{E})`$ and $`IUQ`$). Outside the cone the very small fraction of radiation produced is elliptically polarized and becomes circularly polarized when seen in directions orthogonal to the circular component of the electron spiral motion, i.e. along the $`H_p`$ direction. So the Stokes parameters depend on $`H`$, the angle $`\mu `$ between the $`H`$ and the line of sight, and the dimensionless frequency $`\nu /\nu _c`$, where $`\nu _c=1.5(\omega _{m,o}/2\pi )`$ is the so called critical frequency, ,, itself function of $`H`$ (see eq.15).

b)Cloud of monoenergetic electrons

When the effects of many monoenergetic electrons with uniform distribution of pitch angles are combined, $`I,Q`$ and $`U`$ are reinforced (the Stokes parameters are additive) while $`V`$ is erased. In fact

$$\begin{array}{c}I(\nu )=c_1H_pF(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c})\\ \\ Q(\nu )=c_2H_pF_p(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c})\mathrm{cos}2\chi \\ \\ U(\nu )=c_2H_pF_p(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c})\mathrm{sin}2\chi \\ \\ V(\nu )0\end{array}$$
(20)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants, $`F`$ and $`F_p`$ frequency functions (almost monochromatic), and $`\chi `$ the angle between the projection of the magnetic vector on the observer plane and an axis on that plane (The projection of the magnetic vector on the observer plane is the minor axis of the polarization ellipse). When the magnetic field direction varies, the angle $`\chi `$ varies therefore $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$ must be averaged on the magnetic field distribution along the line of sight through the cloud of emitting electrons. In conclusion the degree of polarization $`p`$ varies between a maximum value, (uniform magnetic field) and zero (magnetic field randomly distributed).

c)Electrons with power law energy spectrum

In the interstellar medium the radiating electrons are the cosmic ray electrons whose spectrum is a power law energy spectrum (see for instance , ) and references therein):

$$N()=K^\gamma $$
(21)
where $`\gamma 2.43.0`$ is the spectral index, and $`K`$ a normalization constant. Because the radiation produced by each electron is practically monochromatic the resulting radiation spectrum is also a power law:

$$I(\nu )=I_0(\gamma )H_p^{\frac{\gamma +1}{2}}\nu ^\beta ^{}$$
(22)
where $`\beta ^{}=\frac{\gamma 1}{2}`$ is the intensity spectral index, $`\beta =\beta ^{}+2`$ the temperature spectral index and $`I_0`$ is a slow function of $`\gamma `$ . When the magnetic field is not uniform $`H_p`$ is replaced by $`<H_p>`$ and $`I_0`$ by a slightly different function of $`\gamma `$.

The Stokes parameters, products of the intensity $`I(\nu )`$, the degree of polarization $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$, are:

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=c_3H_p^{\frac{\gamma +1}{2}}\nu ^{\frac{\gamma 1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\chi \\ \\ U=c_3H_p^{\frac{\gamma +1}{2}}\nu ^{\frac{\gamma 1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\chi \\ \\ V0\end{array}$$
(23)
Here $`c_3`$ is a constant determined by $`\gamma `$ and by the magnetic field distribution along the integration path. Faraday rotation, induced by the combinations of thermal electrons (if present) and magnetic field along the line of sight through the synchrotron emitting region, usually reduces the polarization level. Moreover when the field is not uniform we have to use $`<\mathrm{sin}2\chi >`$ and $`<\mathrm{cos}2\chi >`$ instead of $`\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ so the degree $`p`$ of polarization decreases. Summarizing $`p`$ varies between 0 (random magnetic field distribution) and:

$$p_{max}=\frac{3\gamma +3}{3\gamma +7}<1$$
(24)
(uniform magnetic field and Faraday rotation absent).

When one looks in different directions through the interstellar medium $`H`$, $`H_p=H\mathrm{sin}\mu `$, $`\chi `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\beta `$ and $`K`$ vary (see for instance , . Practically their values, averaged along the line of sight, behave as random variables 444e.g. $`F=\left(H\mathrm{sin}\mu \right)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{2}}`$ is a nonzero mean, nonzero variance variable; $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$ are zero mean, nonzero variance variables therefore the Stokes parameters $`Q_s`$ and $`U_s`$ ($`s`$ stays for synchrotron) associated to the galactic (synchrotron) foreground behave as stochastic functions of the direction of observation. We can therefore write:

$$Q_s^2=U_s^2$$
(25)
It follows that for synchrotron radiation if $`Q_s0`$ also $`U_s0`$, therefore both electric and magnetic modes exist:

$$a^{E,s}0,a^{B,s}0$$
(26)
moreover for the synchrotron background we can write (see eqs. (13) and (25)):

$$(a^{E,s})^2=(a^{B,s})^2$$
(27)
## 4 CMB and its Stokes Parameters

In a homogeneous and isotropic Universe the only quantities which change as the Universe expand are temperature and intensity $`I=I_l+I_r`$: both decrease adiabatically. Because this is true for $`I_l`$ and $`I_r`$ separately, we do not expect anisotropy nor polarization therefore $`Q=0`$ and $`U=I_u=0`$ is a natural consequence.

On the contrary, inhomogeneities and perturbations of the matter density or of the gravitational field, induce anisotropy and polarization of the CMB. At the recombination epoch linear polarization is produced by the Thomson scattering of the CMB on the free electrons of the primordial plasma. The polarizarion tensor can be calculated solving the Boltzman equations, which describe the transfer of radiation in a nonstationary plasma permeated by a variable and inhomogeneous gravitational field , , , .

In our Universe the gravitational field can be divided in two parts: a background field, with homogeneous and isotropic FRW metric, and an inhomogeneous and variable mix of waves: density fluctuations, velocity fluctuations, and gravitational waves. Because of their transformation laws these waves are also said scalar, vector and tensor perturbations, respectively.

Scalar (density) perturbations affect the gravitational field, the density of matter and its velocity distribution. They were discovered by astronomers who studied the matter distribution in our Universe on scale from $`1`$ Mpc to $`100`$ Mpc. It is firmly believed they are the seeds of the large scale structure of the Universe and are reflected by the large scale CMB anisotropy detected for the first time at the beginning of the ‘90s , . Their existence is predicted by the great majority of models of the early Universe.

Vector perturbations, associated to rotational effects, perturb only velocity and gravitational field. They are not predicted by the inflation theory and it is common believe that they do not contribute to the anisotropy and polarization of the CMB.

Tensor perturbations affect exclusively the gravitational field.

In the following we will concentrate our attention on density waves, the dominant perturbation. Because observation shows that the effects of these perturbations are small, we can treat them as small variations $`\delta _l`$, $`\delta _r`$, $`\delta _u`$ of $`I_l`$, $`I_r`$ and $`I_u`$. If we introduce the auxiliary functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _l+\delta _r=(\mu ^2\frac{1}{3})\alpha ,\\ \\ \delta _l\delta _r=(1\mu ^2)\beta ,\\ \\ \delta _u=0,\end{array}$$
(28)
($`\mu `$ is the angle between the line of sight and the wave vector) and assume plane waves, the Boltzman equations (see for instance , ,  and reference therein) become:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\alpha }{d\eta }=F\frac{9}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\alpha \frac{6}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\beta \\ \\ \frac{d\beta }{d\eta }=\frac{1}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\alpha \frac{4}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\beta \end{array}$$
(29)
where $`F`$ is the gravitational force which drives both anisotropy and polarization, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross-section, $`n_e`$ is the density of free electrons, and $`a(\eta )`$ the scale factor.

These equations give:

$$\begin{array}{c}Q=\frac{1}{7}(1\mu ^2)F(\eta )\left(e^\tau e^{\frac{3}{10}\tau }\right)𝑑\eta \\ \\ U=0\end{array}$$
(30)
where $`\tau (\eta )`$ is the optical depth of the region where the phenomenon occurs. Rotating the coordinate system we can generate a new pair of Stokes parameters ($`Q^{},U^{}`$): no matter which is the system of reference we choose these parameters satisfy the symmetry parity condition.

Because as we saw for the CMB there is a system in which $`Q0`$ and $`U=0`$, we may conclude that magnetic modes of the CMB polarization vanish and only electric modes exist . Therefore for the CMB we can write:

$$a^{E,d}0a^{B,d}=0$$
(31)
where index $`d`$ stays for density perturbation.

Concluding: in our approximation the CMB polarization is a random tensor field whose characteristcs are set by primordial density perturbations (see, for instance ).

## 5 Separation of the polarized components of Synchrotron and CMB Radiation

The CMB radiation we receive is a diffuse background which reaches us mixed with foregrounds of local origin. When the anisotropy of the CMB was detected, to remove the foregrounds from maps of the diffuse radiation, data were reorganized in the following way:

$$\widehat{T}_d(x,y)=\widehat{T}_n(x,y)+\widehat{M}_i(x,y)\widehat{T}_{i,c}(x,y)$$
(32)
where $`\widehat{T}_d`$, is a two dimension vector (map) which gives the total signal measured at different points $`(x,y)`$ on the sky, $`\widehat{T}_n`$ the noise vector, $`\widehat{M}`$ the matrix which combines the components $`\widehat{T}_{i,c}`$ of the signal. At each point $`(x,y)`$ we can in fact write:

$$T_d=g_nT_n+g_{cmb}T_{cmb,c}+g_{syn}T_{syn,c}+g_{ff}T_{ff,c}+g_{dust}T_{dust,c}+\mathrm{}$$
(33)
where $`g_i`$ are weights, given by $`M`$, $`T_{syn,c}`$ is the synchrotron component, $`T_{ff,c}`$ the free-free emission component, $`T_{dust,c}`$ the dust contribution and so on. Using just one map the signal components cannot be disentangled. If however one has maps of the same region of sky made at different frequencies it is possible to write a system of equations. Provided the number of maps and equations is sufficient, the system can be solved and the components of $`T_d`$ separated, breaking the degeneracy. We end up with a map of $`T_{cmb}`$ which can be used to estimate the CMB anisotropy.

When we look for polarization at each point on the sky we measure tensors components instead of scalar quantities, therefore to disentangle the polarized components of the CMB we need a greater number of equations. Here we will concentrate on the separation of the two dominant components of the polarized diffuse radiation: galactic synchrotron (plus dust) foreground and CMBP.

### 5.1 The estimator $`D`$

Instead of observing the same region of sky at many frequencies, we suggest a different approach. It takes advantage of the differences between the statistical properties of the two most important components of the polarized diffuse radiation (CMB (background) and synchrotron (foreground) radiation) and does not require multifrequency maps.

We define the estimator:

$$D=(a^E)^2(a^B)^2$$
(34)
where $`a^E=a^{E,s}+a^{E,d}`$ and $`a^B=a^{B,s}+a^{B,d}`$ (here and in the following indexes $`s`$ or $`d`$ stay for synchrotron and density perturbations, respectively).

Because

* $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes of synchrotron do not correlate each other neither correlate with the CMB modes

$`(a^E)^2=(a^{E,s})^2+(a^{E,d})^2+2a^{E,s}a^{E,d}=(a^{E,s})^2+(a^{E,d})^2`$,

$`(a^B)^2=(a^{B,s})^2+(a^{B,d})^2+2a^{B,s}a^{B,d}=(a^{B,s})^2+(a^{B,d})^2`$,
* Electric and Magnetic modes of the CMB polarized component satisfy the condition

$$a^{E,d}0a^{B,d}=0$$
* Electric and Magnetic modes $`a^{E,s}`$ and $`a^{B,s}`$, of the synchrotron radiation are both different from zero and their average values identical,

we get

$$D=(a^{E,d})^2$$
(35)
It means that $`D`$ provides an estimate of the contribution of the CMB to maps of the polarized diffuse radiation contaminated by galactic synchrotron emission.

Let‘ s now consider the angular power spectrum of $`D`$. For multipole $`l`$ we can write:

$$D_l=(a_l^E)^2(a_l^B)^2=\frac{1}{2l+1}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left(|a_{lm}^E|^2|a_{lm}^B|^2\right)$$
(36)
where $`|a_{lm}^E|^2`$ and $`|a_{lm}^B|^2`$ are random variables with gaussian distribution $`p(a_{lm}^{E,B})`$ (see eqs.(54) and (55) in Appendix A). According the ergodic theorem (in the limit of infinite maps, the average over 2D space is equivalent to the average over realisations) the average value of $`D_l`$ is equal to the difference of the average values of $`|a_{lm}^E|^2`$ and $`|a_{lm}^B|^2`$ summed over $`m`$. Taking into account equation (55) we can therefore write:

$$D_l=\left(|a_l^E|^2|a_l^B|^2\right)$$
(37)
where 555Equation (38) is an explicit form of the average of the stochastic variables $`|a_{lm}^E|^2`$ and $`|a_{lm}^B|^2`$ over a probability density $`p(a_{lm}^{E,B})`$, the short form being triangle brackets:

$$\begin{array}{c}(a_l^E)^2=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^E|^2p(a_{lm}^E)d^2a_{lm}^E=|a_{lm}^E|^2\\ \\ (a_l^B)^2=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^B|^2p(a_{lm}^B)d^2a_{lm}^B=|a_{lm}^B|^2\end{array}$$
(38)
Comparing eq.38 with the ordinary definition of multipole coefficients:

$$C_l^{E,B}=\frac{1}{2l+1}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}|a_{lm}^{E,B}|^2$$
(39)
it immediately appear that we can write:

$$\begin{array}{c}(a_l^E)^2=C_l^E\\ \\ (a_l^B)^2=C_l^B\end{array}$$
(40)
### 5.2 Separation uncertainty

For synchrotron radiation $`D_l`$ should be zero, non zero for density perturbations, but on real maps it is always different from zero. In fact a map is just a realization of a stochastic process and the amplitudes of $`|a_{lm}^E|^2`$ and $`|a_{lm}^B|^2`$, averaged over 2D sphere, have uncertainties which add quadratically making $`D_l0`$ even in the case of synchrotron polarization. This effect, very similar to the well known ”cosmic variance” of anisotropy ,  (the real Universe is just a realisation of a stochastic process, therefore there will be always a difference between the realization we measure and the expectation value) does not vanish if observations are repeated.

The variance of $`D_l`$ is

$$𝐕(D_l^2)=D_l^2D_l^2$$
(41)
Being sums over $`m,(lm+l)`$ of $`2l+1`$ stochastic values with gaussian distribution, $`a^E`$ and $`a^B`$ have $`\chi ^2`$ distributions with $`2(2l+1)`$ degrees of freedom, therefore we expect their variances can be written as

$$\delta (a^{E,B})^2\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}$$
(42)
More explicitly

$$D_l^2=\frac{1}{2l+1}\left((a_l^E)^4+(a_l^B)^4\right)$$
(43)
and when the synchrotron foreground is dominant ($`a_l^E=a_l^B`$)

$$D_l^2=\frac{2}{2l+1}(a_l^E)^4$$
(44)
in agreement with (42).

### 5.3 A criterium for CMBP detection

The synchrotron foreground is a sort of system noise which hampers detection of the signal, the CMB polarization. At frequencies sufficiently high ($``$ above 50 GHz, as we will see in the next section) the noise is small compared to the signal therefore direct detection of CMBP is possible. At low frequencies on the contrary the CMBP signal is buried in the synchrotron plus dust noise. In this case to recognize the presence of the CMB polarization we can use our estimator $`D`$.

At angular scale $`l`$, to be detectable the CMBP must satisfy the condition

$$C_l^{E,d}>AC_l^{E,s}$$
(45)
where $`C_l^{E,i}`$ are the coefficients of the multipole expansion of the $`E`$ modes and $`A`$ is the confindence level of the signal detectability. In a similar way we can write for our estimator:

$$D_l^{E,d}>AD_l^{E,s}$$
(46)
where, as we said before, $`D_l^{E,d}=C_l^{E,d}`$ and

$$D_l^{E,s}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}(a_l^{E,s})^2$$
(47)
Therefore, the criterium for the CMBP detection becomes

$$D_l^{E,d}A\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}C_l^{E,s}$$
(48)
This means that using D we can recognize CMBP in a map of the polarized diffuse radiation with an uncertainty $`\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}C_l^{E,s}`$ which decreases as $`l`$ and angular resolution increases.

## 6 Angular power spectra of polarized synchrotron.

The angular power spectra of the polarized component of the synchrotron radiation have been discussed by , , ,  and . It appears that the power spectra of the degree of polarization $`p`$ and of electric and magnetic modes $`E`$ and $`B`$ follow power laws up to $`l10^3`$. The spectral index of the power law which holds for the degree of polarization is $`\alpha _p1.61.8`$. For the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes different authors get from the observations values of the spectral index different, but marginally consistent. In paper  and , using Parkes data, the authors get

$$C_l^{E,B}C_{0,E,B}\left(\frac{l_0}{l}\right)^{\alpha _{E,B}}$$
(49)
with $`\alpha _E\alpha _B1.4÷1.5`$ and dependence of $`\alpha `$ on the sky region and the frequency.

In paper , using Effelsberg and Parkes data, the authors get:

$$C_l^{E,B}=C_010^{10}\left(\frac{450}{l}\right)^\alpha \left(\frac{2.4\text{GHz}}{\nu }\right)^{2\beta }$$
(50)
with $`\alpha =(1.8\pm 0.3)`$, $`\beta =2.9`$ and $`C_0=(1.6\pm 1)`$ (here we modified the original expression given in  writing it in adimensional form). As said above the spectral indexes $`\alpha `$ obtained by   and  are marginally consistent.

Both authors got their results analyzing low frequency data (1.4, 2.4 and 2.7 GHz), therefore the extension of their spectra to tens of GHz, the region where CMB observations are usually made, depend on the accuracy of $`\beta `$, the temperature spectral index of the galactic synchrotron radiation. A common choice is $`\beta =2.9`$ but in literature there are values of $`\beta `$ ranging between $`2.5`$ and $`3.5`$. Moreover $`\beta `$ depends on the frequency and the region of sky where measurements are made (see , , , ). Finally the values of $`\beta `$ in literature have been obtained measuring the total (polarized plus unpolarized) galactic emission. In absence of Faraday effect $`\beta ,\beta _{pol}`$ and $`\beta _{unpol}`$, the spectral indexes of the total, polarized and unpolarized components of the galactic emission, are identical (see eqs. (22),(23)). However when Faraday effect with its $`\nu ^2`$ frequency dependence is present, we expect that, as frequency increases, the measured value of the degree of polarization (se eq. (24)) increases, up to

$$pp_{max}=\frac{3\beta 3}{3\beta 1}$$

therefore we should measure $`\beta _{pol}\beta `$. The expected differences are however well inside the error bars of the available data therefore at present we can neglect differences and set $`\beta \beta _{pol}\beta _{unpol}`$.

Instead of extrapolating low frequency results it would be better to look for direct observations of the galactic emission and its polarized component at higher frequencies. Unfortunately above 5 GHz observations of the galactic synchrotron spectrum and its distribution are rare and incomplete. At 33 GHz observations by  give for some patches on the sky a galactic temperature of about $`2÷4\mu K`$ from which follows that at the same frequency we can expect polarized foreground signals up to several $`\mu K`$. At 14.5 GHz observations made at OVRO  give synchrotron signals of 175 $`\mu K`$, equivalent to about 15 $`\mu K`$ at 33 GHz of which up to 10 $`\mu K`$ can be polarized.

In conclusion there are large uncertainties when one try to decide at which frequency the polarized component of the galactic diffuse emission does not disturb observation of the CMB. To be on the safe side we can say, and all the authors of papers , , ,  and  agree, that the CMB polarized component surely overcomes the polarized synchrotron foreground only above 50 GHz, therefore direct observations of the CMB are better made at frequencies greater of 50 GHz. Below 50 GHz observations of CMBP are problematic because the contamination by galactic polarized emission can be high and its evaluation, usually by multifrequency observations, not sure.

This conclusion is supported by figure 5. It shows plots versus the multipole order $`l`$ of the power spectra of the polarized components of CMB and galactic synchrotron calculated at 43 GHz. The CMB spectrum has been obtained using CMBFAST  and standard cosmological conditions (CMB power spectrum normalized to the COBE data at low $`l`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}=0.3`$ , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu =0`$, $`H_0=65`$ km/sec/Mpc, $`T_{CMB}=2.726K`$ , $`Y_{He}=0.24`$, standard recombination). The synchrotron spectrum has been calculated assuming for $`E_l`$ and $`B_l`$ the scaling law (50) with $`C_0=2.6`$ (most pessimistic case), and $`\alpha =1.5;1.8;2.1`$ and $`\beta =2.9`$ respectively. At this frequency (43 GHz) the CMB power becomes comparable to the synchrotron power only at very small angular scales ($`l500`$).

Similar calculations at other frequencies confirm that only above $`50`$ GHz and at small angular scales (large values of $`l`$) the CMBP power spectrum overcomes the synchrotron spectrum. Below $`50`$ GHz the CMBP power is always below the power level of synchrotron therefore CMBP detection is impossible even at small angular scale.

We can however overcome this limit and plan CMBP observations at lower frequencies if we use our estimator. To see how it improves the CMBP detectability we calculate the angular power spectrum of $`D_l^s`$, the estimator we expect when the diffuse radiation is completely dominated by synchrotron galactic emission. Combining eqs.(39), (44) and (50) we can write:

$$\sqrt{(D_l^s)^2}=C_010^{10}\sqrt{\frac{2}{2l+1}}\left(\frac{450}{l}\right)^\alpha \left(\frac{2.4\text{GHz}}{\nu }\right)^{2\beta }$$
(51)
This quantity can be directly compared with the power spectrum of CMBP because as we saw (see eqs.(31), (37), (40) and (43), $`D_l^d`$ the power spectrum of the estimator evaluated when the sky is dominated by CMBP coincides with the CMBP power spectrum.

Figure 6 shows the power spectra at 37 GHz of i)$`D_l^s`$ the estimator for a galactic synchrotron dominated sky (solid line), calculated using eq.(50), ii)$`D_l^d`$ the estimator for a CMBP dominated sky which coincides with the power spectrum of CMBP (dotted line) calculated as in figure 5 with CMBFAST using the same standard cosmological conditions, iii)the power spectrum of the polarized component of the galactic synchrotron radiation (dashed line), calculated using eq.(50). As expected at 37 GHz the CMBP power level is well below the level of synchrotron power, therefore direct observations of CMBP are impossible (the maximum value of the CMBP power is about 2.5 times smaller than the synchrotron power at the same $`l`$). However above $`l250`$ the power associated to the synchrotron estimator is definitely below the power associated to the CMBP estimator with a maximum ratio CMBP/D $`7`$ at $`l=1000`$. This confirms that the use of $`D`$ allows to recognize the CMBP also at frequencies well below 50 GHz.

## 7 Simulation

To further test the capability of our estimator we studied the separation of CMB and galactic synchrotron during observations using, instead of the expected values of $`D_l`$, as we did in figure 6, measured values simulated by random series of numbers, with gaussian distribution $`N(0,1)`$, zero mean and unity variance (see eqs (54) - (55)). To simulate measurements we generate $`2l+1`$ random numbers to represent $`a_{lm}^E`$ and $`2l+1`$ random numbers to represent $`a_{lm}^B`$. We then use these values to work out $`D_l`$ using eq.(36).

Because of their finite angular resolution observations include an average of the signal on regions whose angular extension cover a finite multipole interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$. For instance Boomerang data come from regions whose angular extension is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }l100`$ , , . To get more realistic data we averaged $`D_l`$ on an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=n`$:

$$\widehat{D}_l=\frac{1}{n+1}|\underset{k=0}{\overset{k=+n}{}}D_{ln/2+k}|$$
(52)
Figure 7, figure 8 and figure 9 give plots of $`|\widehat{D}_l|`$ (the sign of $`D_l`$ is arbitrary) versus $`l`$, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=100`$ respectively: the very large fluctuations of the estimator one observes when $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=1`$, above $`l400`$ are drastically reduced as soon as $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ increases. The smoothing effect of the average can be appreciated comparing figure 7, figure 8 and figure 9 where $`\widehat{D}_l`$ is plotted for $`n=1`$, $`n=10`$ and $`n=100`$ respectively:

Figure 10, figure 11 and figure 12 are similar to figure 10 and plot at 37 GHz, instead of the expectation value of $`D_l^s`$, simulated measurements of it, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=1`$ (figure 10), $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=10`$ (figure 11) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=100`$ (figure 12), respectively. Once again the CMBP power spectrum has been calculated with CMBFAST assuming the same cosmological conditions we assumed above and the synchrotron power spectrum comesfrom eq.(50) with $`C_o=2.6,\alpha =1.5,\beta =2.9`$ (most pessimistic condition).

Figure 13 is the same of figure 12 at a much lower frequency, 17 GHz. Here on the vertical axis we used logarithmic instead of linear scale, which allows a better appreciation of the differences among the three curves. The estimator power spectrum now almost touches the two highest peaks of the CMBP spectrum. Therefore, 17 GHZ is probably the lowest frequency at which one can hope to detect CMBP using $`D_l`$, in the most favorable conditions. In the most pessimistic case ($`C_0=2.6`$ and $`\alpha =1.5`$) the corresponding frequency is 25 GHz.

## 8 Conclusions

Observations of the CMB polarization are hampered by the presence of the galactic polarized foreground. Only above $`50GHz`$ the cosmic signal is definitely above the galactic synchrotron and direct observations of CMBP are, in principle, possible. Between $`30`$ GHz and $`50`$ GHz the level of the polarized component of the synchrotron foreground is at least comparable to the CMBP level, but the observational situation is still insufficient to evaluate precisely its contribution to maps of the diffuse polarized radiation measured by a telescope. Below $`30`$ GHz the galactic signal is definitely dominant. So far a common approach for studies of CMBP was to make accurate maps of the diffuse polarized radiation from a given region of sky at many frequencies and disentangle the various contributions modelling their frequency dependence and spatial distribution.

We have shown that an alternative way is to take advantage of the different statistical properties of the spatial distribution of the main components of the polarized diffuse radiation: CMBP and synchrotron (plus dust) galactic foreground. By measuring the $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes of the polarized radiation we can build an estimator which improves the background/foreground ratio by a factor sufficient to allow firm recognition and extraction of the CMBP contribution from single frequency maps at least down to 25 GHz (17 GHz in the most favorable conditions) at angular scales $`0.7^o`$ ($`l250`$).

## Acknowledgments

We are indebted to S.Cortiglioni, E.Caretti, E.Vinjakin, J.Kaplan and J. Delabrouille for helpful discussion. MVS acknowledges the Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, INAF, for hospitality during preparation of this paper.

## Appendix: stochastic properties of harmonics amplitudes

Here and overall in paper we suppose that $`a_{lm}^s`$ are complex random variables which satisfy the probability distribution law:

$$\begin{array}{c}p(a_{lm}^E)=\frac{1}{\pi E_l^2}exp\left(\frac{\left|a_{lm}^E\right|^2}{E_{lm}^2}\right)\\ \\ p(a_{lm}^B)=\frac{1}{\pi B_l^2}exp\left(\frac{\left|a_{lm}^B\right|^2}{B_{lm}^2}\right)\end{array}$$
(53)
with variance $`|a_{lm}^E|^2=E_l^2`$ and $`|a_{lm}^B|^2=B_l^2`$.

They have all the propertiers of gaussian variables (below we omitt indexes $`E`$ and $`B`$ in first and second equations):

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p(a_{lm})d^2a_{lm}=1\\ \\ \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{lm}p(a_{lm})d^2a_{lm}=0\end{array}$$
(54)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^E|^2p(a_{lm}^E)d^2a_{lm}^E=E_l^2\\ \\ \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^B|^2p(a_{lm}^B)d^2a_{lm}^B=B_l^2\end{array}$$
(55)
Setting

$$F=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Fp(a_{lm})d^2a_{lm}$$
(56)
with current index $`E`$ or $`B`$, it immediately follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}|a_{lm}^E|^4=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^E|^4p(a_{lm}^E)d^2a_{lm}^E=2E_l^4\\ \\ |a_{lm}^B|^4=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{lm}^B|^4p(a_{lm}^B)d^2a_{lm}^B=2B_l^4\end{array}$$
(57)