format: text

text:
# X-Ray Jet Emission from the Black Hole X-Ray Binary XTE J1550–564 with Chandra in 2000

## 1. Introduction

Outflows are observed in active galactic nuclei (AGN) and for some Galactic compact objects containing relativistic particles that are accelerated away from the compact objects in collimated jets. At least three types of radio jets are observed in Galactic X-ray binaries. In 1992, double-sided radio lobes were detected for two accreting black hole candidates: GRS 1758–258 (Rodriguez, Mirabel & Marti, 1992) and 1E 1740.7–2942 (Mirabel et al., 1992). For these sources, the compact object/radio lobe separations are 1-3 pc, and the lobes are stationary. Due to observational and likely physical similarities to AGN, the name microquasar was given to these sources. The number of X-ray binaries in the group of microquasars was greatly increased with the discovery of relativistic radio jets on much smaller size scales (0.02-0.06 pc). The two best known systems are GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel & Rodriguez, 1994) and GRO J1655–40 (Tingay et al., 1995; Hjellming & Rupen, 1995). For both of these systems, apparently superluminal jet velocities are observed, and the actual jet velocities inferred are $`>`$0.9c. Although not as relevant for this work, the third type of radio jet is often called a “compact jet” and has been detected for a relatively large number of X-ray binaries. Despite their small size ($``$$`10^4`$ pc), compact jets have been resolved for GRS 1915+105 (Dhawan, Mirabel & Rodríguez, 2000) and Cyg X-1 (Stirling et al., 2001).

The jets are usually detected at radio wavelengths, but, in AGN, optical and X-ray jets are also frequently seen. With the exception of the large-scale ($``$40 pc) diffuse X-ray emission detected from the X-ray binary SS 433 with the Einstein Observatory (Seward et al., 1980), X-ray jets were not seen for Galactic systems prior to the launch of the Chandra X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al., 2002) in 1999. With a large improvement in angular resolution over previous missions, Chandra detected arcsecond ($``$0.025 pc) X-ray jets in SS 433 (Marshall, Canizares & Schulz, 2002), but similar jets have not previously been reported for other accretion powered Galactic sources.

XTE J1550–564 was first detected by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) All-Sky Monitor (ASM) in 1998 September (Smith, 1998). It was identified as a probable black hole system based on its X-ray spectral and timing properties, and optical observations of the source in quiescence indicate a compact object mass near 10$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, confirming that the system contains a black hole (Orosz et al., 2002). Soon after the discovery of the source, a jet ejection with an apparent separation velocity $`>`$2c was observed in the radio band using Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), establishing that the source is a microquasar (Hannikainen et al., 2001). The VLBI observations followed a very bright radio and X-ray flare that was likely related to the ejection event (Sobczak et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2002). XTE J1550–564 has shown a high degree of X-ray activity over the last few years, having a major outburst in 2000 (Tomsick, Corbel & Kaaret 2001 and references therein) and mini-outbursts in 2001 and 2002 (Tomsick et al., 2001; Swank, Smith & Markwardt, 2002). Bright radio and X-ray flares like the 1998 flare have not been observed during these outbursts, but unresolved radio emission was detected, indicating the presence of a compact jet (Corbel et al., 2001).

During the 2002 X-ray outburst, radio observations of XTE J1550–564 were made with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). The detection of a variable radio source $`22^{\prime \prime }`$ west of XTE J1550–564 (Corbel, Fender & Tzioumis, 2002a) prompted us to examine Chandra observations of the source that were made in 2000. As reported by Corbel et al. (2002b), we discovered an X-ray source that is at approximately the same angular distance from XTE J1550–564 as the variable radio source and is to the east. In this paper, we present an analysis of the Chandra observations. The three sources (XTE J1550–564, the western radio source and the eastern X-ray source) are aligned with each other and with the VLBI radio jets that were detected in 1998. The alignment strongly suggests that the X-ray and radio sources are jets from XTE J1550–564. The jet size scale that we infer is in between those of the previously detected radio jets, providing an important connection between these two types of jets.

## 2. Observations

Seven XTE J1550–564 Chandra observations occurred in May and June during the 2000 outburst from this source, and two observations were made near the end of the outburst on 2000 August 21 and September 11. These observations were described in previous work where results for the XTE J1550–564 point source were presented (Tomsick, Corbel & Kaaret, 2001; Miller et al., 2001). Modes with two-dimensional imaging were used for the observations made on June 9, August 21 and September 11 (henceforth observations 1, 2 and 3), and, here, we focus on these observations. The rest of the May and June observations were grating observations made in “continuous clocking mode,” providing only one-dimensional imaging. In addition, a filter was used to block the zeroth order due to the high XTE J1550–564 flux level. Thus, with the exception of the June 9 observation, the May and June observations are not suitable for our search for extended emission from the source.

Table 1 provides information about observations 1, 2 and 3, including the observation time, the exposure time and the instrument configuration. All three observations were made using the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS). In each case, XTE J1550–564 was placed on one of the back-illuminated ACIS chips (S3), providing the best low-energy response. Observation 1 differs from the other two observations in that the High Energy Transmission Grating (HETG) was inserted. Although grating observations provide two-dimensional imaging, the sensitivity is reduced. Also, observation 1 includes data taken with two different ACIS CCD configurations with longer (1.1 s) and shorter (0.3 s) individual frame exposure times (“alternating exposure mode”). We carried out our analysis using the data from all exposures with a total exposure time of 4957 s. We made background light curves for all three observations and found that, for observation 2, there are brief time segments where excess background is observed. Removing these causes a drop in the exposure time from 5099 to 4985 s. Periods of high background are not seen for the other observations. For observation 3, we used data from the entire 4572 s exposure time.

While a detailed analysis of the XTE J1550–564 energy spectrum is presented for observations 2 and 3 in Tomsick, Corbel & Kaaret (2001), similar results for observation 1 have not been reported. Thus, we extracted the ACIS grating spectrum for observation 1. We fitted 0.8-8 keV MEG (Medium Energy Grating) and 2-10 keV HEG (High Energy Grating) energy spectra with a model consisting of a power-law with interstellar absorption. A reasonably good (but not formally acceptable) fit is obtained ($`\chi ^2/\nu =94/71`$) with a column density of $`N_\mathrm{H}=(8.4\pm 0.8)\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2, which is consistent with the Galactic value in the direction of XTE J1550–564, and a power-law photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.58\pm 0.08`$ (90% confidence errors). The fit is not significantly improved by the addition of a soft “disk-blackbody” component (Makishima et al., 1986), and no obvious emission lines are present in the residuals. The 0.3-8 keV source flux for observation 1 is $`9.3\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. For observations 2 and 3, we obtain 0.3-8 keV source fluxes of $`1.2\times 10^{13}`$ and $`2.4\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1, respectively, using the spectral parameters from Tomsick, Corbel & Kaaret (2001).

This paper also includes a re-analysis of a 5 hr radio band observation made with ATCA on 2000 June 1, which is close in time to Chandra observation 1. The ATCA observation was carried out in the high spatial resolution 6B array configuration, and flux measurements were obtained at central frequencies of 1384, 2496, 4800 and 8640 MHz with a total bandwidth of 128 MHz. More details can be found in a previous publication where these observations were used (Corbel et al., 2001).

## 3. Results

We searched for X-ray sources in the 0.3-8 keV images for all three Chandra observations using the “wavdetect” program (Freeman et al., 2002) in version 2.2 of the CIAO (Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations) software package. We only included photons with energies up to 8 keV as the ACIS effective area drops off rapidly above this energy. We used data from the ACIS chip containing XTE J1550–564 (ACIS-S3). For observation 1, we restricted the search to a square region of dimension 1.5 centered on XTE J1550–564 to avoid regions that include the dispersed spectrum, while we searched over the entire S3 chip for observations 2 and 3.

For observation 1, only one other source besides XTE J1550–564 is detected at a significance level of 4.8-$`\sigma `$. The source is $``$21′′ east of XTE J1550–564, while the new radio transient is $``$22′′ west of XTE J1550–564. For observation 2, there are seven sources detected at $`>`$3-$`\sigma `$ significance, excluding XTE J1550–564. Although none of the sources have positions consistent with that of the new radio transient (see Kaaret et al. 2002 for flux limits), the most significantly detected source (at 8.3-$`\sigma `$) is located $``$23′′ east of XTE J1550–564. For observation 3, there are two sources detected at $`>`$3-$`\sigma `$ significance, excluding XTE J1550–564. Similarly to observation 2, the most significantly detected source (at 9.1-$`\sigma `$) is located $``$23′′ east of XTE J1550–564, but we do not detect a source at the position of the new radio transient.

Figure 1 shows the portion of the 0.3-8 keV raw (i.e., un-smoothed) images for the three observations containing XTE J1550–564 and the source to the east of XTE J1550–564 that is detected in all three observations. For observation 3, the position of the eastern source is R.A. = 15h 51m 01s.47, Dec. = –56 28 36′′.7 (equinox 2000.0). We calculated this position using the XTE J1550–564 radio position, which is known to $`0^{\prime \prime }.3`$ (Corbel et al., 2001), and the separations between XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet in the Chandra images. The separation measurement is good to about $`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$ (see §3.2), indicating an error of less than $`0^{\prime \prime }.8`$ on the X-ray jet position. While we do not detect an X-ray source in these observations coincident with the western radio source, it is notable that the three sources (XTE J1550–564, the western radio source and the eastern X-ray source) are aligned (see Corbel et al. 2002b for a clear illustration of the alignment). In addition, it is remarkable that they are aligned with the radio jets that were resolved during the bright 1998 X-ray outburst from XTE J1550–564 (Hannikainen et al., 2001). This provides evidence for a connection between the radio jets, the eastern X-ray source and the western radio source, and the results presented below support this interpretation. Henceforth, we refer to the eastern X-ray source as the X-ray jet.

### 3.1. Proper Motion of the X-Ray Jet

We determined the separation between XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet for each observation. While an inspection of the images indicates that we obtain reasonable X-ray jet positions with wavdetect, we used a second measurement technique to obtain an estimate of the systematic error. For each observation, we determined the positions for XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet by calculating the source centroid using the 0.3-8 keV events from a 16-by-16 pixel ($`7^{\prime \prime }.9`$-by-$`7^{\prime \prime }`$.9) region centered on the wavdetect position. An inspection of the images (see Figure 1) indicates that this region contains all or nearly all of the events that are likely related to the source along with a small number of background events. We estimate that the number of background events in the 16-by-16 pixel regions are 4.0, 1.2 and 0.7 for observations 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Our technique for estimating the background surface brightness is described in §3.3. Compared to the wavdetect positions, the re-calculated XTE J1550–564 positions change by less than $`0^{\prime \prime }.1`$, and the X-ray jet positions change by less than $`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$. For observations 1 and 2, the re-calculated source separations are $`0^{\prime \prime }.45`$ and $`0^{\prime \prime }.27`$ larger, respectively, and, for observation 3, the re-calculated source separation is $`0^{\prime \prime }.38`$ smaller. Based on these changes, we estimate that the error on the source separation is approximately $`0^{\prime \prime }.5`$ and is dominated by systematics.

The angular separations between XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet are given in Table 2 and are plotted vs. time in Figure 2. The separations show that the X-ray jet is moving away from XTE J1550–564, and the data are well-described by a linear increase in the separation. The linear fit shown in the figure corresponds to a proper motion of $`21.2\pm 7.2`$ mas day-1 (mas = milliarcseconds), and an extrapolation of the linear fit predicts zero separation on MJD $`50699\pm 278`$. MJD 50699 corresponds to 1997 September 8, which is nearly a year before the first reported X-ray and radio activity for XTE J1550–564 in 1998 September. We obtained the RXTE/ASM light curve for the full RXTE mission to check for X-ray activity between early 1996 and 1998 September. XTE J1550–564 was not detected during this time with a 3-$`\sigma `$ upper limit of $`1\times 10^9`$ erg cm-2 s-1 for daily 1.5-12 keV flux measurements. The largest gap in ASM coverage during this time was 14 days, which is much shorter than the duration of a typical outburst. Thus, it is most likely that the material responsible for the X-ray jet was ejected during the large 1998 September radio and X-ray flare (Wu et al., 2002). We note that the errors on the linear fit parameters are dominated by the systematic errors on the individual separations and, thus, do not correspond to 68% confidence statistical errors.

### 3.2. Source Morphology

We produced the contour plots shown in Figure 3 for the three observations after convolving the raw images (from Figure 1) with a 2-dimensional Gaussian with a width ($`\sigma `$) of 2 pixels in both directions. In addition to illustrating that the X-ray jet moves away from XTE J1550–564 over time, the contour plots for observations 2 and 3 suggest that the X-ray jet is elongated in the direction of the proper motion (roughly east-to-west).

To study the jet morphology for observations 2 and 3, we produced source profiles showing the number of counts as a function of position along and perpendicular to the jet axis. We determined the jet axis using the source positions obtained above. For observations 2 and 3, the jet position angles are $`93.9^{}\pm 1.3^{}`$ and $`93.7^{}\pm 1.3^{}`$, respectively. Here, we use a value of $`93.8^{}`$, which is consistent with the position angle of $`93.9^{}\pm 0.8^{}`$ derived for the VLBI radio jets (D. Hannikainen, private communication). In producing the source profiles, we used the source counts from a 16-by-16 pixel ($`7^{\prime \prime }.9`$-by-$`7^{\prime \prime }`$.9) region centered on the jet position and oriented so that the re-sampled pixels run along and perpendicular to the jet axis. We then binned the counts in 1 pixel strips in both directions. Each strip is expected to contain 0.07 and 0.05 background counts for observations 2 and 3, respectively, and we neglected this low background level for this analysis. We repeated the analysis for XTE J1550–564 to provide a comparison to the jet profiles. Figures 4 and 5 show the results for observations 2 and 3, respectively. In each case, panels a and b are the profiles along and perpendicular to the jet axis, respectively. The solid lines with Poisson error bars are the jet profiles and the dotted lines are the XTE J1550–564 profiles after re-normalizing so that the peak bin has the same number of counts for the jet and XTE J1550–564.

We performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests (Press et al., 1992) on the un-binned counts to obtain a formal comparison of the profiles. Using the KS statistic, we calculated the probability that the X-ray jet profiles along and perpendicular to the jet axis are taken from the same parent distribution as the XTE J1550–564 profiles (i.e., the probability that the X-ray jet is not extended in a direction). In addition, we compared the X-ray jet profiles to the profiles for the source PG 1634+706 (Observation I.D. 1269), which is used to calibrate the ACIS point-spread-function (PSF). The results shown in Table 3 indicate that it is unlikely that the X-ray jet profile for observation 3 is the same as the XTE J1550–564 and PG 1634+706 profiles along the jet axis with probabilities of 1.8% and 0.2% for the respective comparison sources. The extension along the jet axis is not significant for observation 2 with probabilities of 21% and 6.3% for XTE J1550–564 and PG 1634+706, respectively. In the direction perpendicular to the jet axis, the probabilities that the X-ray jet profiles are the same as the comparison source profiles are in the range 21-71%. Thus, there is no evidence that the X-ray jet is extended in this direction.

In summary, the KS tests show that it is likely (at least for observation 3) that the X-ray jet is extended along the jet axis. From Figures 4a and 5a, we estimate that the jets are extended by $`\pm 2^{\prime \prime }`$-$`3^{\prime \prime }`$ along the jet axis, but by less than $`\pm 1^{\prime \prime }.5`$ in the perpendicular direction. At an angular separation of $`23^{\prime \prime }`$ from XTE J1550–564, the upper limit of $`\pm 1^{\prime \prime }.5`$ corresponds to a jet opening angle of $`<`$$`7.5^{}`$.

### 3.3. X-Ray Jet Energy Spectrum and Flux

We extracted energy spectra for each observation. For observations 2 and 3, we used a circular source extraction region with a radius of $`4^{\prime \prime }`$, and we extracted background spectra from an annulus with an inner radius of $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ and an outer radius of $`18^{\prime \prime }`$. The source and background regions were both centered on the X-ray jet. For observation 1, the background count rate near the X-ray jet is several times higher than the rates for the other observations. It is likely that this is partly due to the XTE J1550–564 dust-scattering halo, but measurements of the observation 1 background rate far from XTE J1550–564 show count rates that are still about a factor of two higher than the other observations, indicating that the intrinsic observation 1 background rate is somewhat higher. Thus, we used a smaller circular source extraction region with a radius of $`2^{\prime \prime }.5`$ for observation 1 to minimize contamination. Also, as the XTE J1550–564 X-ray halo contributes to the background near the X-ray jet, we estimated the background level using the counts in an annulus centered on XTE J1550–564 with an inner radius of $`18^{\prime \prime }.8`$ and an outer radius of $`23^{\prime \prime }.8`$ ($`\pm 2^{\prime \prime }.5`$ from the angular separation between XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet). We removed the parts of the annulus containing the X-ray jet and the read-out strip. In the 0.3-8 keV energy band, 17, 26 and 32 counts were collected in the source regions for observations 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In the same energy band, we estimate background levels of 1.3, 1.0 and 0.6 counts in the source extraction regions for observations 1, 2 and 3, respectively. We used the CIAO routine “psextract” to extract the spectra and create response matrices.

Although the low numbers of source counts do not provide high quality spectra, we fitted the spectra in an attempt to distinguish between models. As the same instrumental configuration was used for observations 2 and 3, we combined the data from these two observations to improve the statistics. For these initial fits, we re-binned the spectrum after combining the data from the two observations and fitted the spectra using $`\chi ^2`$-minimization. We used a power-law model, appropriate for non-thermal emission, and also a thermal bremsstrahlung model (“bremss” in XSPEC version 11.1) and included interstellar absorption. These two models provide fits of nearly identical quality, and in both cases the reduced-$`\chi ^2`$ value is 0.9 for 7 degrees of freedom. The parameter constraints are poor with both models giving a column density ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$) range of approximately (2-14)$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 (90% confidence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.7`$). With $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ left as a free parameter, the range of possible values for the power-law photon index is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.6`$-2.5, and the bremsstrahlung temperature is only constrained to be $`>`$2.8 keV. The column density range quoted above is consistent with the Galactic value in the direction of XTE J1550–564 ($`N_\mathrm{H}=9\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2); thus, we fixed $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ to this value for the fits described below. Detecting iron line emission would provide evidence that the X-ray emission has a thermal origin. No clear excess is observed in the X-ray jet spectrum at iron line energies, but the upper limit on the equivalent width of such a line is high (several keV).

We fitted the 0.3-8 keV spectra for each observation separately with a power-law model and interstellar absorption with the column density fixed to the Galactic value. Rather than $`\chi ^2`$-minimization, we used the Cash statistic (Cash, 1979), which does not require that the data be re-binned in energy. This is desirable since re-binning data necessarily removes spectral information. We did not perform background subtraction as the background levels are low enough to neglect. As shown in Table 2, we obtain $`1.7_{1.0}^{+0.7}`$, $`1.8\pm 0.6`$ and $`1.9\pm 0.6`$ (with 90% confidence errors) for the power-law photon index ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) for observations 1, 2 and 3, respectively. We conclude that there is no evidence for spectral variability. Thus, we re-fitted the three spectra simultaneously and obtained a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.8\pm 0.4`$ (energy index = $`\alpha =0.8\pm 0.4`$, $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$). Although we take this as our best estimate of the power-law photon index, we note that it was obtained with $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ fixed to the Galactic value and that uncertainties in $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ represent a possible source of systematic error.

We used the simultaneous power-law fit to the three spectra to obtain measurements of the X-ray jet flux. We obtain 0.3-8 keV absorbed fluxes of $`(20\pm 6)\times 10^{14}`$, $`(6.1\pm 1.3)\times 10^{14}`$ and $`(8.2\pm 1.5)\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 for observations 1, 2 and 3, respectively, indicating that the flux dropped by a factor of $``$2-3 between the June observation and the August and September observations. The quoted errors are based on the numbers of source and background counts and Poisson statistics, and the observation 1 flux is corrected for the reduction of sensitivity due to insertion of the grating. A source of systematic error (not included in the quoted errors) comes from the fact that a smaller source extraction region was used for observation 1. For observation 2 and 3, 15% and 19% of the counts within the source regions lie outside a radius of $`2^{\prime \prime }.5`$ (the observation 1 extraction radius), indicating that the observation 1 flux could be higher than the quoted value by 15-20%. Even if this source of systematic error is considered, the data are not strongly inconsistent with a smooth exponential or power-law decay (see also Kaaret et al. 2002). Based on the XTE J1550–564 source distance ($`d=2.8`$-7.6 kpc, Orosz et al. 2002), the intrinsic 0.3-8 keV X-ray jet luminosity for observation 1 is in the range (3-24)$`\times 10^{32}`$ erg s-1.

We re-analyzed the 2000 June 1 ATCA radio band observations and found a radio source coincident with the eastern jet. We measured flux levels of $`3.0\pm 0.3`$, $`1.58\pm 0.25`$, $`1.30\pm 0.10`$ and $`0.38\pm 0.13`$ mJy at frequencies of 1384, 2496, 4800 and 8640 MHz. We fitted the radio spectrum with a power-law model and obtained an energy index of $`\alpha =0.82\pm 0.15`$ and a flux density of $`1.1\pm 0.1`$ mJy at 5000 MHz (90% confidence errors in both cases). The power-law fit is not formally acceptable with a reduced-$`\chi ^2`$ near 5 for 2 degrees of freedom, but the overall radio spectrum is consistent with being an optically thin synchrotron spectrum in the sense that $`\alpha <0`$.

Figure 6 shows the four radio flux measurements along with the power-law fits to the Chandra energy spectra. We obtained the power-law fits to the Chandra data by fixing the power-law index to various values and fitting for the normalization. The normalization appropriate for observation 1 is used as it occurred closest in time to the radio observations. The power-law fits shown in the figure include the 90% confidence lower and upper limits on $`\alpha `$ ($`0.4`$ and $`1.2`$), the best fit value from the Chandra data ($`0.8`$) and the value that is most consistent with the radio data ($`0.6`$). The “pivot point” for the power-law fits occurs at 2.9 keV, and the flux density is 17 nJy at that point. The overall radio flux level is consistent with an extrapolation of the X-ray spectrum with $`\alpha =0.6`$, and it is possible that the radio and X-ray emission are part of the same spectral component, which would provide evidence for a synchrotron X-ray emission mechanism. We note that $`\alpha =0.6`$ lies slightly outside the error region for $`\alpha `$ found from fitting the radio spectrum alone. Although the X-ray and radio observations were not strictly simultaneous, observation 1 and the radio observation were only separated by 7.4 days, and it is unlikely that the flux levels could change significantly over this time.

We also fitted the X-ray spectra for the three Chandra observations simultaneously using the thermal bremsstrahlung model. We used the Cash statistic and fixed the column density to $`9\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2. The 90% confidence lower limit on the bremsstrahlung temperature is 3.8 keV, and the only other free parameter in the fit is the normalization, which is related to physical parameters according to $`N=2.4\times 10^{16}d^2n_en_idV`$ cm-5 (Rybicki & Lightman, 1979; Arnaud, 1996), where $`d`$ is the source distance, and $`n_e`$ and $`n_i`$ are, respectively, the electron and ion number densities within the volume $`V`$. From the simultaneous fit, $`N`$ = (4-10)$`\times 10^5`$ cm-5 (90% confidence) for observation 1.

## 4. Discussion

These results demonstrate that the eastern X-ray source detected in the 2000 Chandra observations is, in fact, X-ray jet emission from XTE J1550–564. In addition to the alignment between the XTE J1550–564 point source, the western radio source and the eastern X-ray source and the fact that these sources are aligned with the 1998 radio jets (Corbel et al., 2002b), the Chandra images indicate motion of the eastern X-ray source away from XTE J1550–564 along the jet axis and there is evidence that the eastern X-ray source is elongated in the direction of this motion. This is only the second Galactic X-ray binary, after SS 433 (Seward et al., 1980; Marshall, Canizares & Schulz, 2002), where X-ray jet emission has been resolved, and these observations represent the first time that an X-ray jet proper motion measurement has been obtained for any accretion powered Galactic or extra-galactic source.

### 4.1. Jet Kinematics

Our proper motion measurement of $`21.2\pm 7.2`$ mas day-1 for the eastern X-ray jet and the source distance range of 2.8-7.6 kpc, determined from optical observations of XTE J1550–564 in X-ray quiescence (Orosz et al., 2002), indicate an apparent jet velocity ($`\beta _{app}=v_{app}/c`$) between $`0.34\pm 0.12`$ and $`0.93\pm 0.32`$. To make progress in estimating the actual jet velocity ($`\beta `$), it is necessary to determine what constraints we can place on the source geometry. As jet emission is detected on both sides of XTE J1550–564, we adopt the usual picture of a bipolar outflow with one approaching jet and one receding jet. Although perfect symmetry between the two jets is not critical to the discussion we present here, we note that the fact that one of the jets was detected first in X-rays and the other was detected first in the radio should not be taken as evidence for a lack of symmetry. In fact, another Chandra observation made in 2002 March indicates that there is X-ray emission coincident with the western jet (Kaaret et al., 2002).

The main evidence that the eastern jet is the approaching jet is that the X-ray and radio observations made in 2000 and 2002 indicate that the mean proper motion relative to XTE J1550–564 is greater for the eastern jet. We determine the mean proper motions assuming that the material for both jets was ejected during the large 1998 September radio and X-ray flare (Wu et al., 2002; Sobczak et al., 1999). Corbel et al. (2002b) present arguments for this interpretation. In addition, as mentioned above, an extrapolation of the linear fit to the X-ray jet/XTE J1550–564 separations predicts zero separation prior to 1998 September. Since the first detected activity from XTE J1550–564 occurred in 1998 September, it is very unlikely that the ejection time was earlier. We assume an ejection time of MJD 51078, which corresponds to the peak of the 1998 September radio flare (Wu et al., 2002) and is 2 days before the resolved radio jets were detected (Hannikainen et al., 2001). For the western jet, the separation between the jet and XTE J1550–564 was $`22^{\prime \prime }.43`$ on MJD 52307 (Corbel et al., 2002b), implying a mean proper motion of 18.3 mas day-1. Based on the linear fit to the three X-ray jet measurements, the X-ray jet reached $`22^{\prime \prime }.43`$ on MJD 51759, which implies a mean proper motion of 32.9 mas day-1. The larger mean proper motion for the eastern jet indicates that it is the approaching jet.

Although there is strong evidence that the eastern jet is the approaching jet, the actual jet velocity ($`\beta `$) depends on the exact angle the jet axis makes with the line-of-sight ($`\theta `$), which cannot be determined from the jet observations presented in this work. Here, we derive a lower limit on the value of $`\beta `$ during 2000 June-September when the X-ray jet proper motion measurement was made. The lower limit is independent of $`\theta `$ but depends on the distance range given above. In general, for an approaching jet, the minimum value of $`\beta `$ occurs when $`\theta _{min}=\mathrm{tan}^1(1/\beta _{app})`$. Using the minimum apparent velocity for the X-ray jet ($`\beta _{app}=0.34\pm 0.12`$) and the equation $`\beta =\beta _{app}/(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{min}+\beta _{app}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{min})`$, which relates the apparent velocity to the actual velocity for an approaching jet, we obtain a minimum value for $`\beta `$ of $`0.32\pm 0.10`$ for $`\theta _{min}=71^{}`$. Thus, we conclude that the X-ray jet is moving at a velocity of at least 22% of the speed of light.

### 4.2. X-Ray Emission Mechanism

For the X-ray jets in AGN, three emission mechanisms are commonly considered: thermal bremsstrahlung, synchrotron and inverse Compton (Harris & Krawczynski, 2002). For most AGN jets, observations rule out thermal bremsstrahlung. When high quality X-ray jet spectra have been obtained for AGN (e.g., Marshall et al. 2001), thermal emission lines have not been detected. Further, the very large amount of hot gas necessary to explain the emission via thermal bremsstrahlung is inconsistent with radio polarization measurements (Harris & Krawczynski, 2002). In fact, the detection of radio polarization indicates that the synchrotron mechanism is operating in the radio band. In some cases, the broad-band (radio to X-ray) energy spectra can be fitted with a single power-law or a power-law with one break (Marshall et al., 2001; Hardcastle, Birkinshaw & Worrall, 2001; Hardcastle et al., 2002), supporting a model where the broad-band jet spectrum is dominated by synchrotron emission. However, inverse Compton emission in the form of synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) is known to dominate the X-ray emission for some AGN jets (Harris & Krawczynski, 2002).

Other than XTE J1550–564, the only X-ray binary where X-ray jet spectra have been obtained is the well-known system SS 433 that resides in the radio nebula W50. The large-scale SS 433 X-ray jets extend up to $`1^{}`$ from the X-ray binary, and the energy spectrum of the jet shows significant spatial variation. On scales of arcseconds and smaller, the jets exhibit X-ray emission lines, indicating that thermal bremsstrahlung contributes to the X-ray emission (Marshall, Canizares & Schulz, 2002; Migliari, Fender & Mendez, 2002). However, on larger angular scales ($`15^{}`$ to $`45^{}`$), emission lines are not detected with ASCA (Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics) in the X-ray band (Yamauchi, Kawai & Aoki, 1994) and RXTE observations indicate that the spectrum extends to 100 keV (Safi-Harb & Petre, 1999), indicating a non-thermal mechanism.

To study the implications of the various emission mechanisms for the XTE J1550–564 jets, it is necessary to estimate the volume of the emitting region. We assume that the shape of the emitting region is a section of a cone with its vertex at the compact object. The base of the conical section is at a distance of $`d\mathrm{tan}\alpha _b`$ from the compact object, where $`\alpha _b`$ is equal to the angular source separation given in Table 2 plus $`2^{\prime \prime }.5`$. The value of $`2^{\prime \prime }.5`$ comes from our estimate of the source extension obtained in §3.2. Although there is some uncertainty associated with the size of the extension for the eastern jet, we obtained a Chandra image of the western jet with much better statistics and measured a similar extension (Kaaret et al., 2002). The top of the conical section is at a distance of $`d\mathrm{tan}\alpha _t`$ from the compact object, where $`\alpha _t`$ is equal to the angular source separation minus $`2^{\prime \prime }.5`$. As the opening angle of the cone is not well-constrained, we consider values for the full opening angle of $`7.5^{}`$ (our upper limit for the eastern jet obtained in §3.2) and also $`1^{}`$. The latter may be more realistic as the upper limit on the opening angle for the western jet is $`2^{}`$ (Kaaret et al., 2002). In addition, we considered the distance range of $`d=2.8`$-7.6 kpc in determining the volume. A caveat is that the volume could be somewhat larger if $`\theta `$ (the angle between the jet axis and the line-of-sight) is small; however, the fact that the VLBI jets were two-sided and similar in brightness (Hannikainen et al., 2001) makes this unlikely. We obtain a minimum volume of $`3.8\times 10^{49}`$ cm3 for a distance of 2.8 kpc and an opening angle of $`1^{}`$ and a maximum volume of $`4.3\times 10^{52}`$ cm3 for $`d=7.6`$ kpc and an opening angle of $`7.5^{}`$.

The volume estimates allow for a calculation of the mass implied by the thermal bremsstrahlung fits to the energy spectrum (see §3.3) for observation 1. Assuming that the plasma consists of electrons and protons (i.e., $`n_e=n_i`$) and that $`n_e`$ is constant over the emitting volume gives $`n_e=(6.5\times 10^7)d\sqrt{N/V}`$ cm-3. We obtain a minimum mass of $`4\times 10^{28}`$ g for $`d=2.8`$ kpc, $`V=3.8\times 10^{49}`$ cm3 and $`N=4\times 10^5`$ cm-5 and a maximum mass of $`5\times 10^{30}`$ g for $`d=7.6`$ kpc, $`V=4.3\times 10^{52}`$ cm3 and $`N=1\times 10^4`$ cm-5. It is difficult to devise a scenario where the jet could contain such large masses. Even at the lower end of the mass range, it would take the black hole more than 1000 years to accumulate this much mass through accretion at a rate of $`10^{18}`$ g s-1, corresponding to the accretion rate for a luminosity of $`10^{38}`$ erg s-1 and an accretion efficiency of 10%. It would also be difficult for the jet to start out with much less mass and then to entrain most of its mass from the ISM gradually as it moves away from the compact object because momentum conservation would lead to rapid deceleration of the jet. However, we probably cannot rule out a scenario where the jet suddenly collides with a large amount of material that is far from the compact object such as material that is left from previous ejections. Thermal bremsstrahlung may still be a possible X-ray emission mechanism if the jet has sufficient kinetic energy associated with its bulk motion to heat such material to X-ray temperatures.

Here, we assume that the X-ray and radio spectra can be described by a single power-law with an index of $`\alpha =0.6`$ as shown in Figure 6 to study the implications of a synchrotron X-ray emission mechanism. A lower limit on the strength of the magnetic field in the jet, $`B_{eq}`$, comes from the assumption of equipartition between the magnetic and electron energy densities (Burbidge, 1956). We derive the equipartition magnetic field using

$$B_{eq}=\left(\frac{19C_{12}L}{V}\right)^{2/7},$$
(1)
(Pacholczyk, 1970) where $`L`$ is the integrated luminosity and $`C_{12}`$ is an expression, given in Pacholczyk (1970), that depends on the lower and upper frequency limits and the spectral index ($`\alpha `$). For both parameters, we used the frequency range from $`1.384\times 10^9`$ to $`1.9\times 10^{18}`$ Hz and $`\alpha =0.6`$. We calculated $`L`$ using a flux density of 17 nJy at $`7\times 10^{17}`$ Hz (appropriate for observation 1) and the range of distances and volumes derived in the previous paragraphs. Considering these distance and volume ranges, the lowest value of $`B_{eq}`$ we obtain is 134 $`\mu `$G for $`d=7.6`$ kpc and $`V=4.3\times 10^{52}`$ cm3, and the highest value of $`B_{eq}`$ we obtain is 566 $`\mu `$G for $`d=2.8`$ kpc and $`V=3.8\times 10^{49}`$ cm3. These values for $`B_{eq}`$ are somewhat higher than the values found from radio observations of other Galactic objects (e.g., Rodriguez, Mirabel & Marti 1992). This is at least in part due to the fact that the equipartition energy is higher because the spectrum for the XTE J1550–564 jet extends to the X-ray band.

While it is important to keep in mind that the value for $`B_{eq}`$ assumes equipartition, we can use our result to obtain estimates of other physical jet quantities such as the Lorentz factor ($`\gamma `$) and lifetime ($`t_s`$) of the X-ray emitting electrons, the number of electrons in the jet and the total mass of material in the jet. From $`\gamma (\nu )(\nu /\nu _L)^{1/2}`$ (Begelman, Blandford & Rees, 1984), where $`\nu _L`$ is the Larmor frequency, we obtain values of $`\gamma `$ at 1 keV between $`1.2\times 10^7`$ and $`2.5\times 10^7`$, and we obtain synchrotron lifetimes of 6-60 years at 1 keV using $`t_s=8\times 10^8B_{eq}^2\gamma ^1`$ s (Begelman, Blandford & Rees, 1984), which is longer than the lifetime of the XTE J1550–564 X-ray jet. We note that if the flux decay by a factor of 2-3 we observe over a period of about 4 months during the Chandra observations is due to synchrotron losses, this would imply a significantly shorter lifetime and probably a magnetic field strength above the equipartition value. Following Fender et al. (1999), the number of electrons in the jet can be calculated from the parameters of the energy spectrum ($`\alpha `$ and luminosity) and $`B_{eq}`$, and we obtain a range of values from $`4\times 10^{44}`$ to $`1\times 10^{46}`$ electrons. Assuming one proton per electron gives values between $`7\times 10^{20}`$ g and $`2\times 10^{22}`$ g for the mass of material in the jet. For a mass accretion rate of $`10^{18}`$ g s-1, this amount of material could be accumulated in 700 s and $`2\times 10^4`$ s for the two masses, respectively. These times fit with the likely ejection time as the large X-ray and radio flare occurred 2 days before the jets were resolved using VLBI.

Although we have shown that a synchrotron mechanism is viable for the X-ray jet emission from XTE J1550–564, we cannot immediately rule out inverse Compton or SSC. However, we can determine how much emission these mechanisms are likely to contribute by comparing the photon energy density to the magnetic energy density. We calculate the magnetic energy density assuming that only the radio emission has a synchrotron origin, and we use the parameters from the power-law fits to the radio emission ($`\alpha =0.82`$ and a flux density of 1.1 mJy at 5000 MHz) described in §3.3. Using the same distance and volume ranges as above, we obtain $`B_{eq}=82`$-344 $`\mu `$G and a magnetic energy density ($`B_{eq}^2/8\pi `$) range of (3-50)$`\times 10^{10}`$ erg cm-3. We determine the photon energy density ($`u`$) due to the source itself using $`u=3LR/4cV`$ (Wilson, Young & Shopbell, 2000), where $`R`$ is the linear size of the source, and we use the approximation $`R=(3V/4\pi )^{1/3}`$. It should be noted that $`u`$ is distance independent, and the main uncertainty in its determination is the opening angle of the cone that is used to estimate $`V`$. For opening angles of $`1^{}`$ and $`7.5^{}`$, respectively, $`u`$ is $`6\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-3 and $`4\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-3. As these values are considerably less than the magnetic energy density, SSC should not be important. Inverse Compton from the interstellar radiation field (ISRF) or the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are also possibilities. However, the maximum ISRF photon energy density in the Galaxy is $`2\times 10^{11}`$ erg cm-3 (Strong, Moskalenko & Reimer, 2000) and the CMB photon energy density is $`3\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-3, which are both considerably less than the magnetic energy density.

### 4.3. Jet Deceleration

The mean proper motion for the eastern jet between its ejection in 1998 September and the Chandra detections in 2000 of 32.9 mas day-1 derived above is greater than the proper motion of $`21.2\pm 7.2`$ mas day-1 that we measure during 2000 June-September, indicating a reduction in the jet velocity. The 1998 September VLBI observations of the radio jets provide information consistent with a higher initial ejection velocity. Hannikainen et al. (2001) find that the separation between the two radio jets increases at a rate of 115 mas day-1. Thus, with no additional information, we conclude that the initial proper motion for the eastern, approaching jet is at least 57.5 mas day-1, indicating that the apparent jet velocity decreased by a factor of at least $`2.7\pm 0.9`$. This also implies a drop in the actual jet velocity; however, the size of this drop depends on the distance to the source ($`d`$) and the angle between the jet axis and the line-of-sight ($`\theta `$), and these quantities are not well-constrained.

Although the jet does decelerate, the fact that we detect a proper motion for the X-ray jet is in contrast to the apparently stationary radio lobes that are seen in GRS 1758–258 (Rodriguez, Mirabel & Marti, 1992) and 1E 1740.7–2942 (Mirabel et al., 1992). However, the projected separation between XTE J1550–564 and the X-ray jet (0.31-0.85 pc for $`d=2.8`$-7.6 kpc) is a reasonable fraction of the compact object/radio lobe separations in the other two sources (2.5 pc in GRS 1758–258 and 1.1 pc in 1E 1740.7–2942 assuming $`d=8.5`$ kpc in both cases). Thus, the XTE J1550–564 X-ray jet may represent an intermediate stage in the evolution of the jet as the bulk motion velocity decreases from relativistic velocities to zero velocity.

Observations of AGN suggest that their initially relativistic jets also decelerate as they move away from the core of the galaxy (Bridle et al., 1994). A model has been developed to explain jet deceleration where material in the interstellar medium (ISM) or intergalactic medium (IGM) is entrained into the jet (Bicknell, 1994; Bowman, Leahy & Komissarov, 1996). As a consequence of momentum conservation, mass entrainment leads to deceleration of the jet. It is not clear if the XTE J1550–564 jet is entraining material, but even if it is not, elastic collisions between the jet and the ISM material will cause the jet to decelerate. The level of mass entrainment depends on how the jet pressure compares to the ISM gas pressure. The equipartition jet pressure ($`p_{eq}=B_{eq}^2/4\pi `$) for the XTE J1550–564 X-ray jet is between $`10^9`$ erg cm-3 and a few times $`10^8`$ erg cm-3 for the range of $`B_{eq}`$ values derived above (134-566 $`\mu `$G assuming the X-rays have a synchrotron origin). These values for $`p_{eq}`$ are considerably larger than the values typically measured for the ISM, which are between $`10^{13}`$ and $`10^{12}`$ erg cm-3 (Jenkins & Tripp, 2001), and this may suggest that elastic collisions are more important than entrainment in causing the jet to decelerate. A related question is whether we are observing the motion of the bulk flow of material in the jet or the motion of a shock front. Although the latter is a possibility, further deceleration of the eastern X-ray jet is reported in Kaaret et al. (2002), indicating that a mechanism would be necessary to explain the deceleration of the shock.

It is also possible to derive the total internal energy for the X-ray emitting electrons under the equipartition assumption. For the range of source distances and jet opening angles used above, we obtain energies between $`5\times 10^{41}`$ erg (for $`d=2.8`$ kpc and an opening angle of $`1^{}`$) and $`3\times 10^{43}`$ erg (for $`d=7.6`$ kpc and an opening angle of $`7.5^{}`$). With the deceleration of the jet, it is interesting to consider whether the change in the bulk motion kinetic energy can account for the internal energy of the electrons. From the Chandra proper motion measurement in 2000, the VLBI proper motion lower limit in 1998 and the total mass of protons in the jet of $`7\times 10^{20}`$ g derived above for an assumed distance of 2.8 kpc and an assumed opening angle of $`1^{}`$, we obtain a lower limit on the change in bulk motion kinetic energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`KE`$) of $`2\times 10^{41}`$ erg for $`\theta =43^{}`$. For larger values of $`\theta `$, which are probably more likely for XTE J1550–564, the lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`KE`$ increases gradually to $`9\times 10^{41}`$ erg, which is nearly a factor of 2 larger than the internal electron energy. Although the internal electron energy estimates increase significantly with source distance and opening angle, for $`d>3`$ kpc, there are non-zero values for $`\theta `$ that give initial jet velocities of $`c`$, leading to arbitrarily large values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`KE`$. We conclude that, for certain values of $`\theta `$, the bulk motion kinetic energy is sufficient to power the observed X-ray emission for most, if not all, of the allowed distance range. However, it is important to note that this calculation assumes that the total mass of protons in the jet is constant. A significant level of entrainment from the ISM would invalidate this assumption.

### 4.4. Observations of Quiescent Black Hole Transients

The discovery of X-ray jets from XTE J1550–564 has implications for X-ray observations of black hole transients at low flux levels or in quiescence using observatories without sufficient angular resolution to separate the black hole flux from the jet flux. For example, if XTE J1550–564 was observed with ASCA or BeppoSAX (Satellite per Astronomia X) during the times of our Chandra observations 2 and 3, the X-ray jet flux would significantly contaminate the black hole flux, but the X-ray jet would not be resolved due to the 1-3 angular resolution provided by these satellites. For XTE J1550–564, the measured X-ray jet fluxes are between $`6\times 10^{14}`$ and $`20\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (0.3-8 keV), which is considerably brighter than 5 of the 6 black hole systems observed by Chandra in quiescence (Garcia et al., 2001). For the 1996 March ASCA observation of the microquasar GRO J1655–40 (Asai et al., 1998), it is conceivable that an X-ray jet was responsible for at least part of the detected flux. The ASCA observation was made about 1.5 years after the discovery of powerful radio jets from this source (Tingay et al., 1995; Hjellming & Rupen, 1995). In addition, although it was thought that GRO J1655–40 was in quiescence during the ASCA observation, the source flux was an order of magnitude lower during an observation made by Chandra in 2000 (Garcia et al., 2001). Finally, we note that if X-ray jet fluxes in other sources are similar to the level we observe for XTE J1550–564, they will not significantly contaminate the non-imaging measurements made by RXTE as the quality of the PCA (Proportional Counter Array) background subtraction limits observations to sources brighter than a few$`\times 10^{12}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (3-20 keV).

## 5. Summary and Conclusions

In this paper, we present an analysis of Chandra observations and an ATCA radio observation of XTE J1550–564 made in 2000 where an X-ray jet is detected to the east of the black hole in the X-ray and radio bands. The discovery of the jet was first reported by Corbel et al. (2002b). The jet axis is aligned with the relativistic bipolar radio jets detected with VLBI in 1998 (Hannikainen et al., 2001). We argue that the material for the 2000 jet was likely ejected during the large X-ray and radio flare that occurred in 1998 (Wu et al., 2002), and that we detect the eastern jet (but not the western jet) during the 2000 observations because the eastern jet is the approaching jet. Although we do not detect a western jet for the 2000 observations, it is detected in the radio band (Corbel, Fender & Tzioumis, 2002a) and X-ray (Kaaret et al., 2002) during observations made in 2002. In fact, this paper is a result of a re-analysis of the 2000 Chandra data that was prompted by the radio detection of the western jet.

A main result of this work is the measurement of the proper motion of the X-ray jet using three Chandra observations made between 2000 June and 2000 September. The X-ray jet moves away from XTE J1550–564 with a proper motion of $`21.2\pm 7.2`$ mas day-1, and these observations represent the first time that an X-ray jet proper motion measurement has been obtained for any accretion powered Galactic or extra-galactic source. Comparing this value to the lower limit on the proper motion of the eastern jet from the 1998 VLBI observations of 57.5 mas day-1 indicates that the jet has decelerated since its initial ejection. Assuming the source distance is in the range from $`d=2.8`$-7.6 kpc, the apparent jet velocity ($`\beta _{app}`$) is between $`0.34\pm 0.12`$ and $`0.93\pm 0.32`$, and we obtain a lower limit on the actual X-ray jet velocity in 2000 of $`\beta =0.32\pm 0.10`$ that is independent of the angle between the jet axis and the line-of-sight ($`\theta `$). There is evidence that the eastern jet is extended by $`\pm 2^{\prime \prime }`$-$`3^{\prime \prime }`$ in the direction of the proper motion. The upper limit on the source extension in the perpendicular direction is $`\pm 1^{\prime \prime }.5`$, which corresponds to a jet opening angle of $`<`$$`7.5^{}`$.

We consider thermal bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, SSC and inverse Compton mechanisms to explain the X-ray jet emission from XTE J1550–564. Assuming equipartition between the magnetic and electron energy densities, we derive a range of jet magnetic field strengths ($`B_{eq}`$) between 134 $`\mu `$G and 566 $`\mu `$G, depending on the source distance and jet opening angles between $`1^{}`$ and $`7.5^{}`$. From $`B_{eq}`$, the range of Lorentz factors ($`\gamma `$) for the electrons responsible for the 1 keV X-rays is (1.2-2.7)$`\times 10^7`$, and the range of synchrotron lifetimes (at 1 keV) is 6-60 years. The mass of material required by a synchrotron mechanism could be accumulated in the likely jet ejection time of $`<`$2 days, while the mass required by a thermal bremsstrahlung mechanism is about 8 orders of magnitude higher, requiring mass from a very large number of ejection events. A comparison between the magnetic energy density in the jet and estimates for the photon density suggest that synchrotron emission should dominate over SSC and inverse Compton mechanisms. We conclude that a synchrotron mechanism is viable and appears to provide the simplest explanation for the observations. The synchrotron hypothesis can be tested via constraints on the optical or IR flux from the jet or by obtaining better constraints on X-ray emission line strengths.

With a projected separation of 0.31-0.85 pc between XTE J1550–564 and the jet in 2000, the XTE J1550–564 jet is intermediate in size to the 0.02-0.06 pc relativistic radio jets that have been detected in several sources (e.g., GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655–40) and the stationary 1-3 pc radio lobes that have been seen in GRS 1758–258 and 1E 1740.7–2942. Further, the fact that the XTE J1550–564 jets decelerated between 1998 and 2000 provides an additional connection between the two types of jets that have been observed previously. It is likely that the deceleration occurs when the jet collides with the ISM. However, the jet pressure we derive from equipartition suggests that the pressure is too high to entrain material, and that elastic collisions of the jet with ISM material may be a better way to model the jet evolution. More work is necessary to understand the details of the deceleration. Finally, studying the evolution of the XTE J1550–564 jet underscores the fact that jets in Galactic X-ray binaries can provide useful information about jets in AGN. In XTE J1550–564, the time scale for material to travel the length of the jet is several years, while this process takes tens of thousands of years for a typical AGN.

JAT and SC acknowledge useful conversations with participants of the 4th Microquasar Workshop in Corsica, especially A. Celotti, S. Heinz and V. Dhawan. JAT acknowledges useful conversations with G. Fossati, D. Fox, W. Heindl, R. Rothschild and G. Burbidge. We thank Chandra director H. Tananbaum for granting Director’s Discretionary Time for the August and September observations described in this work. RW was supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant number PF9-10010 awarded by CXC, which is operated by SAO for NASA under contract NAS8-39073. PK acknowledges partial support from NASA grant NAG5-7405 and Chandra grant G01-2034X. JAT acknowledges partial support from NASA grant NAG5-10886.


text:
# Neutrinos in the Family Replicated Gauge Group Model

##

Abstract

We present a discussion of the neutrino mass problem in the anti-grand unification theory based on three family replicated copies of the Standard Model gauge group (SMG). We consider two versions of the theory, with and without right-handed neutrinos, and present order of magnitude fits to the 17 measured quark-lepton mass and mixing angle variables. In the model without right-handed neutrinos, based on the gauge group $`SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$ and an isotriplet Higgs, we obtain a good 4 parameter fit, but with a vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem. In the second model, based on the gauge group $`(SMG\times U(1)_{BL})^3`$, we obtain a good 5 parameter fit using the usual right-handed neutrino see-saw mechanism to generate an LMA-MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem. The CHOOZ mixing angle bound is easily satisfied in the first model and is close to the predicted value in the second model.

To be published in the Proceedings of the International Workshop on What comes beyond the Standard Model, Bled, Slovenia, July 2002.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, I will update my report  on fermion masses in the Anti-Grand Unification Theory (AGUT) at the Bled 2001 workshop. There are two versions of the AGUT model based on three family replicated copies of the Standard Model (SM) gauge group, selected according to whether or not each family is supplemented by a right-handed neutrino. We note that neither model introduces supersymmetry. In the absence of right-handed neutrinos, the AGUT gauge group is $`G_1=SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$, where $`SMGSU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. With the inclusion of three right-handed neutrinos, the AGUT gauge group is extended to $`G_2=(SMG\times U(1)_{BL})^3`$, where the three copies of the SM gauge group are supplemented by an abelian $`(BL)`$ (= baryon number minus lepton number) gauge group for each family. In each case, the AGUT gauge group $`G_1`$ ($`G_2`$) is the largest anomaly free group  transforming the known 45 Weyl fermions (and the additional three right-handed neutrinos for $`G_2`$) into each other unitarily, which does NOT unify the irreducible representations under the SM gauge group.

Here we present good order of magnitude fits, with four and five adjustable parameters respectively, to the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles for the two versions of the AGUT model. In each case the fit to the charged fermion masses and quark mixings is arranged to essentially reproduce the original three parameter AGUT fit . It is necessary to introduce a new mass scale into the theory, in order to obtain realistic neutrino masses. For the $`G_1=SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$ model we introduce a weak isotriplet Higgs field and obtain a vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem, whereas for the $`G_2=(SMG\times U(1)_{BL})^3`$ model we introduce the usual see-saw mass scale for the right-handed neutrinos and obtain a large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution. During the last year, further data  from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory have confirmed that the LMA-MSW solution is strongly favoured, with the Vacuum Oscillation and LOW solutions now allowed at the $`3\sigma `$ level while the SMA-MSW solution seems to be completely ruled out. We refer to  for a recent review of the phenomenology of neutrino physics.

## 2 The $`SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$ Model

The usual SM gauge group is identified as the diagonal subgroup of $`SMG^3`$ and the AGUT gauge group $`SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$ is broken down to this subgroup by four Higgs fields $`S`$, $`W`$, $`T`$ and $`\xi `$. Thus, for example, the SM weak hypercharge $`y/2`$ is given by the sum of the weak hypercharge quantum numbers $`y_i/2`$ for the three proto-families:

$$\frac{y}{2}=\frac{y_1}{2}+\frac{y_2}{2}+\frac{y_3}{2}$$
(1)
The spontaneously broken chiral AGUT gauge quantum numbers of the quarks and leptons protect the charged fermion masses and generate a mass hierarchy for them  in terms of the Higgs field vacuum expectation values (VEVs). However the VEV of the Higgs field $`S`$ is taken to be unity in fundamental (Planck) mass units. Thus only the VEVs of the other three Higgs fields are used as free parameters, in the order of magnitude fit to the effective SM Yukawa coupling matrices $`Y_U`$, $`Y_D`$ and $`Y_E`$ for the quarks and charged leptons .

In this model, the large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing required for atmospheric neutrino oscillations is generated by introducing a large off-diagonal element, $`(Y_E)_{23}(Y_E)_{33}`$, in the charged lepton Yukawa coupling matrix. This is achieved by introducing a new Higgs field $`\psi `$ with a VEV equal to unity in Planck units and the following set of $`U(1)`$ gauge charges:

$$\stackrel{}{Q}_\psi =3\stackrel{}{Q}_\xi +2\stackrel{}{Q}_W+4\stackrel{}{Q}_T=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{13}{6},\frac{5}{3},\frac{16}{3}),$$
(2)
Here we express the abelian gauge charges in the model as a charge vector $`\stackrel{}{Q}=(y_1/2,y_2/2,y_3/2,Q_f)`$.

We then have the Yukawa matrices for the quarks:

$$Y_U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}WT^2\xi ^2& WT^2\xi & W^2T\xi \\ WT^2\xi ^3& WT^2& W^2T\\ \xi ^3& 1& WT\end{array}\right),Y_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}WT^2\xi ^2& WT^2\xi & T^3\xi \\ WT^2\xi & WT^2& T^3\\ W^3T& W^3T\xi & WT\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
and the charged lepton Yukawa matrix:

$$Y_E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}WT^2\xi ^2& W^3T^2& W^2T\xi ^3\\ WT^2\xi ^5& WT^2& W\xi \\ W^4\xi ^2& W^3T\xi & WT\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
We still obtain a good order of magnitude phenomenology for the charged fermion masses and quark mixing angles, similar to the original AGUT fit , with the following VEVs in Planck units:

$$<W>=0.179,<T>=0.071<\xi >=0.099.$$
(5)
The unitary matrix $`U_E`$ which diagonalises $`Y_EY_E^{}`$ is then given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{W\xi ^4}{T^3}& W\xi ^3\\ \frac{W\xi ^4}{T^3\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{\xi }{T\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}\\ \frac{W\xi ^5}{T^4\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{\xi }{T\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0.05& 1.7\times 10^4\\ 0.03& 0.58& 0.81\\ 0.04& 0.81& 0.58\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
As we can see from the structure of $`U_E`$, we naturally obtain the large $`\mu \tau `$ mixing required for the atmospheric neutrinos. We can now obtain suitable mixing and a suitable hierarchy of neutrino masses for a vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem, by making the following choice of charges for a weak iso-triplet Higgs field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

$$\stackrel{}{Q}_\mathrm{\Delta }=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{5}{6},0).$$
(7)
We then have the neutrino mass matrix,

$$M_\nu <\mathrm{\Delta }^0>\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W\xi ^6& W\xi ^3& WT\xi ^2\\ W\xi ^3& W& WT\xi \\ WT\xi ^2& WT\xi & WT^2\xi \end{array}\right)$$
(8)
This has the hierarchy,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2,`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}}`$ $``$ $`2T^3\xi ^37\times 10^7,`$ (10)
which is just suitable for the atmospheric neutrinos and the vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem. The electron neutrino mixing is also large enough for the vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem, as we can see from the matrix $`U_\nu `$ which diagonalises $`M_\nu `$:

$$U_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\frac{T}{4\xi })& \xi ^3& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1\frac{T}{4\xi })\\ \frac{T\xi }{\sqrt{2}}(1\frac{T}{4\xi })& 1& \frac{T\xi }{\sqrt{2}}(1+\frac{T}{4\xi })\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1\frac{T}{4\xi })& T\xi & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\frac{T}{4\xi })\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
Hence we have the lepton mixing matrix,

$`U=U_E^{}U_\nu `$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+\frac{T}{4\xi })& \frac{W\xi ^4}{T^3\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}(1\frac{T}{4\xi })}\\ \frac{\xi (1\frac{T}{4\xi })}{\sqrt{2}T\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{\xi (1+\frac{T}{4\xi })}{T\sqrt{2(1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2})}}\\ \frac{1\frac{T}{4\xi }}{\sqrt{2(1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2})}}& \frac{\xi }{T\sqrt{1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2}}}& \frac{1+\frac{T}{4\xi }}{\sqrt{2(1+\frac{\xi ^2}{T^2})}}\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.83& 2.8\times 10^2& 0.58\\ 0.47& 0.58& 0.68\\ 0.34& 0.813& 0.49\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
If we take $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^0>0.18\text{eV}`$, then we have

$`m_1`$ $``$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^0>\left(WT\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2\xi W}{2}}\right)1.4\times 10^5\text{eV}`$
$`m_2`$ $``$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^0>W3.2\times 10^2\text{eV}`$
$`m_3`$ $``$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }^0>\left(WT\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2\xi W}{2}}\right)3\times 10^5\text{eV}.`$ (20)
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and mixing angle for the solar neutrinos are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^27\times 10^{10}\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}4U_{e1}^2U_{e3}^20.93$$
(21)
which are compatible with vacuum oscillations for the solar neutrinos. Similarly the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos are given by,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^21\times 10^3\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}0.93.$$
(22)
Hence we can see that we have large (but not maximal) mixing for both the solar and atmospheric neutrinos. We also note that the CHOOZ electron survival probability bound is readily satisfied by $`U_{e2}0.028<0.16`$, which is the relevant mixing matrix element since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$. Thus we obtain a good order of magnitude fit (agreeing with the data to within a factor of 2) to the 17 measured fermion mass and mixing angle variables with just 4 free parameters ($`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$), but assuming a vacuum oscillation solution to the solar neutrino problem.

We note that we have really only used the abelian gauge quantum numbers to generate a realistic spectrum of fermion masses; the non-abelian representations are determined by imposing the usual SM charge quantisation rule for each of the SMG factors in the gauge group. Furthermore two of the $`U(1)`$s (more precisely two linear combinations of the $`U(1)`$s) in the gauge group are spontaneously broken by the Higgs fields $`S`$ and $`\psi `$, which have VEVs $`<S>=<\psi >=1`$. Hence these $`U(1)`$s play essentially no part in obtaining the spectrum of fermion masses and mixings. This means that we can construct a model based on the gauge group $`SMG\times U(1)^{}`$ with the same fermion spectrum as above. However it turns out  that some of the quarks and leptons must have extremely large (integer) $`U(1)^{}`$ charges, making this reduced model rather unattractive. Also three Higgs fields $`W`$, $`T`$ and $`\xi `$ are responsible for the spontaneous breakdown to the SM gauge group, $`SMG\times U(1)^{}SMG`$, and they have large relatively prime $`U(1)^{}`$ charges. So we prefer the better motivated $`SMG^3\times U(1)_f`$ AGUT model.

## 3 The $`(SMG\times U(1)_{BL})^3`$ Model

In this extended AGUT model we introduce a right-handed neutrino and a gauged $`BL`$ charge for each family with the associated abelian gauge groups $`U(1)_{BL,i}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). The $`U(1)_f`$ abelian factor of the $`SMG\times U(1)_f`$ model in the previous section gets absorbed as a linear combination of the $`BL`$ charge and the weak hypercharge abelian gauge groups for the different families (or generations). It is these 6 abelian gauge charges which are responsible for generating the fermion mass hierarchy and we list their values in Table 1 for the 48 Weyl proto-fermions in the model.

The see-saw scale for the right-handed neutrinos is introduced via the VEV of a new Higgs field $`\varphi _{SS}`$. However, in order to get an LMA-MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem, we have to replace  the AGUT Higgs fields $`S`$ and $`\xi `$ by two new Higgs fields $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$. The abelian gauge quantum numbers of the new system of Higgs fields for the $`(SMG\times U(1)_{BL})^3`$ model are given in Table 2.

As can be seen from Table 2, the fields $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ have only non-trivial quantum numbers with respect to the first and second families. This choice of quantum numbers makes it possible to express a fermion mass matrix element involving the first family in terms of the corresponding element involving the second family, by the inclusion of an appropriate product of powers of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$. With the system of quantum numbers in Table 2 one can easily evaluate, for a given mass matrix element, the numbers of Higgs field VEVs of the different types needed to perform the transition between the corresponding left- and right-handed Weyl fields. The results of calculating the products of Higgs fields needed, and thereby the order of magnitudes of the mass matrix elements in our model, are presented in the following mass matrices (where, for clarity, we distinguish between Higgs fields and their hermitian conjugates):

the up-type quarks:

$`M_U{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi _{\mathrm{WS}})^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}(\begin{array}{ccc}(\omega ^{})^3W^{}T^2& \omega \rho ^{}W^{}T^2& \omega \rho ^{}(W^{})^2T\\ (\omega ^{})^4\rho W^{}T^2& W^{}T^2& (W^{})^2T\\ (\omega ^{})^4\rho & 1& W^{}T^{}\end{array})`$ (26)
the down-type quarks:

$`M_D{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{WS}}}{\sqrt{2}}}(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^3W(T^{})^2& \omega \rho ^{}W(T^{})^2& \omega \rho ^{}T^3\\ \omega ^2\rho W(T^{})^2& W(T^{})^2& T^3\\ \omega ^2\rho W^2(T^{})^4& W^2(T^{})^4& WT\end{array})`$ (30)
the charged leptons:

$`M_E{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{WS}}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega ^3W(T^{})^2& (\omega ^{})^3\rho ^3W(T^{})^2& (\omega ^{})^3\rho ^3W^4(T^{})^5\\ \omega ^6(\rho ^{})^3W(T^{})^2& W(T^{})^2& W^4(T^{})^5\\ \omega ^6(\rho ^{})^3(W^{})^2T^4& (W^{})^2T^4& WT\end{array}\right)`$ (34)
the Dirac neutrinos:

$`M_\nu ^D{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi _{\mathrm{WS}})^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\omega ^{})^3W^{}T^2& (\omega ^{})^3\rho ^3W^{}T^2& (\omega ^{})^3\rho ^3W^2(T^{})^7\\ (\rho ^{})^3W^{}T^2& W^{}T^2& W^2(T^{})^7\\ (\rho ^{})^3(W^{})^4T^8& (W^{})^4T^8& W^{}T^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
and the Majorana (right-handed) neutrinos:

$`M_R\varphi _{\mathrm{SS}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\rho ^{})^6T^6& (\rho ^{})^3T^6& (\rho ^{})^3W^3(T^{})^3\\ (\rho ^{})^3T^6& T^6& W^3(T^{})^3\\ (\rho ^{})^3W^3(T^{})^3& W^3(T^{})^3& W^6(T^{})^{12}\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
Then the light neutrino mass matrix – effective left-left transition Majorana mass matrix – can be obtained via the see-saw mechanism :

$$M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_\nu ^DM_R^1(M_\nu ^D)^T.$$
(43)
with an appropriate renormalisation group running from the Planck scale to the see-saw scale and then to the electroweak scale. The experimental quark and lepton masses and mixing angles in Table 3 can now be fitted, by varying just 5 Higgs field VEVs and averaging over a set of complex order unity random numbers, which multiply all the independent mass matrix elements. The best fit is obtained with the following values for the VEVs:

$`\varphi _{SS}=5.25\times 10^{15}\text{GeV},\omega =0.244,\rho =0.265,`$
$`W=0.157,T=0.0766,`$ (44)
where, except for the Higgs field $`\varphi _{SS}`$, the VEVs are expressed in Planck units. The resulting 5 parameter order of magnitude fit, with an LMA-MSW solution to the solar neutrino problem, is presented in Table 3.

Transforming from $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ variables to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ variables, our predictions for the neutrino mixing angles become:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=0.66,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=0.96,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{chooz}}=0.11.$$
(45)
Note that our fit to the CHOOZ mixing angle lies close to the $`2\sigma `$ Confidence Level experimental bound. We also give here our predicted hierarchical left-handed neutrino masses ($`m_i`$) and the right-handed neutrino masses ($`M_i`$) with mass eigenstate indices ($`i=1,2,3`$):

$$m_1=1.4\times 10^3\text{eV},M_1=1.0\times 10^6\text{GeV},$$
(46)
$$m_2=9.6\times 10^3\text{eV},M_2=6.1\times 10^9\text{GeV},$$
(47)
$$m_3=4.2\times 10^2\text{eV},M_3=7.8\times 10^9\text{GeV}.$$
(48)
## Acknowledgements

I should again like to thank my collaborators, Mark Gibson, Holger Bech Nielsen and Yasutaka Takanishi, for many discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are currently intense efforts to confirm and extend the evidence for neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric and solar sectors. In particular the disappearance of muon neutrinos originating from cosmic ray interactions  provides a strong hint in favour of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. This indication will be tested in a conclusive manner at the next generation of long baseline experiments. In a simple two-flavour mixing scheme the atmospheric neutrino experiments constrain the mixing parameter in the region around ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$)=($`2.5\times 10^3`$, 1). Recently, the SNO experiment gave an unambiguous signature of the solar neutrino oscillations, excluding the sterile neutrino hypothesis .

In addition to the dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ component, sub-dominant oscillations involving also $`\nu _e`$ could be observed. In this three-flavour scenario the gauge eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) are related to the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i^{}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) through the leptonic mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$. This matrix can be parametrized as:

$$U(\theta _{12},\theta _{13},\theta _{23},\delta )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{i\delta }& c_{13}s_{23}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta }& c_{13}c_{23}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
with $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$.

Here the leading $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transitions are driven by the angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and the squared mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$. Sub-dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations at the atmospheric scale ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^22.5\times 10^3`$) are driven by the mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$. This angle is constrained by the CHOOZ experiment to be small ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<𝒪(10^1)`$.

The next generation of long baseline experiments — MINOS , ICARUS  and OPERA  — will search for a conclusive evidence of the oscillation mechanism at the atmospheric scale. In particular, the CNGS beam  will directly confirm the indication for neutrino oscillations through tau appearance.

Although the precision that will be achieved on the parameters driving the dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ after this first generation of long baseline experiments is well established , the sensitivity to the sub-dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ channel deserves further investigation, in particular for what concerns CNGS. This is due to the fact that only recently the baseline configuration of the CNGS detectors (ICARUS  and OPERA ) has been established. Moreover, a full $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ analysis with the OPERA experiment has not been carried out yet.

In this paper we discuss the sensitivity of the ICARUS and OPERA experiments in searching for $`\theta _{13}`$ by using the present CNGS neutrino beam. The sensitivity of ICARUS to $`\theta _{13}`$ has been evaluated in . For OPERA, whose primary aim is the direct detection of $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance, a preliminary estimate of the sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations has been given in the 1999 Letter of Intent  and is evaluated here in more details. The paper is organised as follows: in Section 2 we briefly describe the present CNGS neutrino beam, the ICARUS and OPERA experimental setups and their features; in Section 3 we discuss the ICARUS and OPERA sensitivity to $`\theta _{13}`$ ; finally in Section 4 we draw our conclusions.

## 2 The present CNGS experimental program

### 2.1 The CNGS neutrino beam

In November 2000 a new version of the CNGS beam design was released . In Tables 1 and 2, the performance of the beam are given.

The possibility of an increase of the neutrino beam intensity at moderate cost is being studied by the CNGS design group  and other groups working on the PS and SPS machines . The SPS and its injectors have a crucial role for the LHC accelerator and considerable efforts and investment are going into the upgrade of these accelerators to meet the requirements of LHC. Most of the efforts are also directly beneficial to CNGS: for example, it is expected that the maximum intensity accelerated in the SPS will be $`7\times 10^{13}`$ rather than $`4.5\times 10^{13}`$ pot/cycle . Moreover, it has been recently pointed out  that, taking into account that all the accelerators (LINAC, PSB, PS and SPS) are close to their limits, an increase in the proton beam intensity can be reached - pending further accelerator machine development studies - by reducing the beam losses between two sequential accelerators. These improvements could, at a moderate cost, increase the proton flux by as much as a factor of 1.5.

Other scenarios for a further increase of the SPS extracted beam intensity has been outlined in , but those are much more expensive and might turn out to be technically unrealistic. It is therefore prudent to state that an intensity increase for CNGS of a factor 1.5 is within reach.

The CNGS energy spectrum has been optimized for $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance and the prompt $`\nu _\tau `$ contamination (mainly from $`D_s`$ decays) is negligible. On the other hand, in the CNGS beam, the expected $`\nu _e`$ contamination is relatively small compared to the dominant $`\nu _\mu `$ component, see Table 1 and allow to search for the sub-dominant oscillation $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ seeking after an excess of $`\nu _e`$ charged-current (CC) events.

The systematic error associated with the $`\nu _e`$ contamination plays an important role for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation search, the statistical fluctuation of this $`\nu _e`$ component being the irreducible limiting factor. In turns, this uncertainty depends on the knowledge of the $`K`$ yield. For sake of consistency with Refs. , we assume for this study a 5% systematic error on the overall $`\nu _e`$ flux. However, as we will show in Section 3.1 due to the small number of selected events, especially in OPERA, a more conservative estimate of the systematics (up to 10%) would not change appreciably the experimental sensitivity.

### 2.2 The ICARUS experiment

The aim of the ICARUS Collaboration  is the construction of a liquid argon time projection chamber (TPC) detector with a space resolution comparable to that of bubble chambers.

In an ICARUS module a large liquid argon volume is contained in a cryostat equipped with wire readout planes and a high voltage plane at the center giving a long drift length. Ionisation electrons produced by charged particles crossing the liquid argon are collected at the readout planes. The arrival time of the different electrons allows the reconstruction of the particle track trajectory by the time projection technique. Each readout plane has three coordinates at $`60^{}`$ from each other and wire pitch of 3 mm. This corresponds to a bubble diameter of about 3 mm.

The detector is a homogeneous tracking device capable of $`dE/dx`$ measurement. Its high $`dE/dx`$ resolution allows good momentum measurement and particle identification of soft particles. Electromagnetic and hadronic showers are, in fact, identified and fully sampled. This gives the energy resolution for electromagnetic showers of $`\sigma (E)/E=3\%/\sqrt{E(GeV)}1\%`$ and for hadronic contained showers of $`\sigma (E)/E=16\%/\sqrt{E(GeV)}1\%`$. ICARUS features excellent electron identification and $`e/\pi ^0`$ separation.

The physics programme of the ICARUS experiment as described in the Proposal  has been derived assuming a “baseline configuration” consisting of one T600 plus two T1200 modules for a total fiducial mass of 2.35 kton .

### 2.3 The OPERA experiment

The OPERA experiment  is meant for a long baseline search for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations in the CNGS beam . The experiment uses nuclear emulsions as high resolution tracking devices for the direct detection of the $`\tau `$ produced in the $`\nu _\tau `$ CC interactions with the target. Due to its excellent electron identification capability exploited for the reconstruction of the $`\tau e`$ decay, OPERA is able to perform also a $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation search.

OPERA is designed starting from the Emulsion Cloud Chamber (ECC) concept (see references quoted in ) which combines the high precision tracking capabilities of nuclear emulsions and the large mass achievable by employing metal plates as a target. The basic element of the ECC is the cell which is made of a 1 mm thick lead plate followed by a thin emulsion film. The film is made up of a pair of emulsion layers $`50\mu `$m thick on either side of a $`200\mu `$m plastic base. Charged particles give two track segments in each emulsion film. The number of grain hits in $`50\mu `$m ($`15`$-$`20`$) ensures redundancy in the measurement of particle trajectories.

For details on the event reconstruction both with the nuclear emulsions and the electronic detector, and the OPERA sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ we refer to . The mass of the OPERA “baseline configuration”is 1.77 kton . In the following an effective mass of 1.65 kton has been assumed to account for the brick removal during data taking.

Thanks to the dense ECC structure and the high granularity provided by the nuclear emulsions, the OPERA detector is also suited for electron and $`\gamma `$ detection . The resolution in measuring the energy of an electromagnetic shower in the energy range relevant to CNGS is approximately constant and is about 20%. Furthermore, the nuclear emulsions are able to measure the number of grains associated to each track. This allows an excellent two tracks separation (better than $`1\mu `$m). Therefore, it is possible to disentangle single-electron tracks from tracks produced by electron pairs coming from $`\gamma `$ conversion in the lead. These features are particularly important for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ analysis.

The outstanding position resolution of nuclear emulsions can also be used to measure the angle of each charged track with an accuracy of about 1 mrad. This allows momentum measurement by using the Multiple Coulomb Scattering with a resolution of about 20% and the reconstruction of kinematical variables characterising the event (i.e. the missing transverse momentum at the interaction vertex $`p_T^{miss}`$ and the transverse momentum of a track with respect to hadronic shower direction $`Q_T`$).

## 3 Sensitivity to $`\theta _{13}`$

### 3.1 Event selection

In this Section we discuss the event selection in OPERA and the expected number of signal and background events in both ICARUS and OPERA.

The overall rate is defined as

$$R(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23},\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13})=S+B^{(\tau e)}+B^{(\nu _\mu \text{CC}\nu _\mu \text{NC})}+B^{(\text{beam})}+B^{\text{(NC)}},$$
(2)
where the signal, $`S`$, is the convolution of the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux ($`\varphi _{\nu _\mu }(E)`$) with the $`\nu _e`$ charged-current cross section ($`\sigma _{\nu _e}^{\text{CC}}(E)`$), the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation probability ($`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(E)`$) and the the signal efficiency ($`ϵ^{\text{signal}}`$)

$`S=A{\displaystyle \varphi _{\nu _\mu }(E)P_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}(E)\sigma _{\nu _e}^{\text{CC}}(E)ϵ^{\text{signal}}𝑑E}.`$ (3)
The normalisation $`A`$ takes into account the effective target mass. The background coming from the dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation channel where the produced $`\tau `$ decays in one electron is

$`B^{(\tau e)}=A{\displaystyle \varphi _{\nu _\mu }(E)P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }(E)\sigma _{\nu _\tau }^{\text{CC}}(E)ϵ^{(\tau e)}𝑑E},`$ (4)
where $`ϵ^{(\tau e)}`$ is the efficiency and $`\sigma _{\nu _\tau }^{\text{CC}}`$ is the $`\nu _\tau `$ charged-current cross-section. This background includes mainly taus decayed in the same lead plate as the primary vertex (“short decays”) plus a small (4%) contribution from “long decays” where the kink has not been detected.

The background from $`\nu _\mu `$ events with the primary muon not identified is given by

$`B^{(\nu _\mu \text{CC}\nu _\mu \text{NC})}=A{\displaystyle \varphi _{\nu _\mu }(E)P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }(E)\sigma _{\nu _\mu }^{\text{CC}}(E)ϵ^{(\nu _\mu \text{CC}\nu _\mu \text{NC})}𝑑E}`$ , (5)
where $`ϵ^{(\nu _\mu \text{CC}\nu _\mu \text{NC})}`$ is the probability for a $`\nu _\mu `$CC to be identified as a $`\nu _\mu `$NC and with another track mimicking an electron.

The background coming from the $`\nu _e`$ beam contamination is

$`B^{(\text{beam})}=A{\displaystyle \varphi _{\nu _e}(E)P_{\nu _e\nu _e}(E)\sigma _{\nu _e}^{\text{CC}}(E)ϵ^{(\text{beam})}𝑑E}`$ $`,`$ (6)
where $`ϵ^{(\text{beam})}`$ is the efficiency for CC events from the $`\nu _e`$ beam contamination.

The last background included, $`B^{(\text{NC})}`$, from the decay of neutral pions created by neutral-current (NC) interactions, is

$`B^{(\text{NC})}=A{\displaystyle \varphi _{\nu _\mu }(E)\sigma _\nu ^{\text{NC}}(E)ϵ^{(\text{NC})}𝑑E}`$ , (7)
where $`ϵ^{(\text{NC})}`$ is the reduction efficiency. Further background from charge exchange process is negligible .

The OPERA analysis for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation quoted in the 1999 Letter of Intent  has been revised. The major improvements are the following:

* the muon identification is improved from 80% to 95% . This means that the contribution to the background from $`\nu _\mu `$CC events can drastically be reduced;
* $`\gamma `$’s produced at the primary vertex ($`\pi ^0`$ decays) and converting into the lead plate where the interaction occurred are identified if at least one of the below conditions is fulfilled

1. the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair has an opening angle larger than 3 mrad. This cut is fixed by the angular resolution achievable by the emulsion films;
    2. if the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair has an opening angle smaller than 3 mrad, we exploit the nuclear emulsion capability in measuring the number of grains associated with a reconstructed track. The rejection power of this cut has been computed by assuming for a minimum ionising particle 30 grains per emulsion sheet, while 60 grains are assumed for the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair with opening angle smaller than 3 mrad. A reconstructed track is classified as an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair if the associated number of grains is larger than ($`30+3\times \sqrt{30}`$). Conservatively we consider only the emulsion film downstream from the vertex lead plate. Note, however, that a significant improvement could be obtained including the grains in the subsequent emulsion sheets, crossed by the electrons before showering;
* since neutrino oscillations create an excess of $`\nu _e`$CC induced events at low neutrino energies, a cut on the visible energy is applied.

Hence, the OPERA $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ dedicated analysis seeks for neutrino interactions with a candidate electron from the primary vertex with an energy greater than 1 GeV (this cut reduces the soft $`\gamma `$ component) and a visible energy of the event smaller than 20 GeV (this cut reduces the prompt $`\nu _e`$ component of the background). Moreover, we also apply a cut on the number of grains associated with the track of the candidate electron. The latter has a strong impact on the reduction of the background from $`\nu _\mu `$CC and $`\nu _\mu `$NC events and allowed for a softer cut on the electron energy. Finally, a cut on missing transverse momentum at the primary vertex $`p_T^{miss}`$ of the event is applied ($`p_T^{miss}<1.5`$ GeV) to further reduce NC contaminations and suppress $`\tau e`$ background.

For the brick finding, the vertex finding, the trigger efficiencies and the fiducial volume cut, we used the numbers quoted in the Status Report . The product of these efficiencies is shown in Table 3 and is indicated with $`\xi `$.

The final efficiencies ($`ϵ`$) for both the signal and the background channels are shown in the second raw of Table 3 and the expected number of events is shown in Table 4.

The search for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations does not increase the emulsion scanning load by a large amount. Indeed, once the events have been located, the time needed to search for interesting topologies around the reconstructed vertex is small compared with the time needed to locate the events. On the other hand, for events identified as NC produced in the downstream half of the brick one should always remove the following brick to perform the electron identification. It implies that 13% more bricks have to be removed and scanned. Notice that in the preliminary estimate quoted in the 1999 Letter of Intent only half of the ECC mass has been used.

If we assume that both $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations occur simultaneously with oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, $`\theta _{23}=45^{}`$ and $`\theta _{13}[3^{}÷9^{}]`$, the expected number of signal and background events both in ICARUS and OPERA are given in Table 4. The rates are normalised to 5 years data taking and assuming the nominal intensity of the CNGS beam.

The ICARUS rates at CNGS from $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations and from background sources have been taken from Table 5.9 of Ref.  and scaled at the different oscillation parameters $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23},\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}).`$ Here a cut on the electron energy ($`E_e>1`$ GeV) and the visible energy ($`E_{vis}<20`$ GeV) have been applied. In Table 4 the background from $`\pi ^0`$ production in neutral-current events is negligible for ICARUS as assumed in Ref. . This is not true for OPERA being the lead radiation length much shorter than the one of liquid argon. Nevertheless, this background can be further suppressed by a kinematical analysis, see Section 3.2. On the other hand, the $`\tau e`$ background in OPERA is suppressed by the capability of this detector to reconstruct exclusively the $`\tau `$ decay topology. Finally, notice that in both experiments the dominant background remains the $`\nu _e`$ contamination of the beam.

### 3.2 Kinematical analysis

An increase of sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations can be obtained by fitting the kinematical distributions of the selected events. As an example the OPERA $`p_T^{miss}`$ distribution for signal and background channels is given in Fig. 1.

In order to disentangle $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations, the ICARUS Collaboration considered the transverse missing momentum. The $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ events are balanced, while $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ show a sizable transverse momentum due to the presence of two neutrinos in the final state. The visible energy and the missing transverse momentum are combined into a binned $`\chi ^2`$-fit, in which the three oscillation parameters are allowed to vary.

By using the information contained in the Figs. 5.9 and 5.10 of Ref. , we have performed a binned $`\chi ^2`$-fit of these distributions and reproduced the results reported by the ICARUS Collaboration in Ref. . The sensitivity at 90% C.L. to $`\theta _{13}`$, corresponding to $`\chi ^2=\chi _{min}^2+4.6`$, has been evaluated under the assumption $`\theta _{23}=45^{}`$. The exclusion plot is reported in Fig. 2.

In the case of OPERA, the kinematical variables have been obtained starting from true quantities and applying a smearing according to the OPERA experimental resolutions, see Section 2.3. By fitting simultaneously the $`E_{vis},E_e,p_T^{miss}`$ distributions , we obtained the exclusion plot at 90% C.L. shown in Fig. 3 under the assumption $`\theta _{23}=45^{}`$.

The use of differential distributions improves the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ of both ICARUS and OPERA by about 20%. The combined sensitivity at 90% C.L. of the ICARUS and OPERA experiments is obtained by minimising the $`\chi ^2`$ defined as $`\chi ^2=\chi _{e(icarus)}^2+\chi _{e(opera)}^2`$ and is also shown in Fig. 2.

### 3.3 Results

In the previous Sections we discussed the sensitivity achievable in searching for $`\theta _{13}`$ with the present CNGS beam by combining the ICARUS and OPERA experiments. The improvements on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ over the CHOOZ limit in the region indicated by atmospheric neutrinos is about a factor 5 assuming 5 years data taking with the nominal CNGS beam. The limits at 90% C.L. on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and $`\theta _{13}`$ for various experiments are given in Table 5. The limits achievable with an improved CNGS beam (1.5 times more proton) are also shown.

It is worth noticing that the sensitivity of the combined experiments running with the present high energy CNGS beam is comparable to the one achievable with a dedicated low energy configuration running below the kinematical threshold for $`\tau `$ production  and is obtained “for free”, as a by-product of the search for $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance.

Clearly, we expect JHF phase 1 to improve significantly the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ with respect to the CNGS programme in case of a negative result.

## 4 Conclusion

The OPERA experiment was designed and optimised for the direct observation of the $`\tau `$ decay topology and to search for $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ atmospheric scale. Nevertheless, given the good electron identification, it turned out to be sensitive to the sub-dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations in the region indicated by atmospheric results. Exploring the region of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}𝒪(10^2)`$ is particularly interesting in connection with the discovery of CP violation in the leptonic sector . Hence, an observation of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ in the region of $`𝒪(10^2)`$ would place future CP violation searches like JHF phase 2 and the Neutrino Factories on firmer ground. We showed that by using the present CNGS beam and combining the ICARUS and OPERA experiments a sensitivity in $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ down to 0.03 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2.5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ and $`\theta _{23}=45^{}`$) can be achieved. It can be further improved if a higher intensity ($`6.8\times 10^{19}`$ pot/year) will be reached.