text:
# Multitransitional observations of the CS core of L673

## 1 Introduction

Low-mass star formation takes place in dense cores of molecular clouds (Beichman et al. beichman (1986); Benson and Myers benson (1989)). The emission of several molecules, such as CS, NH3, and HCO+, known to be good tracers of high density molecular gas, has been used to study these dense cores. However, very soon large discrepancies between the emission of these molecules were found in some sources (Zhou et al. zhou (1989); Myers et al. myers (1991)). To clarify the intrinsic differences between the emission of these molecules and how this emission is related to the actual distribution of the high density gas, we began a systematic comparison between the emission of the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) and NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) transitions under similar conditions of angular resolution (Pastor et al. pastor (1991); Morata et al. morata (1997)). The comparison of the distribution of the CS and NH3 emission in 14 condensations of 11 star-forming regions confirmed the discrepancies. In particular, we found that there is a separation $`0.2`$ pc between the emission peaks of both molecules; regions traced by CS are larger than those traced by NH3; and CS lines are $`0.5`$ km s-1 wider than those of NH3.

To explain these results, we developed a chemical model (Taylor et al. tayloru (1996)) in which high density condensations, or dense cores, are formed by clumps $`0.1`$ pc in size, which would be unresolved at moderate angular resolution observations such as the ones made in our study, of different mass, age, size and density. Most of the clumps disperse before NH3 abundances build up to significant levels, though these clumps contain substantial CS, so its emission should be observable. A few clumps, those sufficiently long lived, or being in a more advanced stage of physical and chemical evolution because of being denser or more massive, form a significant content of NH3, while CS abundance decreases with time. These clumps would possibly continue their evolution to eventually form stars. This model would account for the difference in size and separation between emission peaks of the CS and NH3 molecules.

Our chemical model explains the differences as a result of the speed at which the molecules form. Therefore, a classification could be made between “early-time” molecules and “late-time” molecules, according to the time at which these molecules reached their peak fractional abundance. We examined whether there were other potentially observable molecules that should show extended emission like CS, or more compact emission as NH3 (Taylor et al. taylord (1998)). Several candidates were found for both groups: e.g. HCN, H2CO or HC3N are found in the CS family, whilst HCO+, SO, NO or N2H+ are in the NH3 family.

In order to study the small–size structure of the cores detected with the single–dish observations, which also provides us with a test of the predictions of the chemical model, we carried out high angular resolution observations towards L673 of several transitions corresponding to molecules of both families of species. The L673 high density condensation was previously detected in the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) transition at moderate angular resolution by Morata et al. (1997). The L673 CS condensation is located at $`\alpha (J2000)=19^\mathrm{h}20^\mathrm{m}52\stackrel{s}{.}1`$, $`\delta (J2000)=+11\mathrm{°}15^{}29\stackrel{}{.}5`$, at $`9\stackrel{}{.}5`$ to the southeast of IRAS 19180$`+`$1116. This condensation is well suited to our purposes for several reasons. A high density condensation has been detected nearby in the NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) transition by Sepúlveda et al. (sepulveda (2002)), which shows the same general behavior found in the other sources of our survey: a separation from the CS emission peak $`2^{}`$, and a NH3 condensation size clearly smaller than the CS condensation size. It is located nearby, the estimated distance to the L673 cloud is $`300`$ pc (Herbig and Jones, herbig (1983)), which helps in the study of the smaller size structure of the cloud. Finally, the condensations detected in CS and NH3 show no signs of tracers of star formation, such as infrared or radio continuum sources, Herbig-Haro objects or molecular outflows, which indicates that it is probably a quiescent core, maybe in the first stages of collapse, before forming a stellar core or a Class 0 star, and thus fulfilling the conditions of the chemical model we developed.

## 2 Observations

The observations of the L673 region were carried out in 1998 May with the 10-antenna BIMA array111The BIMA array is operated by the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association with support from the National Science Foundation. at the Hat Creek Radio Observatory in the C configuration. The phase calibrators were 1751+096 and 3C395. In order to include the positions of the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) and NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) transitions single-dish emission peaks of the maps by Morata et al. (1997) and Sepúlveda et al. (sepulveda (2002)), we made a two-point mosaic with each of the fields centered approximately at the position of these two peaks. Thus, one of the fields was centered at the position $`\alpha (2000)=19^\mathrm{h}20^\mathrm{m}52\stackrel{s}{.}2`$, and $`\delta (2000)=+11\mathrm{°}13^{}57^{\prime \prime }`$, and the other located $`90^{\prime \prime }`$ to the North. Three frequency setups were used, centered at 91, 96 and 107 GHz. The digital correlator was configured to observe simultaneously several molecular line transitions at moderately high spectral resolution, $`0.3`$ km s-1. The target molecular lines were HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0), N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0), CS ($`J`$=2$``$1), SO ($`J_K=2_31_2`$) and C18O ($`J`$=1$``$0). System temperatures for the 91, 96 and 107 GHz setups were in the 180–500 K, 250–700 K and 500–1000 K range, respectively. The calibration and data reduction were performed using the MIRIAD software package (Sault, Teuben & Wright sault (1995)). Mosaic maps were done with the visibility data weighted by the associated system temperatures and using natural weighting, and applying the primary beam correction. The resulting synthesized beam for the 91, 96 and 107 GHz setups were $`12\stackrel{}{.}7\times 9\stackrel{}{.}6`$, $`PA=14\mathrm{°}`$; $`13\stackrel{}{.}3\times 10\stackrel{}{.}5`$, $`PA=17\mathrm{°}`$; and $`13\stackrel{}{.}1\times 9\stackrel{}{.}3`$, $`PA=8\mathrm{°}`$, respectively. The transitions of all the observed lines, their velocity resolution and the achieved rms noise with this velocity resolution are listed in Table 1. For the continuum emission we used the data from the 96 GHz correlator setup, which provided a bandwidth of 800 MHz centered at the frequency of 95.9 GHz. No emission was detected at above 8 mJy beam-1 (at a 3-$`\sigma `$ level).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Morphology of the molecular emission

We detected emission in three of the transitions: CS ($`J`$=2$``$1), N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0), and HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0). We detected marginally, at $`2\sigma `$ level, the SO (23$``$12) transition. The remaining transitions of Table 1, which where observed mainly because they were found inside the frequency range of the observations, were not detected. It must be noted that all these undetected transitions have an upper level energy with temperatures higher than 15 K, and most of them, OCS is the exception, have also a high dipole moment. Thus, the temperature and density conditions of the L673 core, and the low abundances expected for these molecules make them very difficult to detect.

Figures 1 to 3 show the maps of the zero-order moment (integrated intensity) of the emission of the detected molecules. These maps were obtained after convolving the original maps with a Gaussian function, with a resulting beam of $`20^{\prime \prime }\times 15^{\prime \prime }`$, in order to make a more meaningful comparison between the emission of each molecule.

A clumpy distribution of the emission is shown in the integrated intensity map of the CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) transition (Fig. 1). The more intense emission is found in two clumps near the position of the single-dish NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) emission peak: one almost coinciding with its nominal position, and the other peaking $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ to the west. Weaker emission is found in a clump near the position of the single-dish CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission maximum, $`1\stackrel{}{.}5`$ to the north.

Figure 2 shows the integrated intensity map of N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0). Two clumps of emission are found, one almost coincident with the nominal position of the NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) emission peak, and the other, more intense, $`0\stackrel{}{.}6`$ to the south. No emission is detected around the position of the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) single dish emission peak.

The integrated intensity map of the HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission (Fig. 3) shows several isolated emission enhancements distributed around the positions of the CS and NH3 single-dish emission peaks. The most intense emission tends to be around the position of the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission peak or in-between the two peaks, with a N–S elongation. Another intense enhancement is found $`1\stackrel{}{.}1`$ south-east of the NH3 emission peak nominal position.

Comparing the integrated intensity maps of the three molecules, we found that N2H+ emission was more concentrated than CS and HCO+ emission, which were found more spread all over the region. CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) emission in the southern region coincided with the northern clump of N2H+ emission. Moreover, the northern N2H+ emission peak was found between the two CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) local emission enhancements. CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) and HCO+ emission were found to coincide closely at the northern part of the region, especially around the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission peak. On the contrary, N2H+ and HCO+ emission coincided only marginally in general. Finally, we were also able to find an emission enhancement in the marginally detected SO emission very near the position of the N2H+ northern clump.

Table 2 lists the four positions we selected in the mapped region in order to compare the physical parameters of the gas traced by each molecule. The selected positions were related to the most prominent higher resolution clumps found in our observations, and corresponded to local intensity peaks in the emission of the detected molecules. The four positions were labeled as S, E, W and N, and roughly correspond to the South peak position of the N2H+ integrated intensity map, the East CS local maximum, the West CS maximum, and the North enhancement in the HCO+ emission near the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission peak, respectively.

### 3.2 Kinematic structure

Figure 4 shows the spectra obtained for the three transitions detected in the region in the four selected points. Table 3 lists the fitted line parameters for each detected transition. CS emission is detected, with varying intensity, in all four positions, whereas HCO+ emission is only detected at the N and W positions, and N2H+ emission at the S and E positions. Line center velocities for CS and HCO+ at the positions where a reliable fit could be obtained are compatible with being originated in the same bulk of gas. The difference in the line center velocity is $`0.3`$–0.5 km s-1, which is the velocity resolution of our observations. However, line center velocities for the N2H+ spectra were shifted $`>0.7`$ km s-1 from the CS line velocities. Using the much better determined frequency for the main N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) component ($`F_1,F=2,31,2`$) given by Caselli et al. (caselli (1995)): 93.17378 GHz, we found a good agreement with CS spectra line velocities, $`0.3`$ km s-1. We have corrected the N2H+ line velocities accordingly, as Table 3 shows. Line-widths are $`<0.8`$ km s-1, very similar to the observed values in the single-dish observations, except for the W clump where velocity dispersion is higher, $`1.0`$ km s-1.

### 3.3 Physical parameters

We were able to estimate the excitation temperature for the N2H+ data at the two positions, S and E, where we had good signal-to-noise spectra. The values obtained at both positions are $`4`$ K (assuming a beam filling factor $`f=1`$), which is compatible with the value obtained from the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) observations, 4.2 K (Morata et al. morata (1997)), and slightly lower than the value obtained from the NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) observations, 5.7 K (Sepúlveda et al. sepulveda (2002)). The total line opacity of the N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) transition at both positions is $`1.0`$. We estimated an upper limit for the beam averaged column density using the value for the excitation temperature obtained from the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) and N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) observations, $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}=4`$ K, and assuming a filling-factor $`f=1`$. However, the filling-factor could be $`f<1`$. In this case, the excitation temperature would be greater than 4 K, but likely less than 10 K, because the kinetic temperature in low-mass dense cores is typically about 10 K, and the excitation temperature will not be greater than this value. Thus, we used an upper value for the excitation temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}=10`$ K, which implies a lower limit for the beam average column density. The values for the line opacity, $`\tau `$, and the beam averaged column density, $`N_{\mathrm{mb}}`$ for the four selected positions are shown in Table 3.

### 3.4 Comparison with single-dish observations

We compared the CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) interferometric and ($`J`$=1$``$0) single-dish emissions. Figure 5 shows the single-dish CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) spectra obtained at the positions of the CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) and NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) emission peaks, compared with the BIMA CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) spectra obtained at the same positions after convolving the data with a gaussian function to obtain a $`1\stackrel{}{.}9`$ resulting beam, equal to the beamsize of the single-dish observations. Line center velocities agree within 0.3 km s-1, our spectral resolution in both sets of observations. Line widths are almost coincident at the southern position, while the ($`J`$=1$``$0) line is $`0.35`$ km s-1 wider at the northern position. In order to estimate the flux loss in our interferometric observations, we calculated the line intensity we should obtain for the ($`J`$=2$``$1) line from the ($`J`$=1$``$0) line opacity and excitation temperature obtained previously in the single-dish observations (Morata et al. morata (1997)). We found that the measured line intensity is $`8`$% in the northern position, and $`12`$% in the south position from the estimated values. These results are compatible with the characteristics of the BIMA array, which is insensitive to structures larger than about 10 times the synthesized beamwidth (Wright wright (1996)), which in our case is $`1\stackrel{}{.}5`$$`2^{}`$ (0.13–0.17 pc), of the order of the single-dish beamsize.

However, the existence of such an extended component, responsible for $`90\%`$ of the single-dish line intensity, would not affect significantly the beam averaged column densities determined from our interferometric observations. Assuming a size of $`120^{\prime \prime }`$ for the extended component, its contribution to the beam averaged column density for a beam size of $`17^{\prime \prime }`$ would be of the order of $`90\%\times (17^{\prime \prime }/120^{\prime \prime })^2=2\%`$. Thus, the beam averaged column densities determined from our observations are not significantly affected by the missing emission by the BIMA interferometer, assuming that it is due to an extended cloud component.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the single-dish CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) (Morata et al. morata (1997)) and NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) (Sepúlveda et al. sepulveda (2002)) emission in the same region mapped by the interferometric observations. We found that most of the strongest CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) emission and particularly all the detected N2H+ emission were enclosed inside the half-maximum contours of the NH3 map, located at the southern region of the map. All four relative emission enhancements in these two transitions are also enclosed inside the beam of the single-dish observations. HCO+ emission was fainter around this southern region, and marginal in the eastern, western and southern margins of the NH3 intensity contours. Around the northern region, no N2H+ emission was detected, but CS and HCO+ emission were enclosed by the beam of the CS single-dish observations. Emission around this position was not as concentrated as around the southern region, but we found intense HCO+ and CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) emission very near the beam center.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Structure of the core

The integrated intensity maps of the CS ($`J`$=2$``$1), N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0), and HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) transitions obtained with the BIMA interferometer showed that a much clumpier medium is revealed by the high angular resolution observations than by the single-dish maps of CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) (Morata et al. morata (1997)) and NH3 ($`J,K`$)=(1,1) (Sepúlveda et al. sepulveda (2002)) obtained with an angular resolution of $`1\stackrel{}{.}5`$. Several clumps of size $`0.08`$ pc are found distributed all over the region where the strongest emission of the single-dish observations was located, which would support the idea that at least part of the single-dish emission was originated in clumps of smaller size, $`<0.1`$ pc (Taylor et al. tayloru (1996)). Moreover, these small size clumps, although coinciding in some cases, are traced differently by each molecule, which would support the idea of a chemical differentiation between each clump of gas depending on the local density and age. However, we found that $`90\%`$ of the single-dish CS emission is not detected by the interferometric observations. As we have already pointed out, the BIMA array is insensitive to structures larger than $`0.17`$ pc, which could mean that part of the emission could come from chemically young clumps of that size or larger, undetectable then by BIMA, but whose emission was detected by the single-dish observations. Another possibility is that there could also be clumps smaller than the ones we found, of low density, and with emission not strong enough to be detected with the interferometer.

In order to qualitatively test which of the aforementioned two possibilities is more consistent with our observations, we modeled the filtering effect of the BIMA interferometer response to a molecular core with an homogeneous and extended geometry and a clumpy heterogeneous geometry. The process of generating synthetic visibility data matching that expected from true observations with the BIMA interferometer was performed by using the MIRIAD task UVGEN. This process is described by Girart & Acord (giracord (2001)). Our synthetic observations had the same phase center as the L673 observations and were done for the BIMA C-array configuration. The total flux adopted for both cases, the extended and clumpy structures, was similar to that expected for the CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) transition, calculated from the measured CS ($`J`$=1$``$0) intensity. The results obtained were:

1. Extended and homogeneous medium. The presence of the extended emission was modeled as single large component. We tested the filtering effect of the interferometer for different sizes and different center positions of the cloud with respect to the phase center. We found that in order to achieve a missing flux of about 90%, the value estimated for the BIMA observations, large sizes were required: diameter $`2^{}`$. The resulting synthetic maps showed strong negative lobes extending $`40^{\prime \prime }`$ along the N-S direction, at both sides of the center of the synthetic cloud. This was due to a combination of the effects of source structure, with a large fraction of undetected flux by the interferometer, and visibility coverage of the BIMA interferometer for a source of low declination ($`\delta =11\mathrm{°}`$ for L673). These negative structures could not be removed in the cleaning process. The cleaned maps had absolute peak intensities of the negative structures with similar, or even higher, values than the positive structures.

However the real BIMA CS ($`J`$=2$``$1) channel maps does not show such strong negative structures. At the central velocities of the CS line there are some negative lobes, but their intensity is only a $`40\%`$ of the positive peaks.
2. Clumpy and heterogeneous medium. The chemical models of Taylor et al. (tayloru (1996); taylord (1998)) assume that the clouds are formed by clumps of $`0.1`$ pc with different sizes, ages and masses. From this assumption it is expected a cloud formed with only few massive clumps and several clumps less massive. So, we adopted a simplistic model of a cloud formed with one massive, thereby strong, clump and between 15 and 20 less massive, thereby weaker, clumps. We found that even most of the emitting flux came from the smaller clumps, the BIMA synthetic resulting maps were clearly dominated by the strongest clump, and a large fraction of the emission from the weaker clumps was undetected by the interferometer. In some of the cases modeled, the total missing flux was of $`80\%`$ of the total flux. The residual negative structures of the synthetic maps were 30–50% of the positive.

In summary, without going to an exhaustive analysis of the response of the BIMA interferometer to the different cloud structures, we find that in L673 the missing flux is most probably due to a clumpy heterogeneous structure.

### 4.2 Chemical abundances

In our maps, we found that all the detected N2H+ emission was enclosed inside the half-maximum contours of the NH3 map of Sepúlveda et al. (sepulveda (2002)), with the strongest N2H+ emission found inside the highest NH3 contours. The nominal position of the NH3 emission peak is placed between the two local N2H+ emission peaks, although the beam enclosed both maxima. The chemical model developed by Taylor et al. (tayloru (1996); taylord (1998)) marks the NH3 and N2H+ molecules as forming at late times, when sufficiently high densities are reached or in long lived clumps. Thus, they should be found in the same region. The coincidence between the distribution of the emission of N2H+ observed by the BIMA interferometer and the NH3 emission detected by single-dish observations, and the overall morphological appearance of the NH3 and N2H+ emission seem to support these predictions. Moreover, both interferometric and single-dish emissions are highly concentrated, and are compatible with being originated in the same gas since the emission of N2H+ could be coming from two clumps of size $`0\stackrel{}{.}6\times 1^{}`$ enclosed inside the higher levels of the lower resolution emission of NH3. The SO molecule was also marked in our model as a late-time molecule. The near coincidence of the clump found in the marginally detected SO emission with the northern clump of the N2H+ emission would support that classification.

Table 4 shows the column density ratios of N2H+ and HCO+ over CS for the four selected positions calculated from the column density determinations of Table 3, and the CS column density relative to the maximum value, found in position W. We observe that N2H+ abundance is $``$ 5–15 % of that of CS for the S and E positions, and becomes lower at the N and W positions. \[HCO+/CS\] is $`20`$% for the S, E, and W positions, and becomes $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}`$% at the N position, while there is a factor 3 variation in the CS column density. We can then differentiate between the N and W positions, where HCO+ is clearly detected while N2H+ is not, and the E and S positions where N2H+ is clearly detected whereas HCO+ is not detected.

### 4.3 Modeling the chemical evolution

We used the results of the model explained in Taylor et al. (taylord (1998)) to compare the predicted abundances of HCO+ and N2H+ with respect to CS, with the values we obtained for the column density ratios, and see if some chemical age determination could be made for these positions. Figure 7 shows the predicted fractional abundances for several molecules of interest for values of collapse, $`B=1`$, freeze-out, $`FR=0.01`$, and final density $`n_f=5\times 10^4`$ cm-3 (see Taylor et al. tayloru (1996); taylord (1998)). We also show the molecular abundance relative to CS for the HCO+, N2H+, and NH3 molecules.

We found that the abundance \[HCO+/CS\] can be explained by the model in relatively short times, between 2-3$`\times 10^6`$ years. Thus, a higher HCO+ fractional abundance would indicate a more chemically evolved clump. However, this does not seem to agree with the abundance of N2H+. First, N2H+ reaches high abundances at later times, and one would expect to find N2H+ at more evolved clumps. Second, the model can not explain fractional abundances of N2H+ similar to those of HCO+, and as high as those we found in the S and E positions. A slightly higher freeze-out parameter would provide higher relative N2H+ abundance with respect to CS, while not changing appreciably the fractional abundance, because CS is frozen-out to grains faster. In this case, we also obtain higher HCO+ relative abundances with CS.

Figure 8 shows the results of the model modifying the final density value to 10 times the previous value, $`n_f=5\times 10^5`$ cm-3, and maintaining unchanged the values of $`B`$ and $`FR`$. We find some differences with the previous results. CS maximum fractional abundance is similar to the previous model, while NH3, HCO+, and N2H+ reach slightly lower abundances. In any case, CS and NH3 show the same behavior found in the model of Taylor et al. (tayloru (1996)). However, the higher final density produces a faster depletion of molecules, especially CS which has a steeper decline with time.

At times $`2.5\times 10^6`$ years, when CS has a high fractional abundance, and HCO+ has barely reached its maximum fractional abundance, we find a relative abundance \[HCO+/CS\]$`0.1`$, while N2H+ has still a low abundance. This could correspond to the W position of our map. At a later time, $`3\times 10^6`$ years, when N2H+ is still at low abundances, HCO+ abundance is practically the same while CS abundance is slightly lower, with a resulting higher \[HCO+/CS\] ratio. This could correspond to the N position. At the time N2H+ reaches its peak abundance, $`4\times 10^6`$ years, HCO+ has diminished in abundance although it can still be observed. This would point to the S and E positions being at later stages of chemical evolution. Distinguishing between the two is difficult. The S position could be more evolved since it shows a lower CS column density, and a higher \[N2H+/CS\] ratio, which could correspond to the stage where N2H+ is at higher abundances.

However, even the modified model is not able to explain the observed HCO+ low abundances obtained at positions S and E with respect to the predicted values. The HCO+ molecule has a high dipole moment, and it has been found that the ($`J`$=1$``$0) transition line profiles are often self-absorbed in typical molecular cloud cores by foreground gas at lower density and temperature. The apparently sudden lack of HCO+ emission in those places where N2H+ or CS emission is intense may suggest that the HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission arising from the core might be absorbed efficiently by a cold low-density envelope around the core or a foreground cloud, as in the case of the NGC 2264G region (Girart et al. girart (2000)).

### 4.4 Comparison with other studies

Studies of chemical evolution have been made up to now with single-dish observations using several transitions of selected early- and late-time molecules, usually CS, N2H+, NH3, HCO+, SO, SO2, and HC3N. These studies of starless cores show maps where emission seems to originate in several clumps distributed all over the region (Dickens et al. dickens (2000)) or in round-like clumps (Tafalla et al. tafalla (2002)). All these studies show evidences of chemical differentiation. Dickens et al. find that early- and late-time molecules are found at different positions and show differing behavior, i.e. early-time molecules are most abundant where late-time molecules are not, and viceversa. The authors explain their results invoking a difference in the chemical ages of different parts of their region. Tafalla et al. also find that their maps show a great coincidence between the emission of the N2H+ and NH3 molecules, while differing from the CS emission.

Some of these studies also find evidence for differing depletion rates of molecules such as CS or NH3. Tafalla et al. find a central abundance drop of CS, a constant abundance of N2H+, and a central enhancement of NH3 in their regions, while Bergin et al. (bergin (2001)), in observations of the IC 5146 cloud, also detect molecular depletion of CS, while N2H+ remains in the gas phase with growing extinction. Other numerical calculations, such as Aikawa et al. (aikawa (2001)) also predict a depletion of certain species from the central regions. In our model, we would expect to find the more massive and chemically older clumps in the central regions. These clumps would have substantial quantities of NH3 and N2H+, while CS would have been depleted from the gas phase, which would show as a central depletion of CS.

Thus, these results suggest that although our interferometric observations lose information on the total emission of the region, they are in agreement with the results obtained with single-dish telescopes, suggesting that interferometric observations are useful to study with high angular resolution the chemical evolution of inner structures of starless cores.

## 5 Summary

We made a multitransitional study with the BIMA interferometric array of the starless core found in the L673 (Morata et al. morata (1997)), in order to test the chemical model of Taylor et al. (tayloru (1996); taylord (1998)). The main results were:

1. We detected emission in the CS($`J`$=2$``$1), N2H+ ($`J`$=1$``$0), and HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) lines. We marginally detected emission in the SO ($`J_K=2_31_2`$) line.
2. The high angular resolution interferometric observations revealed a much clumpier medium than the lower resolution single-dish observations. Several clumps of size $`0.08`$ pc were found for each line distributed all over the region where the single-dish emission was found.
3. Each molecular transition traced differently the clump distribution, although in some cases the detected clumps were coincident. We found that the distribution of the N2H+ emission was completely enclosed by the half-maximum contours of the NH3 maps of Sepúlveda et al. (sepulveda (2002)), and that both emissions were highly compact and compatible with being originated in the same gas. We also found a marginal coincidence with the SO molecule, which is also a late-time molecule.
4. The BIMA interferometer detected only 9–12% of the CS (2$``$1) emission. Modelling the filtering effect of BIMA, we found that a clumpy and heterogeneous medium could explain this effect.
5. We estimated the abundance ratios \[N2H+/CS\] and \[HCO+/CS\] from the molecular column density determinations in four selected positions, labeled as S, E, W, and N, in order to compare them with the predicted values of the chemical model. We found that at the N and W positions there was a high HCO+ abundance relative to CS and a low N2H+ abundance, while at the S and E positions the case was reversed.
6. The chemical model was able to explain the abundance ratios of \[HCO+/CS\] at the positions where HCO+ was detected, N and W. The best fit was for a model with a density at which collapse is halted of $`n_f=5\times 10^5`$ cm-3. In this case, we found that the predicted \[N2H+/CS\] abundance ratios were more in agreement with the observations. A high HCO+ abundance, but a low N2H+ abundance would represent an earlier stage, where the W and N positions could be found. The S and E positions would be in a later chemical stage on account of the higher N2H+ abundance, although a more precise differentiation is hard to make.

Thus, the model described in Taylor et al. (tayloru (1996); taylord (1998)) applied to a starless core with no apparent signs of other star formation tracers, such as molecular outflows or radio continuum sources, was able to explain the interferometric observations, if we take into account the likely self-absorption of HCO+. In particular, the chemical differentiation of the detected clumps and the coincidence of the NH3 and N2H+ emissions agree with the model. It also enabled us to explain the HCO+ and N2H+ emissions and to propose a classification of the studied clumps according to the stage of chemical evolution indicated by the molecular abundances.

Further multitransitional observations with higher sensitivity would be necessary in order to determine with more detail the physical structure of the region and to provide more data with which to refine the chemical model predictions. In particular, the observation of molecules such as H2CO and SO, or of the isotope H13CO+, would help to clarify the nature of the HCO+ ($`J`$=1$``$0) emission.

###### Acknowledgements.

JMG acknowledges support by NSF grant AST-99-81363 and by RED-2000 from the Generalitat de Catalunya. RE and JMG are partially supported by DGICYT grant PB98-0670 (Spain). We thank the referee for the comments and discussion.


format: text

text:
# FORWARD-BACKWARD MULTIPLICITY CORRELATIONS IN 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ ANNIHILATION AND pp COLLISIONS AND THE WEIGHTED SUPERPOSITION MECHANISM

## 1 Essentials on forward-backward multiplicity correlation in symmetric collisions

The average number of charged particles generated in different events in the backward hemisphere (B), $`\overline{n}_B`$, is a function of the number of particles occurring in the forward hemisphere (F), $`n_F`$, controlled by the correlation strength $`b_{\text{FB}}`$

$$b_{\text{FB}}=\frac{\text{Cov}[n_B,n_F]}{\sqrt{\text{Var}[n_B]\text{Var}[n_F]}}.$$
(1)
In hadron-hadron collisions the correlation strength parameter is rather large with respect to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and is growing with c.m. energy in the total sample of events as shown in Table 1.

In addition in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at LEP energies it has been found that $`b_{\text{FB}}0`$ in the separate two- and three-jet sample of events. No information is available on the correlation strength in the separate samples of soft (no minijets) and semihard (with minijets) events in hadron-hadron collisions.

## 2 The problem

We want to calculate the parameter $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ for the multiplicity distribution

$$P(n)=\underset{n_B+n_F=n}{}P_{\text{total}}(n_F,n_B),$$
(2)
where $`n_F`$ and $`n_B`$ are random variables and $`P_{\text{total}}(n_F,n_B)`$ is the joint distribution for the weighted superposition of different classes of events, i.e.,

$$P_{\text{total}}(n_F,n_B)=\alpha P_1(n_F,n_B)+(1\alpha )P_2(n_F,n_B),$$
(3)
$`\alpha `$ being the weight of class 1 events with respect to the total.

## 3 The general solution

$$b_{\text{FB}}=\frac{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha b_1D_{n,1}^2(1+b_2)+(1\alpha )b_2D_{n,2}^2(1+b_1)+& \\ +\frac{1}{2}\alpha (1\alpha )(\overline{n}_2\overline{n}_1)^2(1+b_1)(1+b_2)& \end{array}}{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha D_{n,1}^2(1+b_2)+(1\alpha )D_{n,2}^2(1+b_1)+& \\ +\frac{1}{2}\alpha (1\alpha )(\overline{n}_2\overline{n}_1)^2(1+b_1)(1+b_2)& \end{array}},$$
(4)
where $`b_i`$ are the correlation strengths of class 1 ($`i=1`$) and class 2 ($`i=2`$) events, $`D_{n,i}`$ are the multiplicity distribution dispersions of class 1 ($`i=1`$) and class 2 ($`i=2`$) events and $`\overline{n}_i`$ the corresponding average charged multiplicity for class 1 ($`i=1`$) and class 2 ($`i=2`$) events.

In case $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are zero (as in the separate two samples of events in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation) one finds

$$b_{\text{FB}}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\alpha (1\alpha )(\overline{n}_2\overline{n}_1)^2}{\alpha D_{n,1}^2+(1\alpha )D_{n,2}^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha (1\alpha )(\overline{n}_2\overline{n}_1)^2}.$$
(5)
It should be pointed out that above formulas are independent from any specific form of the multiplicity distributions $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$! They depend only on the weight alpha and average charged multiplicities and dispersions of the two classes of events.

## 4 Applications of Eqs. (4) and (5)

### 4.1 An intriguing application of Eq. (5) to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation

Opal collaboration has found that forward backward multiplicity correlations are non existent in the separate two- and three-jet samples of events i.e. $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ in the first general formula are zero and the correlation strength of the total sample of 2-jet and 3-jet events is equal to $`0.103\pm 0.007`$.

Using a fit to OPAL data with similar conditions to the jet finder algorithm for the separate samples of events we can determine all parameters in formula (5) and test its prediction with the experimental finding.

It turns out that the values of the parameters needed in (5) are $`\alpha =0.463`$, $`\overline{n}_1=18.4`$, $`\overline{n}_2=24.0`$, $`D_1^2=25.6`$, $`D_2^2=44.6`$ and the predicted value of $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ is 0.101, in extraordinary agreement with experimental data!

### 4.2 A suggestive application of Eq. (4) to pp̄ collisions

The application of (5) to pp̄ collisions leads to unsatisfactory results but opens a new perspective: forward-backward multiplicity correlations cannot be neglected in the separate components. Accordingly Equation (4) and not (5) should be used.

Repeating the same approach done in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation for calculating $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ (i.e., assuming that in the separate samples of events FB multiplicity correlations are absent, $`b_1=b_2=0`$) in the case of pp̄ collisions at 546 GeV c.m. energy and using Fuglesang’s fit to soft and semihard events (accordingly $`\alpha =0.75`$, $`\overline{n}_1=24.0`$, $`\overline{n}_2=47.6`$, $`D_{n,1}^2=106`$, $`D_{n,2}^2=209`$) one finds $`b_{\text{FB}}=0.28`$ ($`b_{\text{FB}}^{\text{(exp)}}=0.58`$). The theoretical prediction in this case is too small! It is clear that our working hypothesis was not correct in this case. In conclusion forward-backward multiplicity correlations are needed in each class of events, i.e., $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ should be different from zero, and after their determination general formula (4) and not formula (5) should be used!

Results in 4.1 and 4.2 are a striking test of the existence of the weighted superposition effect, only a guess up to now.

## 5 A new theoretical problem

Following above conclusions the next problem is how to determine $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ when explicit data on forward-backward multiplicity correlations in the two separate samples of events are lacking and $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ of the total sample is known from experiments.

The generality of Equation (4) should be limited by introducing additive assumptions inspired by our phenomenological knowledge of the particle emission process in the collision under examination.

Assuming for instance that

a. particles are independently produced in the collision,

b. binomially distributed in the forward and backward hemispheres,

it is found that

$$b_i=\frac{D_{n,i}^2\overline{n}_i}{D_{n,i}^2+\overline{n}_i},$$
(6)
where $`D_{n,i}`$ and $`\overline{n}_i`$ are the dispersion and the average charged multiplicity of the overall multiplicity distribution of each component being as usual $`i=1,2`$.

Assuming next that

c. the multiplicity distribution in each $`i`$-component is NB(Pascal) with parameters $`\overline{n}_i`$ and $`k_i`$ (an assumption which is suggested by the success of the weighted superposition mechanism of NB(Pascal)MD’s in describing shoulder effect in charged particle multiplicity distributions and $`H_q`$ vs $`q`$ oscillations and which we hardly would like to abandon),

we find

$$b_i=\frac{\overline{n}_i}{\overline{n}_i+2k_i}.$$
(7)
Accordingly $`b_i`$ values can be calculated by using again Fuglesang’s fit parameters on the two components at 546 GeV c.m. energy. After inserting in the general formula (4) these parameters we find $`b_{\text{FB}}=0.78`$.

A too large value with respect to the experimental one ($`b_{\text{FB}}=0.58`$)! This result leads to the following question: Which one of above mentioned apparently quite reasonable assumptions should be modified?

Our guess is that charged particle FB multiplicity correlation is not compatible with independent particle emission but is compatible with the production in cluster, i.e., clan within a NB(Pascal)MD framework. An idea which we propose to develop and to explore in the following.

## 6 Clan concept is of fundamental importance

Successive steps of our argument are

i) the joint distribution $`P_{\text{total}}(n_F,n_B)`$ is written as the convolution over the number of produced clans and over the partitions of forward and backward produced particles among clans:

$$P(n_F,n_B)=\underset{N_F,N_B}{}𝒫(N_F,N_B)\underset{m_F^{}+m_F^{\prime \prime }=n_F}{}_{m_B^{}+m_B^{\prime \prime }=n_B}p_F(m_F^{},m_B^{}|N_F)p_B(m_F^{\prime \prime },m_B^{\prime \prime }|N_B).$$
(8)
ii) forward backward hemispheres symmetry property is used

$$p_F(n,m|N)=p_B(m,n|N).$$
(9)
iii) leakage parameter $`p`$ is introduced: it controls the probability that a binomially distributed particle generated by one clan lying in one hemisphere has to leak in the opposite hemisphere, $`q`$ is the leakage parameter working in the symmetric direction, $`p+q=1`$ (notice that $`p=1`$ or $`q=0`$ means no leakage, the variation domain of $`p`$ is $`0.5p<1`$ and when $`p<0.5`$ the clan is classified in the wrong domain).

iv) covariance $`\gamma (\mu _F\overline{\mu }_F)(\mu _B\overline{\mu }_B)`$ of $`\mu _F`$ forward and $`\mu _B`$ backward particles within a clan for forward and backward binomially distributed particles generated by clans is also introduced.

v) clans are binomially produced in the forward and backward hemispheres with the same probability and particles within a clan are independently distributed in the two hemispheres.

It follows for each $`i`$-component

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b& =\frac{D_N^24d_{N_F}^2(N)(pq)^2+4\overline{N}\gamma /\overline{n}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{D_N^2+4d_{N_F}^2(N)(pq)^24\overline{N}\gamma /\overline{n}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2\overline{N}D_c^2/\overline{n}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{D_n^2/\overline{n}D_c^2/\overline{n}_c4d_{N_F}^2(N)(pq)^2\overline{n}_c/\overline{N}+4\gamma /\overline{n}_c}{D_n^2/\overline{n}+D_c^2/\overline{n}_c+4d_{N_F}^2(N)(pq)^2\overline{n}_c/\overline{N}4\gamma /\overline{n}_c}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Eq. (10) assuming NB (Pascal) behavior with characteristic $`\overline{n}_i`$ and $`k_i`$ parameters for each component, binomial clan distribution in the two hemispheres, binomial distribution in the two hemispheres of logarithmically produced particles from each clan according to clan structure analysis gives

$$b_i=\frac{2\overline{n}_ip_iq_i}{\overline{n}_i+k_i2\overline{n}_ip_iq_i}.$$
(11)
Accordingly the problem is therefore reduced to determine leakage parameters $`p_i`$ in the two classes of events!

Notice that in the limit $`\overline{n}_i\mathrm{}`$, for decreasing $`k_i`$, $`b_i`$ depends on $`p_i`$ only.

## 7 A phenomenological argument for determining leakage parameters $`p_i`$

By assuming that the semihard component is negligible at 63 GeV c.m. energy and knowing $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ from experiment at such energy, equation (11) allows to determine $`p_{\text{soft}}`$ (0.78); the relatively small variation of $`\overline{n}_{c,\text{soft}}`$ from 63 GeV to 900 GeV (it goes from $`2`$ to $`2.44`$) leads to the conclusion that the leakage parameter for the soft component $`p_{\text{soft}}`$ can be considered in the GeV domain nearly constant, i.e., $`p_{\text{soft}}=0.78`$: therefore the correlation strength for the soft component at 546 GeV c.m. energy, $`b_{\text{soft}}(546\text{GeV})`$, can easily be determined.

The germane equation for $`b_{\text{semihard}}(546\text{GeV})`$ contains of course the unknown parameter $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ at the c.m. energy of 546 GeV. By inserting in equation (4) for $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ (total) $`b_{\text{soft}}(546\text{GeV})=0.78`$ and $`b_{\text{semihard}}(546\text{GeV})`$ as given by equation (11) with unknown $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ parameter, $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ at 546 GeV can be calculated from the experimental value of $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ (total) = 0.58. It is found $`p_{\text{semihard}}(546\text{GeV})=0.77`$.

Since $`\overline{n}_{c,\text{semihard}}`$ does not vary too much in the GeV region (it goes from 1.64 at 200 GeV c.m. energy to 2.63 at 900 GeV c.m. energy, a relatively small variation which will hardly affect the corresponding leakage parameter in this domain) it is not hazardous to take $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ constant in the same region.

Under just mentioned assumptions

a. the correlation strength c.m. energy dependence is correctly reproduced in the GeV energy range from ISR up to UA5 top c.m. energy and follows the phenomenological formula $`b_{\text{FB}}=0.019+0.061\mathrm{ln}s`$ (see Fig. 1).

b. when extrapolated to the TeV energy domain in the scenarios discussed in Ref.  with the same values of $`p_{\text{soft}}`$ obtained in the GeV region ($`\overline{n}_{c,\text{soft}}(14\text{TeV})`$ being $`2.98`$ makes this guess acceptable) and $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ also constant (a too strong assumption of course), a clean bending effect in $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ vs. $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ is predicted. Bending effect is enhanced or reduced by allowing $`p_{\text{semihard}}`$ to increase (less leakage from clans and more bending) or to decrease logarithmically with c.m. energy (more leakage from clans and less bending). Energy dependence of leakage parameter for the semihard component is clearly expected in the TeV region in a scenario with strong KNO scaling violation in view of the quite large average number of particles per clan with respect to that found at 900 GeV c.m. energy (it goes from 2.63 at 900 GeV up to 7.36 at 14 TeV). See again Fig. 1.

c. in addition $`\overline{n}_B(n_F)`$ behavior at 63 GeV c.m. energy (ISR data) is quite well described in terms of the soft component (single NB) only and at 900 GeV c.m. energy (UA5 data) in terms of the weighted superposition of soft and semihard components, i.e., of the superposition of two NB(Pascal)MD’s. (See Fig. 2, where the second case is shown).

## 8 Conclusions

Weighted superposition mechanism of two samples of events describes forward backward multiplicity correlations in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation independently of the specific form of the charged particle MD in the different classes of events: only the average numbers of particles and related dispersions in addition to the weight factor are needed.

In order to describe forward backward multiplicity correlations in pp̄ collisions lack of information on FB multiplicity correlations in the separate components is demanding to specify the form of particle multiplicity distributions of the two components.

The choice of NB(P)MD for each component (supported by its success in describing shoulder effect and $`H_q`$ vs $`q`$ oscillations) outlines the role of clan properties in this framework and allows to determine correctly $`b_{\text{FB}}`$ energy dependence for the total sample of events in the GeV region. Its bending in the TeV region within possible scenarios discussed in the literature is predicted.

$`\overline{n}_B(n_F)`$ vs $`n_F`$ trend is also nicely reproduced at 63 GeV (only soft component is assumed to contribute) and at 900 GeV (superposition of soft and semihard components is used), and its behavior in the TeV energy range predicted.

Last but not least we have found that our study on FB multiplicity correlations in pp collisions when extended to the TeV energy region assuming KNO scaling violation for the semihard component enhances the intriguing connection already shyly anticipated in the GeV region between particle populations within clans, particle leakage from clans in one hemisphere to the opposite one and the superposition effect between different components. Clan concept appears in this framework as a powerful tool which goes far beyond its simple statistical interpretation and raises the question on its real physical significance: an interesting but also compulsory question for future experimental work in pp collisions and not only.

## References


text:
# The entanglement of indistinguishable particles shared between two parties

## I Definition of “particle”

For the purpose of our analysis, a particle is a discrete entity which is indistinguishable from other particles of the same type, and for which conservation laws imply a particle number superselection rule (SSR). That is, the creation of superpositions of different number eigenstates by any means (including measurements) is forbidden. Examples of such “genuine” particles are: electrons; and Hydrogen atoms in a particular electronic state. Note that the conservation law need not be for the particle number itself. For example, composite particles such as atoms can be constructed from their constituents and so their number is not conserved. Nevertheless there is still a SSR because of the fundamental conservation laws of baryon and lepton numbers of the constituents Sud86  and this is all we need here. However, it is usual in QI processing for the number of particles to be conserved VerCir03 . Thus, without loss of generality, we will assume a conservation law for particle number. Note also that such a law does not apply to the quanta of excitation (which are always bosonic) of oscillators which can be excited classically, such as photons or excitons.

## II Previous Measures

### II.1 Entanglement of Modes

One measure of entanglement of identical particles is what we call the entanglement of modes $`E_\mathrm{M}`$. This is simply determined by calculating Eq. (1) for the bipartite state in the Fock representation. Since we are concerned only with genuine particles, we will henceforth assume that the joint state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ contains exactly $`N`$ particles. Clearly $`E_\mathrm{M}`$ is independent of whether the particles are bosons or fermions, but in the latter case the occupation numbers are limited to 0 or 1.

### II.2 Quantum correlation between particles

A completely different concept can be considered for the case where $`N=2`$, namely whether one particle is entangled with the other PasYou01 ; Sch01 ; Li01 . This is conceptually quite different from both the entanglement between two spatially separated parties, and the entanglement between two distinguishable particles (which in principle could be separated, unlike identical particles). To emphasize these differences, PY PasYou01  follow Schliemann et al. Sch01  in referring instead to quantum correlations (QC) between particles. Since there is no notion of spatial separation, we drop for now the $`AB`$ subscript on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The QC as defined by PY is different for bosons and fermions. The QC between bosons is given in bits as

$$S_b=S(\rho ^{(1)}),$$
(8)
where $`S`$ is the binary entropy as above, and where $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ is the single-particle mixed state. In some particular mode basis, the state matrix is

$$[\rho ^{(1)}]_{\mu ^{}\mu }=\mathrm{\Psi }|c_\mu ^{}c_\mu ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }/\underset{\nu }{}\mathrm{\Psi }|c_\nu ^{}c_\nu |\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(9)
where $`c_\mu `$ is the boson annihilation operator for mode $`\mu `$. It turns out that for bosons it is always possible to find a basis where the two-particle state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\mu }{}\beta _\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_\mu ^{})^2|\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(10)
where $`|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the state containing no particles, and where the $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ corrects a typographical error in Ref. PasYou01 . From this it can be shown that PasYou01  $`S_b=H(\{|\beta _\mu |^2\}_\mu )`$, where here $`H`$ is the binary Shannon entropy NieChu00  for the probability distribution $`\{|\beta _\mu |^2\}_\mu `$. Only the state $`|2`$, with both bosons in one mode, is uncorrelated.

For fermions, the single-particle mixed state and its entropy are defined in precisely the same way, but where the $`c_\mu `$s are fermion annihilation operators. However PY say the QC between fermions is, in bits, $`S_f1`$. This curious difference from the bosonic case is motivated as follows. For fermions it is always possible to find a basis where the two-particle state can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{\nu }{}\varphi _\nu c_{2\nu }^{}c_{2\nu 1}^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(11)
From this it can be shown that $`S_f1=H(\{|\varphi _\nu |^2\}_\nu )`$. The least-correlated state is a state of the form $`|1|1`$, with one fermion in each of two modes. This state has an entropy of 1, but a QC of 0 according to PY. Thus one has the curious situation that the “same” state, such as $`|1|1`$ would be considered quantum correlated for bosons but uncorrelated for fermions

## III Entanglement of Particles

We wish to define the entanglement $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ between two distant parties, Alice and Bob, who share some state of $`N`$ indistinguishable particles. An obvious question is, what is wrong with $`E_\mathrm{M}`$ as defined above? The answer is that it fails to take into account the SSR for particle number. To fully use the supposed entanglement $`E_\mathrm{M}`$ they share, Alice and Bob in general must be able to arbitrarily measure and manipulate their local systems. Unless Alice’s (and hence Bob’s) state happens to be a state of definite particle number, this will mean violating the SSR for particle number. For example, the teleportation protocol in Ref. Git02  relies upon such forbidden operations. Thus $`E_\mathrm{M}`$ in general over-estimates the available entanglement $`E_\mathrm{P}`$.

To be specific, say that in addition to all of the indistinguishable particles which Alice and Bob may use in the experiment, their quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ includes a conventional quantum register each, initially in a product state. The operational definition of $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ is the maximal amount of entanglement which Alice and Bob can produce between their quantum registers by local operations (LOs) 111Classical communication makes no difference here.. Since the registers of Alice and Bob consist of distinguishable qubits, this entanglement can be computed by the standard measure. As a consequence of the particle number SSR, this entanglement will be given not by the mode entanglement of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$, but by

$$E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})\underset{n}{}P_nE_\mathrm{M}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}).$$
(12)
Here $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}`$ is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ projected into the subspace of fixed local particle number ($`n`$ for Alice, $`Nn`$ for Bob),

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_n|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB},$$
(13)
and $`P_n`$ is the probability $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}/\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$.

To see this explicitly, say Alice and Bob perform the optimal LOs to change $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ into $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{}`$ in which their registers have entanglement $`E_\mathrm{P}`$. Alice could now measure her local particle number $`\widehat{n}`$, and this would not affect $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ on average. But since LOs conserve local particle number this would be true even if Alice were to measure $`\widehat{n}`$ before applying the LOs. This measurement would collapse the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}`$ into the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}`$, with probability $`P_n=\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)}`$, where $`n`$ is the measurement result. Now since this is a state of definite local particle number for both parties, there are no conservation laws that prevent local unitaries from transferring all of its entanglement, $`E_\mathrm{M}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(n)})`$ to the quantum registers. To obtain $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ as defined above one simply averages over the result $`n`$, yielding Eq. (12).

### III.1 Relation to Previous Concepts

We can relate $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ to both previous concepts defined above. First, since projecting onto the local particle number eigenspace is a local operation, it can only decrease entanglement HorHorHor00 . It follows that

$$E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB})E_\mathrm{M}(|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}),$$
(14)
so that the entanglement of modes is necessary for the entanglement of particles.

Second, it turns out (for bosons at least) that QC between particles is also necessary for entanglement of particles. Recall that the QC was defined by YP only for two particles. If the QC between two bosons is zero then there is some choice of modes such that they are in the same mode. In general this mode will be split between an Alice mode and a Bob mode, with coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Then in the Fock picture, the two-boson state is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\alpha a^{}+\beta b^{})^2|0,0=\alpha ^2|2,0+\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta |1,1+\beta ^2|0,2,$$
(15)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the annihilation operators for the relevant mode on Alice’s and Bob’s side respectively. Since the three terms here have different local particle number, $`E_\mathrm{P}=0`$. Thus entanglement of particles ($`E_\mathrm{P}>0`$) implies QC between bosons.

For fermions, the situation is not so clear cut. Consider the two-particle state (6). Applying Eq. (12), Alice and Bob share half an ebit through these two identical particles. Using modes split between Alice and Bob (as in the preceding paragraph), this state can be rewritten as $`|1|1`$. As a bosonic state, this would be considered by PY as exhibiting QC, but not so as a fermionic state. As discussed, the justification for the latter categorization is the desire to have the least-correlated two-fermion state have no QC, like the least-correlated two-boson state. Our analysis shows that what is more relevant to bipartite entanglement of particles is that the one-particle entropy of this state, $`S_f=S_b=1`$, is nonzero.

This conclusion is strengthened in that the entanglement of particles, as we have quantified it, reduces in the two-particle case to a modified version of the single particle entropy $`S_b`$ or $`S_f`$, as defined by PY. It does not reduce to $`S_f1`$, as they define the QC between fermions to be. We would expect the QC between the two particles to correspond to the entanglement between Alice and Bob only if Alice has just one of the particles. Therefore we modify the QC between particles of PY by defining the single particle state matrix to be

$$[\rho _A^{(1)}]_{k^{}k}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}|a_k^{}a_k^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}/\underset{l}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}|a_l^{}a_l|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}.$$
(16)
Here the operators $`a_k`$ are those acting on Alice’s modes only. It is then easy to verify that the weighted single-particle entropy $`P_1S(\rho _A^{(1)})`$ is identical to the entanglement of particles as defined above. This is because $`[\rho _A^{(1)}]_{k^{}k}`$ is the same state matrix as $`\mathrm{Tr}_B[|\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{AB}^{(1)}|]`$ in the basis $`|k=a_k^{}|\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and the contributions to $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ from the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(2)}`$ terms are zero. This result holds for either fermions or bosons.

## IV Examples

To illustrate our measure $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ we have tabulated it, as well as $`E_\mathrm{M}`$, and (where appropriate) $`S_b`$ and $`S_f`$, for various states in Table 1. A number of features are worth noting. First, as proven above, $`E_\mathrm{P}E_\mathrm{M}`$, so that $`E_\mathrm{P}>0E_\mathrm{M}>0`$. Second, where the single particle entropy $`S`$ is defined, it is identical for bosons and fermions ($`S_b=S_f`$), and satisfies $`E_\mathrm{P}<S`$. This is consistent with the result we have proven that $`E_\mathrm{P}>0S>0`$. Third, even if $`E_\mathrm{M}>0`$ and $`S>0`$, this does not imply that $`E_\mathrm{P}>0`$, so our concept cannot be derived from these previous concepts.

All of the numbers in Table 1 are trivial to calculate from the above definitions, except for the asymptotic result. This is the entanglement between Alice and Bob if $`N`$ indistinguishable particles are prepared independently in $`N`$ different modes, each of which is split equally between Alice and Bob. For large $`N`$, standard statistical mechanics arguments KitKro80  yields

$`E_\mathrm{P}[(|0,1+|1,0)^N]`$ $`=`$ $`2^N{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}}\right)\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}}\right)`$ (17)
$``$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}_2(N)\delta .`$
where $`\delta =(1+\mathrm{log}_2\pi +1/\mathrm{ln}2)/21.047096`$.

## V Properties

The astute reader will have noticed that our measure of entanglement fails to satisfy the postulate of partial additivity identified in Ref. HorHorHor00 . That is,

$$E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^C)CE_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(18)
The reason is that the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the tensor product are not truly independent of each other due to the indistinguishability of the particles. If the subsequent terms in the tensor product represented states of different species of particle, the entanglement would be additive.

In fact, for arbitrary pure states of indistinguishable particles, the entanglement is super-additive:

$$E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi })E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi })+E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(19)
This can be seen as follows. Say $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are states with $`N`$ and $`M`$ particles respectively. We use $`\rho _A^{(n)}`$ and $`\sigma _A^{(m)}`$ for the reduced state of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$ respectively, and $`p`$ for the total particle number, on Alice’s side. Then, defining $`w_{nmp}=\delta _{p,n+m}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}`$, Eq. (12) implies that $`E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi })`$ equals

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{N+M}{}}S\left(\frac{_{n,m}w_{nmp}\rho _A^{(n)}\sigma _A^{(m)}}{_{n,m}w_{nmp}}\right)\underset{n,m}{}w_{nmp}.$$
(20)
Using the concavity of the entropy NieChu00 , we obtain

$`E_\mathrm{P}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{N+M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}w_{nmp}S(\rho _A^{(n)}\sigma _A^{(m)})`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{N+M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}w_{nmp}[S(\rho _A^{(n)})+S(\sigma _A^{(m)})].`$ (22)
Applying Eq. (12) to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, this expression reduces to the right-hand side of Eq. (19).

Now the inequality in Eq. (21) is an equality iff (if and only if) all states in the sum are identical NieChu00 . But actually they are orthogonal, so the equality in Eq. (19) is satisfied iff there is only one element in the sum. That is, iff at least one of $`V_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or $`V_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`0`$. Here $`V_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the variance in the number of particles on Alice’s side for state $`|\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

The above results also suggest that with a large number of copies $`C`$, the mode entanglement is recovered:

$$\underset{C\mathrm{}}{lim}E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^C)/E_\mathrm{M}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^C)=1.$$
(23)
This can be established using the same techniques KitKro80  that gave Eq. (17). From the central limit theorem, the number of significant terms in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^C`$ with different particle number $`n`$ on Alice’s side is of order $`\sqrt{CV_\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. For this state, the entropy of a typical $`\rho _A^{(n)}`$ is therefore of order $`\mathrm{log}_2(\sqrt{CV_\mathrm{\Psi }})`$ smaller than the entropy of $`\rho _A`$. That is,

$$E_\mathrm{P}(|\mathrm{\Psi }^C)CE_\mathrm{M}(|\mathrm{\Psi })\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}_2(V_\mathrm{\Psi }C)+O(1),$$
(24)
from which Eq. (23) follows.

In conclusion, from an operational definition we have quantified $`E_\mathrm{P}`$, the entanglement of $`N`$ indistinguishable particles shared between two parties. Our criterion for entanglement of particles ($`E_\mathrm{P}>0`$) is stronger (in a mathematical sense) even than the conjunction of two previous concepts in this area. These are: the entanglement of modes ($`E_\mathrm{M}>0`$); and, for the two-particle case, correlations between the particles ($`S>0`$, where $`S`$ is the single-particle entropy). For asymptotically many copies of the state, $`E_\mathrm{P}E_\mathrm{M}`$. However, unlike $`E_\mathrm{M}`$, $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ is super-additive. This unusual characteristic of $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ reflects the indistinguishability of the particles. It has implications for QI processing and Bell-type nonlocality, and requires further investigation (see, for comparison, Ref. VerCir03 ). The generalization of our work to multipartite entanglement is another area for future exploration.

We are grateful for discussions with J. Ruostekoski, T. Osborne, M. Nielsen, J. Dodd, and M. Bremner. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.


text:
# The dynamical Casimir effect and energetic sources for gamma ray bursts

## Abstract

On the analogy of the Casimir effect, we present an effect of quantum-field fluctuations, attributed to gravitational field coupling to the zero-point energy of virtual particles in the vacuum. In the process of black hole’s formation, such an effect could cause tremendous energy release, possibly describing a scenario of energetic sources for observed gamma ray bursts.

The mystery of energetic sources generating gamma ray bursts, a prompt emission of extremely huge energy, has stimulated many studies in connection with electromagnetic properties of black holesdr ; prx ; putten ; koide . Various astrophysical scenarios are discussed in literaturespiran . We present an alternative idea and scenario on the basis of gravitational field interacting with the vacuum energy (zero-point energy) of virtual particles in the vacuum. Studying the vacuum energy in the Schwarzschild geometry around a gravitationally collapsing matter, we show that the vacuum gains tremendous energy from gravitational field in the process of black hole’s formation, which causes the vacuum becomes unstable, leading to energy release.

In quantum field theories, the vacuum is composed from virtual particles whose energy (the vacuum energy or zero-point energy) $``$ does not vanish. The Casimir effectcasimir  shows that the vacuum energy $``$ is modified by boundary conditions and the vacuum gains the Casimir energy,

$$\delta _c=\frac{\pi ^2}{720a^3}<0,$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the distance between two plates. Thus the vacuum becomes energetically unstable and has to quantum-mechanically decay. This leads to releasing the Casimir energy, and as a result, an attractive force between two plates is observed as the Casimir effect.

In this short letter, we consider how the vacuum energy $``$ is modified by the gravitational field around a gravitationally collapsing matter $`M`$, described by the Schwarzschild geometry,

$$ds^2=g(r)dt^2+g^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega },g(r)(1\frac{2M}{r})$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the spherical solid angle and $`r,\theta ,\varphi ,t`$ are the Schwarzschild coordinates.

Virtual particles in the vacuum are not in mass-shell. In local inertial coordinate systems $`(\overline{r},\overline{t})`$, where gravitational field is absent, the variations of their energy $`(_{})`$ are described by the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{t}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}1.$$
(3)
In arbitrary coordinate systems, the equivalence principle tells us that the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship (3) are unaffected by the presence of a gravitational field:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }1.$$
(4)
These relationships (3,4) and the gravitational time dilation between local inertial and arbitrary coordinate systems $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{t}=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ lead us to obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)\mathrm{\Delta }_{},=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)_{},$$
(5)
where $`g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r)`$ (see Eq.(2)) is the gravitational red-shift factor. This indicates that vacuum energy-level $``$ and its width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of virtual particles are gravitationally red-shifted from corresponding vacuum energy-level $`_{}`$ and its width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ of virtual particles in the absence of gravitational field. This difference between $``$ and $`_{}`$ is originated from gravitational field interacting with vacuum energy ($`_{}`$) of virtual particles in the vacuum. The vacuum gains the energy $`_{}<0`$ from gravitational field. This result (5) implies that the vacuum energy $``$ varies from one spatial point $`(r_1)`$ to another $`(r_2)`$,

$$\delta =(r_2)(r_1)0.$$
(6)
This could be in principle examined by measuring the Casimir effect at different altitudes above the Earth.

At two different altitudes $`r_2`$ and $`r_1`$ above the Earth, Eq.(5) implies the Casimir energy $`\delta _c`$ (1) should be modified by the gravitation field of the Earth in the following way:

$$|\delta _c(r_2)|=\left(\frac{g(r_2)}{g(r_1)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}|\delta _c(r_1)|,g(r)=1\frac{2M_{}}{r},$$
(7)
where $`M_{}`$ is the mass of the Earth. This indicates that $`|_c(r_2)|>|_c(r_1)|`$ for $`r_2>r_1`$. Given $`r_1=r_{}`$, $`\frac{M_{}}{r_{}}7.110^{10}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=r_2r_1=10^6`$cm, we obtain

$$|_c(r_2)|(1+O(10^{12}))|_c(r_{})|.$$
(8)
Test of this very small energy-gain, modifying the Casimir energy and force, seems to be very difficult for current experiments. In the Newtonian regime $`\mathrm{min}(r_2,r_1)2M`$, and $`\delta r=r_2r_1\mathrm{min}(r_2,r_1)`$, the variation of the vacuum energy Eq.(6) is proportional to $`M\delta r/r^21`$, in practice, too small to be tested.

However, such vacuum energy variations could be enormous, in a gravitational collapse approaching to the formation of black hole’s horizon. To analyze this, at the first we simply model the gravitational collapse as a massive star of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$ undergoing a spherical collapse. In the gravitationally collapsing process, the surface of the star moves inwards $`\delta R>0`$ from

$$\text{the step 1: the radius star}=R+\delta R,$$
(9)
to

$$\text{the step 2: the radius star}=R,$$
(10)
in the time interval $`\delta t`$. At the step (9), $`M`$ is the mass distributed in the sphere $`r<R+\delta R`$ of the volume $`\frac{4\pi }{3}(R+\delta R)^3`$; $`M^{}`$ is the mass distributed in the sphere $`r<R`$ of the volume $`\frac{4\pi }{3}R^3`$. $`\delta M=MM^{}`$ is the mass distributed in the spherical shell $`R<r<R+\delta R`$ of the volume $`4\pi R^2\delta R`$. At the step (10), the mass $`\delta M`$ falls into the sphere $`rR`$, and total mass $`M`$ distributed within the sphere $`rR`$. Assuming that the matter density is of uniform distribution in this gravitational collapse process, we can compute $`\delta M`$

$$\delta M=M(1\frac{R^3}{(R+\delta R)^3}).$$
(11)
Such a gravitational collapse process $`\delta R/\delta t`$ can be described by the equationscoll

$`\delta t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Mh(R)}{g(R)\sqrt{h^2(R)g(R)}}}\delta R,`$ (12)
$`h(R)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{4R}}.`$
At the second, we study how vacuum energy varies in this gravitational collapse process. In the absence of gravitational field (inertial frame), we introduce the surface vacuum-energy on the surface $`r=R`$ of the area $`4\pi R^2`$:

$$_{}^s4\pi R^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_p^3,$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{G}}=1`$ is the Planck scale. In the presence of gravitational field, the surface vacuum energy (13) is modified according to Eq.(5)

$$^s=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(R)_{}^s.$$
(14)
At the step (9) of the gravitational collapse, the surface vacuum-energy on the surface $`r=R`$ is,

$$_s^{}=(1\frac{2M^{}}{R})^{\frac{1}{2}}_s^{}.$$
(15)
While, at the step (10) of the gravitational collapse, the surface vacuum-energy on the surface $`r=R`$ is,

$$_s=(1\frac{2M}{R})^{\frac{1}{2}}_s^{}.$$
(16)
We find that $`M^{}`$ in Eq.(15) is altered to $`M`$ in Eq.(16), since the mass $`\delta M`$ in the spherical shell $`R<r<R+\delta R`$ falls into the sphere $`r<R`$. The vacuum-energy variation in this gravitational collapse process from the step (9) to the step (10) is

$$\delta =_s_s^{}<0,$$
(17)
which indicates the vacuum gains energy from gravitational field.

By using Eqs.(12) and (17), we compute the rate of energy gain $`\delta /\delta t`$ in the spherical shell $`4\pi R^2dR`$ that the surface of the collapsing star sweeps in the time interval $`\delta t`$. Given the initial condition that at the moment $`t_{}=0`$ of starting the collapsing process, the radial size of the collapsing star $`R_{}=100(2M)`$ and star’s mass $`M=10M_{}`$, we compute the rate of vacuum-energy variation (gain) $`\delta /\delta t`$, plotted in Fig.(1) as a function of $`R`$ in the unit of $`2M`$. The result shows that the rate $`\delta /\delta t`$ rapidly increases to $`10^{57}`$erg/sec, as the surface $`R(t)`$ of the collapsing star moves, almost in the speed of light, inwards to the horizon. Whereas, in the vicinity of the horizon, the collapsing process becomes slow and the rate decreases.

Due to this vacuum-energy gain $`\delta `$ (17), vacuum states become energetically unstable, have to spontaneously undergo a quantum transition to lower energy states via quantum-field fluctuations. This is exactly analogous to the phenomenon of the Casimir effect. As a consequence, the vacuum-energy $`\delta `$ (17) gained from gravitational field must be released and deposited in the region from $`r=2M`$ extending to $`r=R_{}`$.

Which process of quantum transition releases this vacuum-energy $`\delta `$ (17)? One of possibilities is spontaneous photon emission, analogous to the spontaneous photon emission taking place in the atomic physics. Such a spontaneous photon emission can be induced by the four-photon interacting vertex in the theory of Quantum Electromagnetic Dynamics (QED). The rate of the quantum transition must be proportional to $`\alpha ^4\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the characteristic energy of the process in the time interval $`\delta t`$. For high-energy $`\omega m_e`$, where $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, the rate is very fastadd . As shown in Fig.(1), the spatial density of vacuum energy release can be very large, as the collapsing process approaching to the formation of black hole’s horizon $`R=2M`$. The energy of photons spontaneously emitted can be larger than the energy threshold $`2m_e`$, so that electron and positron pairs are produced. These pairs, on the other hand, annihilate into two photons. As a consequence, a dense and energetic plasma of photons, electron and position pairs, called “dyadosphereprx  or “fireball” in literaturespiran , could be formed. Using the rate of collapsing $`\delta R/\delta t`$ (12) and the rate $`\delta /\delta t`$ of vacuum-energy release process (Fig.(1)), we can obtain that total amount energy:

$$E_{\mathrm{total}}=_{2M}^R_{}𝑑\frac{3}{2\pi }M8.610^{54}\mathrm{erg},$$
(18)
is released in a very short time, about a second for the collapsing process from $`R=R_{}`$ to $`R=2M`$. These qualitatively agree to the characteristic of energetic sources for gamma ray bursts.

The total energy release Eq.(18) is less than the maximum variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_g=\frac{1}{2}M`$ of gravitation energy(potential $`\frac{M}{r}`$) in the collapse prosess from $`r\mathrm{}`$ to $`r=2M`$. The model and approach that we adopt only to illustrate the idea and scenario, is over simplified for quantitative results and will be elaborated in future work. Note added: after finishing this paper, the author was interested in reading the paper by I.Yu Sokolov (Phys. Lett.A, v.223, p.163, 1996), where conducting electron gas is used as boundary conditions for computing the vacuum energy to discuss possible huge output of cosmic energy accounting for Quasars.


text:
# 1 Gravitational Coupling to Vacuum Energy

## 1 Gravitational Coupling to Vacuum Energy

We can define an effective cosmological constant .

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}=\lambda _0+\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _0`$ is the “bare” cosmological constant in Einstein’s classical field equations, and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is the contribution that arises from the vacuum density $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}=8\pi G\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$.

Already at the standard model electroweak scale $`10^2`$ GeV, a calculation of the vacuum density $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$, based on local quantum field theory, results in a discrepancy of order $`10^{55}`$ with the observational bound

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}10^{47}(\mathrm{GeV})^4.$$
(2)
This results in a severe fine-tuning problem of order $`10^{55}`$, since the virtual quantum fluctuations giving rise to $`\lambda _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ must cancel $`\lambda _0`$ to an unbelievable degree of accuracy. This is the “particle physics” source of the cosmological constant problem.

## 2 Nonlocal Quantum Gravity

Let us consider a model of nonlocal gravity with the action $`S=S_g+S_M`$, where ($`\kappa ^2=32\pi G`$) 222The present version of a nonlocal quantum gravity and field theory model differs in detail from earlier published work . A paper is in preparation in which more complete details of the model will be provided.:

$$S_g=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{R[g,𝒢^1]+2\lambda _0\right\}$$
(3)
and $`S_M`$ is the matter action, which for the simple case of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$S_M=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}𝒢^1\left(g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^1_\nu \varphi m^2\varphi ^1\varphi \right).$$
(4)
Here, $`𝒢`$ and $``$ are nonlocal regularizing, entire functions and $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. As an example, we can choose the covariant functions $`𝒢(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[𝒟(x)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_G^2\right]`$, and $`(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[(𝒟(x)+m^2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2\right]`$, where $`𝒟_\mu ^\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ are gravitational and matter energy scales, respectively .

We expand $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ about flat Minkowski spacetime: $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu }`$. The propagators for the graviton and the $`\varphi `$ field in a fixed gauge are given by

$$\overline{D}^\varphi (p)=\frac{𝒢(p)(p)}{p^2m^2+iϵ},$$
(5)
$$\overline{D}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^G(p)=\frac{(\eta _{\mu \rho }\eta _{\nu \sigma }+\eta _{\mu \sigma }\eta _{\nu \rho }\eta _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\rho \sigma })𝒢(p)}{p^2+iϵ}.$$
(6)
Unitarity is maintained for the S-matrix, because $`𝒢`$ and $``$ are entire functions of $`p^2`$, preserving the Cutkosky rules. Gauge invariance can be maintained by satisfying certain constraint equations for $`𝒢`$ and $``$ in every order of perturbation theory. This guarantees that $`_\nu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

## 3 Resolution of the CCP

Due to the equivalence principle gravity couples to all forms of energy, including the vacuum energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$, so we cannot ignore these virtual quantum fluctuations in the presence of a non-zero gravitational field. Quantum corrections to $`\lambda _0`$ come from loops formed from massive standard model (SM) states, coupled to external graviton lines at essentially zero momentum.

Consider the dominant contributions to the vacuum density arising from the graviton-standard model loop corrections. We shall adopt a model consisting of a photon loop coupled to gravitons, which will contribute to the vacuum polarization loop coorection to the bare cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$. The covariant photon action is :

$$S_A=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }𝒢^1F_{\mu \alpha }^1F_{\nu \beta },$$
(7)
with $`F_{\mu \alpha }=_\mu A_\alpha _\alpha A_\mu `$.

The lowest order correction to the graviton-photon vacuum loop will have the form (in Euclidean momentum space):

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(p)=\kappa ^2\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}V_{\mu \nu \lambda \alpha }(p,q,qp)$$

$$\times ^\gamma (q^2)D_{\lambda \beta }^\gamma (q^2)V_{\rho \sigma \beta \gamma }(p,q,pq)^\gamma ((pq)^2)D_{\alpha \gamma }^\gamma ((pq)^2)𝒢^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(q^2),$$
(8)
where $`V_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the photon-photon-graviton vertex and in a fixed gauge: $`D_{\mu \nu }^\gamma =\delta _{\mu \nu }/q^2`$ is the free photon propagator. Additional contributions to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}`$ come from tadpole graphs .

This leads to the vacuum polarization tensor

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(p)=\kappa ^2\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{q^2[(qp)^2]}$$

$$\times K_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p,q)\mathrm{exp}\left\{q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2[(qp)^2]/\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}^2\right\}.$$
(9)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, we observe that from power counting of the momenta in the loop integral, we get

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(p)\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}^4N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}^4}{M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2}N_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(p^2),$$
(10)
where $`N(p^2)`$ is a finite remaining part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(p)`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}10^{19}`$ GeV is the Planck mass.

We now have

$$\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}M_{\mathrm{PL}}^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(p)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}^4.$$
(11)
If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}10^3`$ eV, then the quantum correction to the bare cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$ is suppressed sufficiently to satisfy the observational bound on $`\lambda `$, and it is protected from large unstable radiative corrections.

This provides a solution to the cosmological constant problem at the energy level of the standard model and possible higher energy extensions of the standard model. The universal fixed gravitational scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}`$ corresponds to the fundamental length $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Gvac}}1`$ mm at which virtual gravitational radiative corrections to the vacuum energy are cut off.

The gravitational form factor $`𝒢`$, when coupled to non-vacuum SM gauge boson or matter loops, will have the form in Euclidean momentum space $`𝒢^{\mathrm{GM}}(q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}^2\right]`$. If we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M>110`$ TeV, then we will reproduce the standard model experimental results, including the running of the standard model coupling constants, and $`𝒢^{GM}(q^2)=^M(q^2)`$ becomes $`𝒢^{GM}(0)=^M(q^2=m^2)=1`$ on the mass shell. This solution to the CCP leads to a violation of the WEP for coupling of gravitons to vacuum energy and matter. This could be checked experimentally in a satellite Eötvös experiment on the Casimir vacuum energy.

We observe that the required suppression of the vacuum diagram loop contribution to the cosmological constant, associated with the vacuum energy momentum tensor at lowest order, demands a low gravitational energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}10^3`$ eV, which controls the coupling of gravitons to pure vacuum graviton and matter fluctuation loops.

In our finite, perturbative quantum gravity theory nonlocal gravity produces a long-distance infrared cut-off of the vacuum energy density through the low energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}<10^3`$ eV . Gravitons coupled to non-vacuum matter tree graphs and matter loops are controlled by the energy scale: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M>120`$ TeV

The rule is: When external graviton lines are removed from a matter loop, leaving behind pure matter fluctuation vacuum loops, then those initial graviton-vacuum loops are suppressed by the form factor $`𝒢^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(q^2)`$ where $`q`$ is the internal matter loop momentum and $`𝒢^{\mathrm{Gvac}}(q^2)`$ is controlled by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}10^3`$ eV. On the other hand, e.g. the proton first-order self-energy graph, coupled to a graviton is controlled by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M>120`$ TeV and does not lead to a measurable violation of the equivalence principle.

The scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}`$ are determined in loop diagrams by the quantum non-localizable nature of the gravitons and standard model particles. The gravitons coupled to matter and matter loops have a nonlocal scale at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M>120`$ TeV or a length scale $`\mathrm{}_M<10^{16}`$ cm, whereas the gravitons coupled to pure vacuum energy are localizable up to an energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}10^3`$ eV or down to a length scale $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{Gvac}}>1`$ mm.

The fundamental energy scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GM}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ are determined by the underlying physical nature of the particles and fields and do not correspond to arbitrary cut-offs, which destroy the gauge invariance, Lorentz invariance and unitarity of the quantum gravity theory for energies $`>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}10^3`$ eV. The underlying explanation of these physical scales must be sought in a more fundamental theory333It is interesting to note that if we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{GM}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M=5`$ TeV, then we obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{Gvac}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M^2/M_{\mathrm{PL}}=2.1\times 10^3`$ eV.

Let us consider the cosmological problem in the context of our results. For a spatially flat universe, the Friedmann equation is $`H^28\pi G\overline{\rho }_{\mathrm{vac}}/3`$, where $`H=\dot{R}/R`$, $`R`$ denoting the cosmic scale and $`\overline{\rho }_{\mathrm{vac}}=\lambda _0/8\pi G+\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}`$ is the effective vacuum energy density, including the bare vacuum energy density contribution, and we have assumed that the vacuum energy dominates the Friedmann equation. If we assume that the vacuum energy density has its “natural” value with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cM_{PL}`$, then the universe never expands beyond a ridiculously small size. However, since we have suppressed the vacuum energy density contribution to the Friedmann equation by our nonlocal quantum gravity calculation, we will find that $`H<H_010^{33}`$ eV in agreement with observations.

Our calculations are based on perturbation theory, so we cannot address possible non-perturbative contributions to the vacuum density, such as those arising from gluon condensates or spontaneous symmetry breaking phase transitions. These contributions will have to be suppressed in a non-perturbative nonlocal quantum gravity calculation.

Acknowledgments I thank Michael Clayton for helpful and stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.