text:
# Orbital and stellar parameters of symbiotic stars

## 1. Introduction

Symbiotic stars were isolated as a separate class of spectroscopically peculiar stars by Annie J. Cannon, during her work on HD Catalog, in the beginning of XXth century. A typical symbiotic spectrum should display (Fig. 1) absorption features – such as TiO bands and neutral metals, and an associated red continuum typical for red giants, a blue continuum with the H i Balmer lines and jump in emission, and strong emission lines from relatively highly ionized species – He i, He ii, \[O iii\], etc., usually found in planetary nebulae. The simultaneous presence in a single object of low-temperature absorption features and emission lines that require high excitation conditions apparently points to their binary nature. In fact, binary models for symbiotic stars, in which a rather normal M giant was accompanied by a hot component resembling the central star of a planetary nebula, were proposed and discussed soon after their discovery (e.g. Berman 1932). Berman also proposed that the observed eruptive behaviour of some objects could be due to some kind of the hot component instability, perhaps similar to that responsible for a nova phenomenon. It is really impressive how close were these first models to the generally accepted present-day model.

According to this model, a typical symbiotic binary consists of an M-type giant transferring material to a much hotter, white dwarf companion via a stellar wind. The wind is ionized by the hot component giving rise to symbiotic nebula. In some systems the red giant is replaced by a yellow G$``$K-type giant, and the white dwarf by a main-sequence or neutron star. Most symbiotic stars ($`80\%`$) contain a normal giant and their near- IR colours show the presence of stellar photosphere, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}3000`$$`4000\mathrm{K}`$; these are classified as S-type (stellar) systems. The remaining 20 % of symbiotic systems contain Mira-type variables and their near-IR colours are consistent with the combination of a reddened Mira and warm ($`T1000\mathrm{K}`$) dust shell; these are classified as D-type (dusty) systems.

Since the presence of an evolved red giant is indispensable to make a symbiotic binary, the system must have enough space for such a large star. Symbiotic stars are thus interacting binaries with the largest orbital separations, and their study is essential to understand the interactions of detached and semi-detached binary stars. Mass accretion onto the hot component also plays a very important role in driving the basic properties and evolution of symbiotic stars, and involves energetic phenomena relevant to many other astrophysical objects. The presence of both an evolved giant with heavy mass loss and a hot companion copious in ionising photons also results in a rich and luminous circumstellar environment surrounding the interacting stars.

Such a complex multi-component structure makes symbiotic stars a very attractive laboratory to study various aspects of stellar evolution in binary systems. It is worth to mention here the very interesting relatives of symbiotic stars: GX 1+4 – consisting of an M6 III giant and a neutron star companion, and the peculiar black hole binary GRS 1915+105 recently discovered to comprise a K giant companion (Greiner et al. 2001), which are among the most exotic and variable X-ray binaries.

It is very important to set firm links between symbiotic stars and related objects, in order to understand the role of these binaries in the formation of stellar jets, planetary nebulae, novae, supersoft X-ray sources and SN Ia. Many of those are issues concerning the late stages of stellar evolution which are presently poorly known, but with important implications on our understanding of stellar pulsations and chemical evolution of galaxies, as well as of the extragalactic distance scale.

The goals of this presentation is to present recent progress in the determination of orbital and stellar parameters of symbiotic stars, and to provide input for more detailed discussion of such important topics as: basic properties of the symbiotic cool giant components compared to single evolved giants; the nature of the hot component and the physics of its outbursts; the origin of the symbiotic circumstellar nebulae, and their links with planetary nebulae; evolutionary paths leading to symbiotic stars and to their progeny, and many others. We start with a brief description of variable phenomena found in symbiotic stars in Section 2. The recent progress in determination of their orbital and stellar parameters is summarized in Section 3. We discuss basic properties of the symbiotic giants compared to single evolved giants (note that symbiotic Miras are discussed in detail by P.A. Whitelock) in Section 4 as well as the nature of the hot component and its outburst evolution in Section 5.

## 2. Light curves and variability

The composition of symbiotic stars, specifically the presence of a red giant and its accreting companion, places them among the most variable stars. They can fluctuate in many different ways. In addition to periodic changes due to the binary motion, both the cool giant and the hot component can also show intrinsic variability (Fig. 2). For the red giant, these can be radial pulsations (all D-type and some S-type systems) and semiregular variations (S-type) of the giant, with timescales of the order of months and years as well as long-term light changes due to variable obscuration by circumstellar dust (mostly D-type), solar-type cycles, etc. Mass accretion onto the hot component also results in different variable phenomena with timescales from seconds and minutes (flickering and QPO) to years and decades (nova-like eruptions). The examples of light curves for well-studied, though not yet completely understood, systems: RX Pup, CI Cyg and CH Cyg, which are representative for different variabilities observed in these objects are also presented and discussed by Mikołajewska (2001).

The wealth of variable phenomena found in symbiotic stars is really a challenge for patient observers in any spectral range and makes these systems excellent targets for long-term monitoring programs, especially that they do not need large telescopes. This also explains how and why symbiotic systems could so effectively elude their physical nature. In fact, the binary nature of all symbiotic stars was definitely confirmed, by both direct measurement of the binary motion as well as direct detection of the hot component continuum in ultraviolet spectral range, only in the 1980’s, whereas various problems concerning their intrinsic variability and its relation to their binary nature remain still unresolved.

## 3. Orbital parameters

Although periodic photometric changes, with periods of 200–1000 days and amplitudes increasing towards short wavelengths, were detected in many symbiotic stars already in the 1930s, they were generally not associated with binary motion. The first symbiotic stars announced to be eclipsing binaries were AR Pav (Mayall 1937) and CI Cyg (Hoffleit 1968).

By now, the orbital periods are known for about 40 systems (Belczyński et al. 2000; Table 1). About half of them are eclipsing binaries whereas the reflection effect is responsible for the periodic light modulation in other systems. So far, only six systems, T CrB, CI Cyg, EG And, BD–21 3873, BF Cyg and YYHer (Belczyński et al. 2000; Mikołajewska et al. 2002a,b) show the ellipsoidal light variations of a tidally distorted red giant.

All systems with measured orbital period but R Aqr belong to the S- type, and most of them have periods between $`200`$–1000 days (Table 1; Fig. 3). Moreover, all systems with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>1000`$ days except for the yellow symbiotic CD– 43 14302 contain very cool giants with spectral type $`>\mathrm{M6}`$. The longest orbital period thus far estimated in symbiotic system is the 44-yr period of the symbiotic Mira R Aqr. The orbital periods of symbiotic Miras with thick dust envelopes (D-type) could be even larger. In general, the binary separations in D-type systems must be larger than the dust formation radius. Assuming a typical dust formation radius of $`>5\times R_{\mathrm{Mira}}`$, and $`R_{\mathrm{Mira}}1`$$`3\mathrm{au}`$, the minimum binary separation is $`a>20\mathrm{au}`$, and the corresponding binary period is $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>50\mathrm{yr}`$, for any D-type system. Thus the orbital period distribution seems to be the result of compromise between the minimum binary separation yet providing enough space for the evolved giant and the minimum mass accretion rate required for triggering the symbiotic phenomenon.

In a binary with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>1\mathrm{yr}`$, the expected amplitude of radial velocity changes is rather low, $`K_\mathrm{g}5`$$`10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Nevertheless, modern observations with photon-counting detectors and new methods of analysis have allowed to derive spectroscopic orbits from the radial velocities of the red giant for most of the bright symbiotic stars (Table 1). It is interesting that vast majority of symbiotic stars have circular (or nearly circular, $`e<0.1`$) orbits, and a significant eccentricity has been found only for BX Mon, KX TrA, CH Cyg and CD$``$43 14304, which have also the longest orbital periods, $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>1000`$ days. The eccentricity-period distribution for symbiotic stars is significantly different from the $`e`$-$`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ distribution in other binaries with late-type giants, which show significant fraction of eccentric orbits among systems with $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}<1000`$ days (e.g. Fig. 9 of Jorissen & Mayor 1992).

In several cases, the motion of the hot component was also measured from either the blue absorption features or the optical and UV emission lines and broad emission line wings, and the masses of both components could be derived (Table 2). For some systems, the component masses were derived by combining the mass function for the red giant with the giant mass calculated from $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurements and evolutionary tracks (e.g. Mürset et al. 2000). The distributions of mass ratios and masses of the symbiotic binary components are shown in Figure 3b$``$d. All systems except BX Mon and the symbiotic recurrent novae T CrB and RS Oph have the mass ratio, $`q=M_\mathrm{g}/M_\mathrm{h}`$, between 2 and 4. The very high mass ratio for BX Mon is based on only 2 measurements of the radial velocities of the blue absorption lines, and has to be confirmed by further observations covering at least one orbital period. The cool giant masses are all between 0.6–$`3.2\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{sun}}`$, with a peak around $`1.6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (the average is $`1.7\pm 0.1\mathrm{M}_{}`$). The masses of the hot component are all between 0.4–$`0.8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (with the average at $`0.53\pm 0.05\mathrm{M}_{}`$) except those of AR Pav, T CrB, and RS Oph, and they fall into the range of masses expected for white dwarfs. In both symbiotic recurrent novae, the cool giant is the less massive component, and its mass, $`M_\mathrm{g}<0.8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is lower than the mass of any other symbiotic giant, whereas their hot components, with $`M_\mathrm{h}1.1`$$`1.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$ are the most massive, and their masses are sufficient to become a Ia supernova.

Finally, the direct measurements of hot component masses can be used to test the possible relation between white dwarf mass and orbital period (Mikołajewska & Kenyon 1992a). The data from Table 2 are plotted in Figure 5 (left panel), and they do not show any significant correlation with the orbital period. We must, however, note that the estimates for BX Mon and KX Tra, the only systems with longer periods, $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}>1000^\mathrm{d}`$, are among the most uncertain results in Table 2.

## 4. The cool giant

Based on near IR spectra, Mürset & Schmid (1999) classified the cool giants in about 100 systems, and found that for S-type systems the spectral types cluster strongly between M3 and M6, with a peak at M5, whereas the distribution of symbiotic miras peaks at spectral types M6 and M7. They also noticed a strong bias towards later spectral types when compared to red giants in solar neighborhood, and that the frequency of mira variables is higher among symbiotic giants. This predominance of very late, and thus more evolved, giants in symbiotic systems indicates that large radius and high mass loss from the cool giant is the key parameter for triggering the symbiotic phenomenon in binaries.

The process of mass transfer – Roche lobe overflow or stellar wind – is one of fundamental question in relation to symbiotic binaries. Although, wind accretion is obviously the case for companions of symbiotic Miras, at least in some of the S-type systems, the cool giant could, in principle, fill its tidal lobe. Amongst the main evidence for the predominance of wind-accretion is the fact that ellipsoidal light variations, characteristic of tidally distorted stars, are rarely observed for symbiotic stars. However, the general absence of such changes may be in fact due to the general lack of systematic searches for the ellipsoidal variations in the red and near-IR range where the cool giant dominates the continuum. This is best illustrated by CI Cyg, BF Cyg and YY Her, in which only the quiescent $`VRI`$ and near-IR light curves show a modulation with half-orbital period as expected for ellipsoidal variability of the red giant whereas the $`UB`$ light curves do not show clear evidence for such changes (Mikołajewska 2001; Mikołajewska et al. 2002a,b). Interestingly, such changes have been thus far found only in systems with multiple outburst activity whereas there are apparently absent in two non-eruptive systems, V433 Her and RW Hya (Mikołajewska et al. 2002c).

Based on a sample of 8 symbiotic systems with accurate orbits and estimated radii of the red giants, Schild et al. (2001) argued that none of the symbiotic giants with known radii (derived from the measured $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ in 6 cases, and from eclipse contacts in AX Per) fills its Roche lobe. We note, however, that they did not included in their sample any of the systems with evident ellipsoidal changes. Similarly, Fekel, Hinkle & Joyce (2002) derived the $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ values and estimated the cool giant sizes for 13 symbiotic systems. Their sample includes CI Cyg, BF Cyg and T CrB, however only CI Cyg has large Roche lobe filling factors $`R_\mathrm{g}/R_\mathrm{L}0.8`$, whereas the giants in both BF Cyg and T CrB, with $`R_\mathrm{g}/R_\mathrm{L}0.3`$ and $`0.4`$, are far from filling their tidal lobes. The rotational velocity consistent with a synchronously rotating Roche lobe-filling giant was found in CI Cyg and AX Per (Kenyon et al. 1991; Mikołajewska & Kenyon 1992b). Recently, Orosz & Hauschildt (2000) have shown that rotational broadening kernels for tidally distorted giants can be significantly different from analytic kernels due to a combination of the nonspherical shape of the giant and the radical departure from a simple limb darkening law. As a result, geometrical information inferred from $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ measurements of cool giants in binary systems, and in particular in symbiotic stars, is likely biased. Summarizing, in our opinion, the question whether the symbiotic giants, at least in some of the active S-type systems, are tidally distorted or not remains open as long as we do not have good near-IR light curves which would confirm or exclude such possibility.

Mass-loss rates for the symbiotic giants derived from either the cm and mm/submm radio observations (Seaquist, Krogulec & Taylor 1993; Mikołajewska, Ivison & Omont 2002a,b) or from analysis of IRAS data (Kenyon, Fernandez-Castro & Stencel 1988) are of order of $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, and they are systematically higher than those reported for single M giants, which again suggests that high mass-loss rate for the giant is essential to produce the symbiotic star.

Whitelock & Munari (1992) suggested that the symbiotic giants may be related to the metal-rich M stars found in the Galactic Buldge and elsewhere, i.e. they have low masses, $`1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and $`Z>Z_{}`$. They also noted that the mass-loss rates of the symbiotic giants although systematically greater than for the local bright giants are similar to those of the Bulge-like stars. Their findings, however, have not been confirmed by direct estimates of elemental abundances. In particular, Nussbaumer et. al. (1988) found that the CNO abundance ratios deduced from UV emission lines for 24 symbiotic stars are best fitted by normal red giants. Moreover, carbon abundances and $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/^{13}\mathrm{C}`$ ratios have been obtained by fitting synthetic spectra to the observed first-overtone CO absorption features in K-band spectra of 7 northern and 6 southern symbiotic systems (Schmidt & Mikołajewska 2002, and references therein). In all cases, subsolar carbon abundances and $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/^{13}\mathrm{C}`$ have been found, which indicates that the surveyed symbiotic giants are indistinguishable from local normal M giants, in agreement with the abundance studies based on nebular emission lines.

## 5. The hot component and activity

The typical hot components of symbiotic binaries appear to be quite hot ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>10^5\mathrm{K}`$) and luminous ($`L_\mathrm{h}>10^210^3\mathrm{L}_{}`$) and overlap into the same region in the H-R diagram as the central stars of planetary nebulae (Fig. 4; Mürset et al. 1991; Mikołajewska, Acker & Stenholm 1997). There is also no significant difference between the symbiotic hot components in our Galaxy and those in the Magellanic Clouds, except that the latter might be slightly hotter. It is hard to believe that such high luminosities are powered solely by accretion, as they would require accretion rates of $`\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Although symbiotic giants have high mass loss rates, of $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}1`$ and more, in most cases they interact via stellar wind instead of Roche lobe overflow, and the expected accretion rate is an order of magnitude lower. The situation radically changes if the symbiotic white dwarfs burn hydrogen-rich material as accrete it. The accretion rate of order of $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ is then sufficient to power the typical hot component with $`M_\mathrm{h}0.5\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$.

According to the theoretical studies, the hydrogen-shell burning luminosity should be a function of the underlying core mass. Unfortunately, there is no unique core mass-luminosity relationship for accreting white dwarfs because it depends significantly on the thermal history of the white dwarf: generally hot white dwarfs must have larger masses than the cold ones to reach the same luminosity during the hydrogen-burning phase (Iben & Tutukov 1996). However,

for the symbiotic systems with known component masses (Table 2) we are in a position to determine which of the theoretical mass-luminosity relations is applicable in their case. The positions of the symbiotic hot components in the luminosity versus mass plane together with different mass-luminosity relationships are plotted in Figure 5 (right panel). The symbiotic white dwarfs seem to cluster around the mass-luminosity relations for stars leaving the AGB with CO core, and those leaving RGB with a degenerate He core, for the first time. It is possible that the white dwarf descendant of the more massive component could still be hot at the onset of mass transfer from the less massive red giant.

The hot components in many symbiotic systems show intrinsic variability (Fig. 2). Based on this activity we distinguish between ordinary or classical symbiotic stars, which show occasionally 1$``$3 mag eruptions with time scales from months to a few years (such as Z And, CI Cyg and AG Dra), and symbiotic novae that have undergone a single outburst of several magnitudes lasting for dozen of years. Figure 6 shows outburst evolution of selected symbiotic systems. The outburst behaviour of AG Peg and RX Pup is consistent with a thermonuclear nova eruption. In both systems the outburst develops very slowly: the rise to maximum takes months, and the decline to the pre-outburst stage lasts dozens of years. AG Peg is the record-holder among all symbiotic novae: its eruption began in 1850’s, and the hot component maintained a constant luminosity, $`L_\mathrm{h}3000\mathrm{L}_{}`$, for at least 100 years. The evolution of RX Pup was much faster, the constant luminosity (plateau) phase lasted for only 11 years, and the maximum plateau luminosity, $`<L_\mathrm{h}>\mathrm{15\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ was about 5 times higher than that of AG Peg. These difference in the outburst evolution can be accounted for by different white dwarf masses: higher in RX Pup than that in AG Peg. RX Pup is also a possible recurrent nova.

Unfortunately, the thermonuclear models do not account for the multiple outburst activity of Z And, AG Dra (Fig. 6), and other classical systems. In most of them, the hot component maintains a roughly constant luminosity whereas its effective temperature varies from $`10^5`$ to $`10^4\mathrm{K}`$, and Z And is a good example of such an outburst. Contrary to this behaviour, luminosity of the hot component of AG Dra increases by a factor of $`10`$ whereas its temperature increases during the early stages of each eruption and then decreases as the outburst continues. A possible and promising explanation of this activity involves changes in mass transfer and/or accretion disk instabilities. There are many arguments in favour of such explanation. First, the hot companion of all symbiotic giants which fill or nearly fill their tidal lobes show the multiple outburst activity. Moreover, even if the giant does not fill its Roche lobe, its wind is likely focused towards the secondary and/or towards the orbital plane which would facilitate an accretion disk formation (e.g. Gawryszczak, Mikołajewska & Różyczka 2002; Mastrodemos & Morris 1999).

The timescales for these eruptions are very similar to those of the hot component luminosity changes (high and low states) in symbiotic recurrent novae (T CrB, RS Oph and RX Pup) between their nova eruptions and the accretion-powered system of CH Cyg and MWC 560. During bright phases, in all these systems the optical data indicate the presence of relatively cool B/A/F-type shell source while the UV/optical emission lines require a much hotter source with a roughly comparable luminosity (Mikołajewska et al. 2002d). Similar double-temperature structure of the hot component is observed in the Z And- type systems during their outbursts. In AX Per, AR Pav, FN Sgr and possibly other active systems, the A/F-type absorption lines trace the orbit of the hot component, and they are probably formed in a geometrically and optically thick accretion disc and in a gas stream (Mikołajewska & Kenyon 1992b; Quiroga et al. 2002a,b; Brandi et al. 2002). Other evidence for the presence of an accretion disks in the active symbiotic stars include: the ellipsoidal shape of the blue continuum source during outburst; presence of secondary periods (always 10–20 % shorter that $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$) in the outburst light curves, similar to the superhumps in CVs (Mikołajewska et al. 2002c); bipolar geometry of outflows associated with the hot component activity in CI Cyg, AG Dra and other systems (Mikołajewska & Ivison 2001; Mikołajewska 2002; Tomov, Munari & Maresse 2000). It is possible that both the activity of the classical Z And-type symbiotic stars and the high and low states of accretion-powered systems are related to the presence of an unstable accretion discs, with the only difference that the hot component in the former burns more or less stably the accreted hydrogen whereas not in the latter.

Finally, Mikołajewska & Kenyon (1992a) argued that the outburst evolution of CI Cyg and AX Per are best explained by the presence of an unstable thick disk around a low-mass main-sequence accretor. We must, however, note that the quiescent characteristics of their hot components are consistent with a hot and luminous stellar source powered by thermonuclear burning. In particular, they fall in the same region in the HR diagram as the hot components of other symbiotic stars (Fig. 4). Their outburst evolution is also very similar to that of Z And, FN Sgr, and other multiple-outburst systems, which apparently points to common mechanism of the outburst and the nature of their hot component. Unfortunately, it will remain uncertain as long as we do not have a good theoretical model accounting for both their quiescent and outburst characteristics.

## 6. Concluding remarks

The nature of the cool giant plays the key role in the symbiotic phenomenon because it constrains the size of the binary system, which must have enough room for a red giant, and yet to transfer enough material to the companion and give rise to the symbiotic apparition. As a result, we have two distinct classes: the S-type with normal giants and orbital periods of $`<15`$ yr, and the D-type with Mira primaries and periods of $`>50`$ yr.

Most S-type systems have $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}200`$$`900`$ days and circular orbits. A typical S-type system consists of a low-mass M3–6 giant ($`<M_\mathrm{g}>1.7\mathrm{M}_{}`$) transferring material to a hot, $`10^5\mathrm{K}`$, white dwarf companion ($`<M_\mathrm{h}>0.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$). Although most symbiotic stars seem to interact by wind-driven mass loss, at least some of the systems with multiple outburst activity may contain a Roche-lobe filling (or nearly filling) giants.

Symbiotic M giants have subsolar carbon and <sup>12</sup>C/<sup>13</sup>C abundances, and they are indistinguishable in this respect from local M giants. They have, however, systematically higher mass-loss rates than single giants, which suggests that high mass-loss rate for the giant is essential for triggering the symbiotic activity. The chemical abundances derived from nebular emission lines suggest that the main body of symbiotic nebulae is formed from material lost in the giant wind, whereas the hot companion is responsible for its ionization and excitation.

The typical hot component of a symbiotic binary appears to be a luminous, $`100`$$`10^4\mathrm{L}_{}`$, and hot, $`10^5`$ K, white dwarf powered by thermonuclear burning of the accreted hydrogen. The position of the symbiotic white dwarfs in the mass-luminosity plane indicates that they could be hot and luminous at the onset of mass transfer and symbiotic activity. Although we still do not have satisfactory explanation of the multiple outburst activity, there is increasing evidence that it may related to the presence of unstable accretion discs.

### Acknowledgments.

This research was partly founded by KBN Research Grant No. 5 P03D 019 20.

## References

Belczyński, K., Mikołajewska, J. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 77

Belczyński, K., Mikołajewska, J., Munari, U., et al. 2000, A&AS, 146, 407

Berman, L. 1932, PASP, 44, 318

Brandi, E., Mikołajewska, J., Quiroga, C., Kulczycki, K., Belczyński, K., Ferrer, O., Garcia, L., Pereira, C.B. 2002, this volume (FN Sgr)

Fekel, C.F., Hinkle, K.H., Joyce, R.R., Skrutskie, M.F. 2000, AJ, 120, 3255

Fekel, C.F., Hinkle, K.H., Joyce, R.R., Skrutskie, M.F. 2001, AJ, 121, 2226

Fekel, C.F., Hinkle, K.H., Joyce, R.R. 2002, this volume

Ferrer, O., Quiroga, C., Brandi, E., Garcia, L.G. 2002, this volume (KX Tra)

Gawryszczak, A., Mikołajewska, J. Różyczka, M. 2002, A&A, 385, 205

Greiner, J., Cuby, J.G., McCaughrean, M.J., Castro-Tirado, A.J., Mennickent, R.E. 2001, A&A, 373, L37

Hoffleit, D. 1968, Ir.AJ, 8, 149

Iben, I., Tutukov, A.A. 1996, ApJS, 105, 145

Jorissen, A., Mayor, M. 1992, A&A, 260, 115

Kenyon, S.J., Fernandez-Castro, T., Stencel, R.E. 1988, AJ95, 1817

Kenyon, S.J., Oliversen, N.A., Mikołajewska, J. et al. 1991, AJ, 101, 637

Kenyon, S.J., Mikołajewska, J., Mikołajewski, M., Polidan, R.S., Sloval, M.H. 1993, AJ, 103, 1573

Kenyon, S.J., Proga, D., Keyes, C.D. 2001, AJ, 122, 349

Mastrodemos, N., Morris, M. 1999, ApJ, 523, 357

Mayall, M.W. 1937, Ann. Harv. Coll. Obs., 105, 49, 1

Mikołajewska, J. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser., 246, Small-Telescope Astronomy on Global Scales, ed. B. Paczyński, W.P. Chen, C. Lemme, 167.

Mikołajewska, J. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L33

Mikołajewska, J., Ivison, R.J. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 1023

Mikołajewska, J., Kenyon, S.J. 1992a, MNRAS, 256, 177

Mikołajewska, J., Kenyon, S.J. 1992b, AJ, 103, 579

Mikołajewska, J., Kenyon, S.J. 1996, AJ, 112, 1659

Mikołajewska, J., Acker, A., Stenholm, B. 1997, A&A, 327, 191

Mikołajewska, J., Kenyon, S.J., Mikołajewski, M., Garcia, M.R., Polidan, R.S. 1995, AJ, 109, 1289

Mikołajewska, J., Brandi, E., Hack, W., Whitelock, P.A., Barba, R., Garcia, L., Marang, F. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 190

Mikołajewska, J., Ivison, R.J., Omont, A. 2002a, Adv. Space Res., in press/astro-ph/0102198

Mikołajewska, J., Ivison, R.J., Omont, A. 2002b, this volume

Mikołajewska, J., Kolotilov, E.A., Shugarov, S.Yu., Yudin, B.F. 2002a, A&A, 392, 197

Mikołajewska, J., Kolotilov, E.A., Shugarov, S.Yu., Tatarnikova, A.A., Yudin, B.F. 2002b, this volume

Mikołajewska, J., Kolotilov, E.A., Shenavrin, V.I., Yudin, B.F. 2002c, in ASP Conf. Ser., 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. B.T. Gänsicke, K. Bauerman, K. Reinsch, 645

Mikołajewska, J., Brandi, E., Garcia, L., Ferrer, O., Quiroga, C., Anupama, G.C. 2002d in Clasical Nova Explosions, ed. M. Hernanz, J. José, AIP, in press

Mikołajewska, J., Quiroga, C., Brandi, E., Garcia, L., Ferrer, O., Belczyński, K. 2002e, this volume (AE Ara)

Morgan, D.H. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 639

Morgan, D.H. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 301

Mürset, U., Schmid, H.M. 1999, A&AS, 137, 473

Mürset, U., Nussbaumer, H., Schmid, H.M., Vogel, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 458

Mürset, U., Dumm, T., Isenegger, S., Nussbaumer, H., Schild, H., Schmid, H.M., Schmutz, W. 2000, A&A, 353, 952

Nussbaumer, H., Schild, H., Schmid, H.M., Vogel, M. 1988, A&A, 198, 179

Orosz, J.A., Hauschildt, P.H. 2000, A&A, 364, 2650

Paczyński, B. 1970, Acta Astron., 20, 47

Quiroga, C., Mikołajewska, J., Brandi, E., Ferrer, O., Garcia, L. 2002a, A&A, 387, 139

Quiroga, C., Mikołajewska, J., Brandi, E., Ferrer, O., Garcia, L. 2002b, this volume

Schild, H., Dumm, T., Mürset, U., Nussbaumer, H., Schmid, H.M., Schmutz, W. 2001, A&A, 366, 972

Schmidt, M., Mikołajewska, J. 2002, this volume

Schönberner, D. 1989 in Planetary Nebulae, ed. S. Torres-Peimbert (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 463

Seaquist, E.R., Krogulec, M., Taylor, A.R. 1993, ApJ, 410, 260

Tomov, T., Munari, U., Maresse, P.M. 2000, A&A, 354, L25

Whitelock, P.A., Munari, U. 1992, A&A, 255, 171


format: text

text:
# Supersymmetric effects on heavy charged Higgs boson production in hadron colliders Talk presented at the 6th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections, Application of Quantum Field Theory to Phenomenology (RADCOR 2002), and the 6th Zeuthen Workshop on Elementary Particle Theory, Loops and Legs in Quantum Field Theory, Kloster Banz, Germany, 8-13 September, 2002.

## 1 Introduction

The experimental accuracy reached by the electroweak precision observables in particle accelerators allows to test the Standard Model (SM) at the quantum level within an accuracy better than one per mil. Although precision observables at LEP have played an important role in this respect, a new generation of experiments at the Tevatron (II), LHC and a future Linear Collider (LC) will be necessary to find out the ultimate nature of the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism. When extending the Higgs sector, we mainly focus on two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDM), and most particularly on the Type II ones –like that of the the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) . The fact that the Higgs bosons of the MSSM (and their SUSY counterparts) couple most preferentially to heavy quarks suggests that the physics of the top and bottom quarks is the natural arena where to try to get a hint of the existence of SUSY Higgs particles. In this paper we report on the production of a heavy charged Higgs boson in association with the top and bottom quarks at the Tevatron and LHC energies within the MSSM. The mass of the charged Higgs is assumed $`M_{H^\pm }\stackrel{>}{_{}}200GeV`$, and so it cannot come from the decay of a top quark. While the detection of a charged Higgs boson would still leave a lot of questions unanswered, it would immediately offer (in contrast to the detection of a neutral one) indisputable evidence of physics beyond the SM. The basic production processes under consideration are

$$p\overline{p}(pp)H^+\overline{t}b+X\mathrm{Tevatron}(\mathrm{LHC}).$$
(1)
There are many other processes for charged Higgs production, which have been studied in the literature , such as: i) one-loop gluon fusion ($`ggH^+H^{}`$); ii) tree-level pair production in bottom quark scattering ($`b\overline{b}H^+H^{}`$), iii) associated production with $`W^\pm `$: $`b\overline{b}W^\pm H^{}`$ (tree-level) , $`ggW^\pm H^{}`$ (one-loop), iv) Drell-Yan type production ($`q\overline{q}VH^+H^{}`$). However, in all these cases the production cross-section is smaller than for (1) if we restrict ourselves to high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`>20`$). Although process (1) has been studied previously , the inclusion of the leading quantum SUSY effects was missing and turns out to be very important, as first hinted in  and further elaborated in .

## 2 Leading order Cross-section in QCD

At the parton level, the reaction (1) proceeds through three channels: i) $`q\overline{q}`$-annihilation for light quarks

$$q\overline{q}H^+\overline{t}b,$$
(2)
where $`q=u,d`$ (the $`s`$ contribution can be safely neglected), a channel only relevant for the Tevatron; ii) $`gg`$-fusion

$$ggH^+\overline{t}b,$$
(3)
which is dominant at the LHC, but it can also be important at the Tevatron for increasing $`H^+`$ masses ; and finally there is the iii) bottom-gluon 2-body channel

$$\overline{b}gH^+\overline{t}.$$
(4)
We will compute the cross-section for the charged Higgs boson production process (1) at the leading order (LO) in QCD, namely at $`𝒪(\alpha _S^2)`$. However, the QCD corrections at the next-to-leading order (NLO) or $`𝒪(\alpha _S^3)`$ could be important. Although a dedicated calculation of these higher order effects for the process under consideration is not available, let us mention that the corresponding calculation for the related process in the Standard Model, $`p\overline{p}(pp)Ht\overline{t}+X`$, is available and shows that the NLO effects lead to a non-trivial QCD $`K`$-factor which is typically smaller than one at the Tevatron, and up to $`1.4`$ at the LHC . On the other hand, partial calculations of the QCD corrections to the process (1) at the NLO have appeared. For example, in Ref.  the standard NLO QCD corrections to the subprocess (4) at the LHC are computed, obtaining a large K-factor between $`1.6`$ and $`1.8`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}20`$. Taking into account these considerations, a large $`K`$-factor for the full process (1) coming from the standard QCD corrections (e.g. $`K^{\mathrm{QCD}}1.5`$) is not ruled out. However, in the absence of a complete calculation of these QCD effects, in what follows we present our results at the leading order and will parametrize our ignorance of the complete NLO effects in terms of a $`K`$-factor, which will be assumed different from one only for the Tevatron, where the size of the cross-section is hardly the necessary for a viable study. On the other hand, for the LHC the cross-section, being typically three orders of magnitude larger, can afford a QCD $`K`$-factor of one.

Once a PDF for $`b`$-quarks is used, there is some amount of overlap between $`\overline{b}g`$\- and $`gg`$-initiated amplitudes, which has to be removed . The overlap arises because the $`b`$-density in the $`\overline{b}g`$ amplitude receives contributions from gluon splitting which was already counted in the $`gg`$ amplitude, so we have to avoid double counting by the subtracting of the gluon splitting term. The net partonic cross-section from the $`\overline{b}g`$\- and $`gg`$-initiated subprocesses is

$`\sigma (\overline{b}g+ggH^+\overline{t}+X)_{net}=`$
$`\sigma (g\overline{b}H^+\overline{t})+\sigma (ggH^+\overline{t}b)`$
$`\sigma (gb\overline{b}g\overline{b}H^+\overline{t}).`$ (5)
Furthermore, for the study of the various differential distributions one has to properly combine the $`22`$ and $`23`$ processes mentioned above in order to reproduce not only the total cross-section but also the correct event kinematics. The point is that we know the total amount of double counting but not a priori which part of this value should be subtracted from the $`H^+\overline{t}`$ process and which part from the $`H^+\overline{t}b`$ one. We apply here the method proposed in  for the analogous process of the single top quark production. According to this method we use the cut on the transverse momenta of the $`b`$-quark associated with charged Higgs boson production to separate and recombine $`gg`$\- and $`\overline{b}g`$-initiated processes.

## 3 Signal versus background

Concerning the signature, we consider the dominant $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ final state for the combined signal process (1). We focus here on the triple $`b`$-tagging case and consider the situation where one top decays hadronically and the other leptonically (including only electron and muon decay channels) in order to reduce the combinatorics when both top quarks are reconstructed. The branching ratio of $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}b\overline{b}\mathrm{}^\pm \nu q\overline{q^{}}`$ is $`2/9\times 2/3\times 2=8/27`$.

In order to decide whether a charged Higgs boson cross-section leads to a detectable signal, we have to compute the background rate. The main QCD backgrounds leading to the same $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ signature and their respective cross-sections are shown in Table 1.

For reconstructing the $`t\overline{t}b(\overline{b})`$ final state, the following steps are followed: i) We reconstruct the W-boson mass from lepton and neutrino momenta: $`M_{W1}^{rec}=(p_{\mathrm{}}+p_\nu )^2`$. The basic cuts for the lepton (electron or muon) has been chosen as follows:

$$p_T^{\mathrm{}}>15\mathrm{GeV},|\eta _{\mathrm{}}|<2.5,p_T^{miss}>15\mathrm{GeV};$$
(6)
ii) We reconstruct the mass of the second W-boson ($`M_{W2}^{rec}`$). The following basic cuts for the jets were chosen for the Tevatron (LHC):

$$p_T^{j,b}>20(30)\mathrm{GeV},|\eta _j|<3,|\eta _b|<2.$$
(7)
Then we form and keep all $`m_{t_1}=M_{W1b}`$ and $`m_{t_2}=M_{W2b}`$ combinations for the first and second top-quarks; iii) In the final step we form the $`\chi `$ function

$`\chi ^2=(M_{W1}^{rec}M_W)^2+(M_{W2}^{rec}M_W)^2`$
$`+(m_{t_1}m_t)^2+(m_{t_2}m_t)^2`$ (8)
for all combinations of $`b`$-jets, jets, lepton and neutrino and choose the combination giving the smallest (best) value of the $`\chi `$ function. After the reconstruction of the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ state one should reconstruct the charged Higgs boson mass for the signal and the continuous $`tb`$ mass for the background. We assume that the $`b`$-jet with the highest $`p_T`$ in $`\overline{t}bt(\overline{b})`$ signature comes from the $`H^+`$ decay. After all cuts are set up we obtained the signal and background efficiencies, $`S/B`$ ratio and signal significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$– see Tables 4,5 in the second paper of  for details. They will be used in the next section after including the SUSY corrections.

For the calculation we use $`m_t=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_b=4.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the CTEQ4L set of PDFs . Here $`m_t,m_b`$ refer to the quark pole masses. The central value of the (common) factorization and renormalization scale, $`\mu _R`$, for the signal processes has been chosen equal to $`M_{H^+}`$, whereas that of the background processes to $`2m_t`$. We have checked the uncertainty of the signal due to variations of $`\mu _R`$ in the interval $`M_{H^+}/2<\mu _R<2M_{H^+}`$. We find that individual sub-channels show a stronger dependence than the total cross-section, which varies $`\delta \sigma 28\%`$ at the Tevatron II and $`\delta \sigma 18\%`$ at the LHC. We have also compared our CTEQ4 results with the ones obtained with the MRST (central gluon) PDFs . Again, significant deviations appear for some of the individual sub-channels (up to $`50\%`$), but they are compensated in the sum, leaving a $`510\%`$ thanks to the substraction procedure in (5).

## 4 Supersymmetric quantum effects

In Figs. 1a, b we find the regions of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta M_{H^+}`$ plane in which the Tevatron and the LHC can find (or exclude) the existence of the charged Higgs boson. The curves correspond to the various sets of MSSM parameters indicated in Table 2. For the Tevatron we have included a QCD $`K`$-factor of $`1.5`$, whereas for the LHC we have just set $`K=1`$. From these figures it is obvious that the presence of the SUSY corrections alters significantly the Higgs boson discovery potential of the hadron colliders. It is also patent the Tevatron could have a chance to find a charged Higgs boson in the intermediate range $`M_{H^\pm }<280\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Let us now sketch how the various quantum corrections have been computed. Among the plethora of possible corrections we disregarded virtual supersymmetric effects on the $`gqq`$ and $`ggg`$ vertices and on the gluon propagators. We expect those to be of order $`(\alpha _S/4\pi )(s/M_{SUSY}^2)`$ and thus suppressed by a non-enhanced (i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-independent) MSSM form factor coming from the loop integrals. Therefore, we can neglect these contributions as we are only considering effects of the form $`(\alpha _S/4\pi )^n\mathrm{tan}^n\beta `$ at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . The cross-section for the signal increases steeply with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and becomes highly significant for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$$`>30`$, while it is much smaller for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the low interval $`220`$ where the remaining SUSY corrections are of the same order or even dominant, so our approximation is well justified. Similarly, we neglect all those electroweak corrections in vertices and self-energies which are proportional to pure $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge couplings; in particular, vertices involving electroweak gauge bosons and those involving electroweak gauginos. Furthermore, we have checked that vertices involving Higgs bosons exchange yield a very tiny overall contribution, due to automatic cancellations arranged by the underlying supersymmetry. Finally, there are the strong gluino-squark diagrams and the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced higgsino-squark vertices implicit in chargino-neutralino loops. We have extracted the parts of these interactions which are (by far) the more relevant ones at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and confirmed that the remaining contributions are negligible. In practice this means that we may concentrate our analysis on the interval $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$ where we can be sure that our approximation does include the bulk of the MSSM corrections while at the same time the cross-section of process (1) starts to be sufficiently large to consider it as an efficient mechanism for charged Higgs boson production. The leading contributions are similar to those found in Ref.  for the decay process $`tH^+b`$, where we also refer for detailed renormalization issues. Recently these dominant effects have been conveniently described through an effective Lagrangian approach that contains effective couplings absorbing both the leading SUSY contributions and the known part of the QCD corrections . At high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the most relevant piece is the effective $`tbH^+`$-coupling as it carries the leading part of the (appropriately resummed) quantum effects:

$$=\frac{gV_{tb}}{\sqrt{2}M_W}\frac{\overline{m}_b(\mu _R)\mathrm{tan}\beta }{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}H^+\overline{t}_Lb_R+h.c.$$
(9)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ above– see ()– contains the bulk of the supersymmetric contributions. Although the leading corrections have been identified, we have computed the full set of one-loop SUSY diagrams for the relevant $`tbH^+`$ vertex, which involve similar bunch of diagrams as in the on-shell case , but here we have got to account for the off-shell external lines, which is a non-trivial task. The result is that these off-shell corrections amount to a few percent contribution that we have included in our numerical analysis.

Coming back to Figs. 1 and Table 2, let us remark that parameter set B constitutes a typical case for moderately positive corrections. On the other hand set A is over-optimized, and sets C and D give more and more negative corrections. In all cases these corrections decouple very slowly with the gluino mass, for fixed values of the other masses. Furthermore, they exhibit a non-decoupling behavior when all SUSY parameters are scaled up by a common factor . This SUSY non-decoupling behavior  is associated to the properties of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ entering eq.(9). The violation of the decoupling theorem  is caused by the dimensionful Higgs-quark-squark coupling, which increases arbitrarily with the SUSY scale. Through this coupling the MSSM Higgs doublet that interacts only with the top quark at the tree-level, effectively couples to the bottom quark at one-loop. Therefore, that interaction cannot be re-absorbed in the parameters of the low-energy Higgs sector after integrating out the sparticle masses. This welcome feature is at the basis of the large radiative corrections found in our study of the charged Higgs production process (1), and it could be responsible for the eventual finding of this scalar boson. These facts were amply exploited in Ref.  where the suggestion of the present calculation was first made and the importance of its correlation with the neutral Higgs production processes $`p\overline{p}(pp)h\overline{b}b+X(h=h^0,H^0,A^0)`$ was first emphasized. Such effects and correlations could eventually lead to the discovery of SUSY.

Acknowledgments: This collaboration is part of the network “Physics at Colliders” of the European Union under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149. The work of J.G. has been partially supported by the European Union under contract No. HPMF-CT-1999-00150. The work of J.S. has been supported in part by MECYT and FEDER under project FPA2001-3598.


text:
# CEM2K AND LAQGSM AS EVENT GENERATORS FOR SPACE-RADIATION-SHIELDING AND COSMIC-RAY-PROPAGATION APPLICATIONS

## INTRODUCTION

The radiation environment in deep space or on the moon can be very harsh (MacFarlane et al., 1991). Without the Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field to protect them, astronauts will be directly exposed to high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR), to intense fluxes of protons and other particles from solar flares, and to radiation from on-board power plants or nuclear propulsion systems. Such radiation is also very dangerous to computers and electronics on spacecraft, as it may cause enough single-event upsets to lead to device failure. The economic penalties of additional mass to provide shielding may be huge. To minimize this expense, we need to be able to reliably calculate the amount of shielding required. Performing this task requires nuclear data for reactions induced by different projectiles, on different targets, for a large range of incident energies. Similarly, addressing different astrophysical problems, such as investigation the origin and propagation of cosmic rays (CR) and the nuclide abundances in the solar system and in CR, again requires a large amount of different nuclear reaction data. Experiments to obtain such data are costly, there is a limited number of facilities available to make such measurements, and some reactions of interest cannot yet be measured at current accelerators. Therefore reliable models and codes are required to provide the necessary estimates.

During recent years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, we have developed an improved version of the Cascade-Exciton Model (CEM), contained in the code CEM2k, to describe nucleon-induced reactions at incident energies up to 5 GeV (Mashnik and Sierk, 2001 and 2002) and the Los Alamos version of the Quark-Gluon String Model, realized in the high-energy code LAQGSM (Gudima et al., 2001), able to describe both particle- and nucleus-induced reactions at energies up to 1000 GeV/nucleon. Both codes have been tested against most of the available data and compared with predictions of other modern codes (Mashnik and Sierk, 2001 and 2002; Mashnik et al., 2002a-2002d; Titarenko et al., 2002). Our comparisons have shown that both codes describe a large variety of spallation, fission, and fragmentation reactions quite reliably and have one of the best predictive powers compared with other available Monte-Carlo codes. In the present paper, we outline our models and show several typical results that testify that both CEM2k and LAQGSM are reliable event-generators which can be used in many different applications. As an illustration of application of our evaluated cross sections in astrophysics, we show an estimate of the size of the CR halo obtained using the CR propagation code GALPROP (Strong and Moskalenko, 1998; Moskalenko et al., 2002).

## CEM2K AND LAQGSM

A detailed description of the initial version of the CEM may be found in Gudima et al. (1983), therefore we outline here only its basic assumptions. The CEM assumes that reactions occur in three stages. The first stage is the IntraNuclear Cascade (INC) in which primary particles can be re-scattered and produce secondary particles several times prior to absorption by or escape from the nucleus. The excited residual nucleus remaining after the cascade determines the particle-hole configuration that is the starting point for the preequilibrium stage of the reaction. The subsequent relaxation of the nuclear excitation is treated in terms of an improved Modified Exciton Model (MEM) of preequilibrium decay followed by the equilibrium evaporative final stage of the reaction. Generally, all three stages contribute to experimentally measured outcomes.

The improved cascade-exciton model in the code CEM2k differs from the older CEM95 version by incorporating new approximations for the elementary cross sections used in the cascade, using more precise values for nuclear masses and pairing energies, employing a corrected systematics for the level-density parameters, improving the approximation for the pion “binding energy”, $`V_\pi `$, adjusting the cross sections for pion absorption on quasi-deuteron pairs inside a nucleus, considering the effects of refractions and reflections from the nuclear potential on cascade particles, allowing for nuclear transparency of pions, including the Pauli principle in the preequilibrium calculation, and improving the calculation of the fission widths. Implementation of significant refinements and improvements in the algorithms of many subroutines led to a decrease of the computing time by up to a factor of 6 for heavy nuclei, which is very important when performing simulations with transport codes. Essentially, CEM2k has a longer cascade stage, less preequilibrium emission, and a longer evaporation stage with a higher excitation energy, as compared to its precursors CEM97 and CEM95. Besides the changes to CEM97 and CEM95 mentioned above, we also made a number of other improvements and refinements, such as: (i) imposing momentum-energy conservation for each simulated event (the Monte Carlo algorithm previously used in CEM provides momentum-energy conservation only statistically, on the average, but not exactly for the cascade stage of each event), (ii) using real binding energies for nucleons at the cascade stage instead of the approximation of a constant separation energy of 7 MeV used in previous versions of the CEM, (iii) using reduced masses of particles in the calculation of their emission widths instead of using the approximation of no recoil used previously, and (iv) a better approximation of the total reaction cross sections. On the whole, this set of improvements led to a much better description of particle spectra and yields of residual nuclei and a better agreement with available data for a variety of reactions. Details, examples, and further references may be found in Mashnik and Sierk (2001 and 2002) and in Titarenko et al. (2002).

The Los Alamos version of the Quark-Gluon String Model (LAQGSM) by Gudima et al., (2001) is a next-generation of the Quark-Gluon String Model (QGSM) by Amelin et al. (1990, and references therein) and is intended to describe both particle- and nucleus-induced reactions at energies up to about 1 TeV/nucleon. The core of the QGSM is built on a time-dependent version of the intranuclear cascade model developed at Dubna, often referred in the literature simply as the Dubna intranuclear Cascade Model (DCM) (see Toneev and Gudima, 1983 and references therein). The DCM models interactions of fast cascade particles (“participants”) with nucleon spectators of both the target and projectile nuclei and includes interactions of two participants (cascade particles) as well. It uses experimental cross sections (or those calculated by the Quark-Gluon String Model for energies above 4.5 GeV/nucleon) for these elementary interactions to simulate angular and energy distributions of cascade particles, also considering the Pauli exclusion principle. When the cascade stage of a reaction is completed, QGSM uses the coalescence model described in Toneev and Gudima (1983) to “create” high-energy d, t, 3He, and 4He by final state interactions among emitted cascade nucleons, already outside of the colliding nuclei. After calculating the coalescence stage of a reaction, QGSM moves to the description of the last slow stages of the interaction, namely to preequilibrium decay and evaporation, with a possible competition of fission using the standard version of the CEM by Gudima et al., (1983). But if the residual nuclei have atomic numbers with $`A13`$, QGSM uses the Fermi break-up model to calculate their further disintegration instead of using the preequilibrium and evaporation models. LAQGSM differs from QGSM by replacing the preequilibrium and evaporation parts of QGSM described according to the standard CEM (Gudima et al., 1983) with the new physics from CEM2k (Mashnik and Sierk, 2001 and 2002) and has a number of improvements and refinements in the cascade and Fermi break-up models (in the current version of LAQGSM, we use the Fermi break-up model only for $`A12`$). A detailed description of LAQGSM and further references may be found in Gudima et al. (2001).

Originally, both CEM2k and LAQGSM were not able to describe fission reactions and production of light fragments heavier than 4He, as they had neither a high-energy-fission nor a fragmentation model. Recently, we addressed these problems (Mashnik et al., 2002a and 2002c) by further improving our codes and by merging them with the Generalized Evaporation Model code GEM2 developed by Furihata (2000 and 2001).

We have benchmarked our codes on all reactions measured recently at GSI (Darmstadt, Germany) and on many other different reactions at lower and higher energies measured earlier at other laboratories. We found that CEM2k and LAQGSM allow us to describe quite well a large variety of spallation, fission and fragmentation reactions at energies from 10 MeV to 800 GeV, without any free fitting parameters, though we still have to solve a number of problems for a better description of nuclides produced near the intersection of the spallation and fission regions. Our current versions of CEM2k and LAQGSM were incorporated recently into the MARS (Mokhov, 1995) and LAHET (Prael and Lichtenstein, 1989) transport codes and are currently being incorporated into MCNPX (Waters, 1999). This will allow others to use our codes as event-generators in these transport codes to simulate reactions with targets of practically arbitrary geometry and nuclide composition.

Figure 1 shows examples of calculated by CEM2k and LAQGSM neutron spectra from interactions of protons with 208Pb at 0.8 GeV, while Figure 2 gives examples of p, d, t, 3He, and 4He spectra from p (61 MeV) + Fe compared with experimental data by Ishibashi et al. (1997) and Bertrand and Peelle (1973).

We note that all reactions shown in Figures 1 and 2, and in all the following figures of this paper, were calculated within a single approach, without fitting any parameters of CEM2k or LAQGSM. We see that both CEM2k and LAQGSM describe well spectra of secondary neutrons and protons. Similar results are obtained for other targets and energies of incident protons, as well as for reactions induced by neutrons, pions, and photons. Spectra of 4He are also described by our codes quite well, while spectra of d, t, and 3He are reproduced reasonably, but not as well as those of nucleons and 4He. This is partially due to the fact that we do not fit here the probability $`\gamma _j`$ for $`p_j`$ excited nucleons (excitons) to condense into a complex particle which can be emitted during the preequilibrium stage of a reaction to get the best agreement with the data, as is often done in the literature by other authors (see details in Gudima et al., 1983 and Mashnik et al., 2002c). In the present version of our models we do not take into account direct production of complex particles like pick-up and knock-out, and this leads to some underestimation of emission of high-energy complex particles, and to under-prediction of the high-energy tails of their spectra seen in Figure 2. We note that some of the evaporation models used often in the literature, like the GSI evaporation model by Schmidt (Gaimard and Schmidt, 1991; Junghans et al., 1998), which is used in conjunction with the Liege INC by Cugnon (Boudard et al., 2002) in the code INCL, do not consider preequilibrium particle emission; they only evaporate n, p, and 4He, and do not produce d, t, and 3He at all.

Recently, Nakamura’s group measured neutron double-differential cross sections from many reactions induced by light and medium nuclei on targets from 12C to 208Pb, at several incident energies from 95 to 600 MeV/nucleon (Iwata et al., 2001 and references therein). We have calculated all these cross sections using LAQGSM. As an example, our results for interactions of 600 MeV/nucleon 20Ne with Cu are compared in Figure 3 with experimental data and calculations with the QMD (Aichelin, 1991) and HIC (Bertini et al., 1974) models kindly provided to us by Nakamura’s group. We see that LAQGSM describes these data quite well and agrees with the measurements much better than do QMD and HIC. Similar results are obtained for all the other reactions measured by this group.

Recently, for the Proton Radiography (PRAD) project, we have performed (Mashnik et al., 2002b) a benchmark of QGSM (and LAQGSM), MARS, and LAHET3 (Prael, 2001) against all measured double-differential cross sections of proton-nucleus reactions at energies around 50 GeV for all targets for which we were able to find experimental data. We calculated, compared with experimental data, and analyzed more than 500 spectra of p, d, t, 3He, 4He, $`\pi ^{}`$, $`\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}`$, $`K^+`$, and $`\overline{p}`$ emitted from targets from 9Be to 208Pb at angles from 0 to 159 deg at incident proton energies from 30 to 70 GeV. This study has shown that LAQGSM describes well most of the measured spectra. A detailed and comprehensive report on this work is now in preparation, while Figure 4 shows just one example, namely spectra of deuterons emitted at 9.17 deg from p (70 GeV) + 208Pb. We see that deuterons with momentum of up to about 15 GeV/c are emitted and measured in this particular reaction. Utilizing the coalescence mechanism for complex particle emission, LAQGSM is able to describe high-energy deuteron production, and agrees well with the measurement. LAHET3 does not consider the coalescence of complex particles and therefore describes emission of only evaporative and preequilibrium deuterons with momenta not higher than 1 GeV/c. Even though the cross section for emission of deuterons with momentum of $`15`$ GeV/c is more than six orders of magnitude lower than for evaporation of low energy deuterons, such high energy deuterons and other complex particles may be extremely dangerous to people and equipment in space. Therefore, we need to be able to calculate such reactions as well as possible, to accurately estimate the necessary shielding.

Recently at GSI in Darmstadt, Germany, a large amount of measurements have been performed using inverse kinematics for interactions of 56Fe, 208Pb and 238U at 1 GeV/nucleon and 197Au at 800 MeV/nucleon with liquid 1H. These measurements provide a very rich set of cross sections for production of practically all possible isotopes from such reactions in a “pure” form, i.e., individual cross sections from a specific given bombarding isotope (or target isotope, when considering reactions in the usual kinematics, p + A). Such cross sections are much easier to compare to models than the “camouflaged” data from $`\gamma `$-spectrometry measurements. These are often obtained only for a natural composition of isotopes in a target and are mainly for cumulative production, where measured cross sections contain contributions not only from the direct production of a given isotope, but also from all its decay-chain precursors. In addition, many reactions where a beam of light, medium, or heavy ions with energy near to or below 1 GeV/nucleon interact with different nuclei, from the lightest, d, to the heaviest, 208Pb were measured recently at GSI. References on these measurements and many tabulated experimental cross sections may be found on the Web page of Prof. Schmidt (2002). We have analyzed with CEM2k and LAQGSM all measurements done at GSI we are acquainted of, both for proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions. Some examples of our CEM2k results compared with the GSI data and calculations by other current models for proton-nucleus reactions may be found in Mashnik and Sierk (2001 and 2002), Mashnik et al. (2002a, 2002c, and 2002d), and Titarenko et al. (2002). Figure 5 shows an example of LAQGSM results for the reaction p(1 GeV) + 208Pb compared with GSI data and calculations by a version of LAHET using the INCL event-generator incorporated recently into LAHET. We have described INCL above; it is well known and often used in Europe. One can see that LAQGSM merged with GEM2 (LAQGSM+GEM2) describes quite well the GSI data and agrees better with the measurement than INCL does. Similar results are obtained for all other reactions measured at GSI for which we found data.

Figure 6 shows an example of the highest energy we calculated so far with LAQGSM, namely results by LAQGSM+GEM2 for the reaction p(800 GeV) + A compared with experimental data (Sihver et al., 1992) and calculations with the phenomenological code YIELDX (Silberberg et al., 1998). For the sake of brevity, we present in this figure only every third yield measured and tabulated in Sihver et al. (1992), though we calculated all possible products from this reaction and get similar results for nuclides not shown here. One can see that LAQGSM agrees reasonably with most of the measured yields and describes the data better than YIELDX. More than a half of the measured products are described by LAQGSM+GEM2 with an accuracy of a factor of two or better, though we find some large discrepances for several nuclides like 181Hf and 105Rh.

At last, Figure 7 shows a heavy-ion induced reaction measured at GSI (Junghans, 1997; Junghans et al., 1998), namely the yields of measured products (black circles) from the interaction of a 950 MeV/nucleon 238U beam with copper compared with our LAQGSM+GEM2 results (open circles). One can see that LAQGSM+GEM2 describes most of these data with an accuracy of a factor of two or better.

## HALO SIZE LIMITS FROM THE GALPROP MODEL

This section shows an example of using cross sections calculated by CEM2k and LAQGSM (together with available data) to put constraints on the Galactic CR halo size. For this calculation we use a state-of-the-art CR propagation code GALPROP111GALPROP model including software and data sets is available at http://www.gamma.mpe-garching.mpg.de/~aws/aws.html. The GALPROP models have been described in full detail elsewhere (Strong and Moskalenko, 1998; Moskalenko et al., 2002 and references therein); here we summarize their basic features.

The code solves a transport equation on a full 3D spacial grid $`(x,y,z)`$ or 2D grid. The 2D models have cylindrical symmetry in the Galaxy, and the basic coordinates are $`(R,z,p)`$, where $`R`$ is Galactocentric radius, $`z`$ is the distance from the Galactic plane and $`p`$ is the total particle momentum. The propagation region is bounded by $`R=R_h`$ (taken $`30`$ kpc), $`z=\pm z_h`$ beyond which free escape is assumed. For a given $`z_h`$ the diffusion coefficient as a function of momentum and the reacceleration parameters is determined by the energy-dependence of the B/C ratio. The spatial diffusion coefficient is taken as $`\beta D_0(\rho /\rho _0)^\delta `$, assuming independence of position, where $`\rho `$ is rigidity. For the case of reacceleration the momentum-space diffusion coefficient $`D_{pp}`$ is related to the spatial coefficient. The reacceleration is parameterized by $`v_A^2/w`$ where $`v_A`$ is the Alfvén speed and $`w`$ the ratio of wave energy density to magnetic field energy density. The source spectrum of nuclei is assumed to be a power law in momentum, $`dq(p)/dpp^\gamma `$ for the injected particle density, if necessary with a break.

The interstellar hydrogen distribution uses H i and CO surveys and information on the ionized component; the Helium fraction of the gas is taken as 0.11 by number. Energy losses of nuclei by ionization and Coulomb interactions are included. The distribution of CR sources is chosen to reproduce the CR distribution determined by analysis of EGRET gamma-ray data. The primary source abundances are adjusted to give as good agreement as possible with the observed abundances after propagation, for a given set of cross-sections. The heliospheric modulation is taken into account using the force-field approximation.

The nuclear reaction network is built using the Nuclear Data Sheets. The isotopic cross section database now includes the LANL T-16 compilation by Mashnik et al. (1999) consisting of several tens of thousands of experimental points. This includes a critical re-evaluation of some data and cross checks. The isotopic cross sections are calculated in GALPROP using the authors’ fits to major beryllium and boron production cross sections C,N,O $``$ Be,B, and to other major reactions; all other cross sections at present are calculated using the Webber et al. (1990) and/or Silberberg et al. (1998) phenomenological approximations renormalized to the data where it exists. The reaction network is solved starting at the heaviest nuclei (i.e. 64Ni), solving the propagation equation, computing all the resulting secondary source functions, and proceeding to the nuclei with $`A1`$. The procedure is repeated down to $`A=1`$. In this way all secondary, tertiary etc. reactions are automatically accounted for. To be completely accurate for all isotopes, e.g. for some rare cases of $`\beta ^\pm `$-decay, the whole loop is repeated twice.

For some astrophysically important reactions we produced our own evaluations of excitation functions (e.g., Moskalenko et al., 2001) instead of using only scarce experimental data or calculations by stand-alone phenomenological systematics or nuclear reaction models. For this purpose we used all available to us experimental data from the LANL T-16 compilation (Mashnik et al., 1999) together with calculations by CEM2k, and for several reactions, by LAQGSM and the older versions of the CEM code, CEM97 and CEM95. One example of such an evaluated excitation function, for the reaction natSi(p,x)26Al, is shown in Figure 8 together with available data, CEM2k results, and calculations using phenomenological systematics by Webber et al. (1990) and Silberberg et al. (1998). It is seen that CEM2k has some problems in a correct description of this particular cross section near the threshold; therefore we used abundant experimental data available for this reaction to produce our evaluated excitation function at these energies. It is clear that neither the Webber et al. (1990) systematics nor the Silberberg et al. (1998) approximation describe correctly this excitation function; using their results as an input to CR propagation codes may lead to errors in results and interpretation.

The results of the calculation of Galactic propagation of radioactive isotopes 26Al, 36Cl, and 54Mn are shown in Figure 9, where the evaluated excitation functions used were produced as described above. The radioactive isotopes of these elements are the main astrophysical “time clocks” which together with stable secondary isotopes allow us to probe global Galactic properties, such as the diffusion coefficient and the halo size. Based on the CR data from spacecraft (ACE, Ulysses, and Voyager, for details see Moskalenko et al., 2001) we were able to restrict the halo size as $`z_h46`$ kpc. Using the semiempirical systematics yields less consistent results (see, e.g., Strong and Moskalenko, 2001) rizing questions about the interpretation. This result supports the conclusion that large uncertainties for the halo size obtained in previous works were mostly due to cross-section inaccuracies.

In future, we plan to develop evaluated data libraries for other astrophysical reactions of interest and to use them in future studies of Galactic CR propagation.

## SUMMARY

From the results presented here and in the cited references, we conclude that CEM2k and LAQGSM describe well (and without any fitting parameters) a large variety of medium- and high-energy nuclear reactions and are suitable for evaluations of nuclear data for science and applications. We continue our work on further improvements and development of both CEM2k and LAQGSM, but even in their present versions they are quite reliable and may be used as event-generators for astrophysical applications.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Prof. Nakamura, Drs. Iwata, and Iwase for sending us numerical values of their measured neutron spectra and results of calculations with QMD and HIC. This study was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy and by the Moldovan-U. S. Bilateral Grants Program, CRDF Project MP2-3025. S.G.M. and I.V.M. acknowledge partial support from a NASA Astrophysics Theory Program grant.

E-mail address of S.G. Mashnik mashnik@lanl.gov
Manuscript received 19 October 2002; revised ; accepted


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Some properties of black holes, both classical and quantum, were discussed at XXXII Winter School of PNPI . The last part of that talk referred to the quantization of black holes. Here we will consider this problem from somewhat different point of view. But for the completeness sake let us recall at first some considerations from .

The idea of quantizing the horizon area of black holes was proposed by Bekenstein many years ago . It was based on the fact that the horizon area of a nonextremal black hole behaves in a sense as an adiabatic invariant . And the quantization of an adiabatic invariant looks perfectly natural. Once this hypothesis is accepted, the general structure of the quantization condition for large quantum numbers gets obvious up to an overall numerical constant $`\alpha `$ (our argument here goes back to  and somewhat differs from that of the original one ). The quantization condition for the horizon area $`A`$ should be

$$A=\alpha l_p^2N,$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is some large quantum number which generally speaking should not be an integer. Indeed, the presence of the Planck length squared

$$l_p^2=k\mathrm{}/c^3$$
(2)
(here $`k`$ is the Newton gravitational constant) is only natural in this quantization rule. Then, for the horizon area $`A`$ to be finite in the classical limit, the power of $`N`$ here should be the same as that of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`l_p^2`$.

From different points of view the black hole quantization was discussed later in Refs. . In particular, the article by Kogan  was the first investigation of the problem in the frame of the very popular now string approach. However, though a lot of work has been done since on the subject, especially based on the string theory and on the loop quantum gravity, I do not think that the problem is really solved now. Some attempts to attack the problem of black hole quantization are described below.

## 2 ”It from bit”

The quantization condition (1) suggests that the horizon surface splits into patches of the area $`l_p^2`$ each. But what can one say about the contribution by each of them into the total area?

Perhaps, the simplest model of the quantization, naturally called ”it from bit”, is due to Wheeler . Here the horizon surface consists of $`\nu `$ patches of area $`l_p^2`$ (of course, for a classical black hole $`\nu 1`$), and to each of them one assigns a spin variable with two possible values $`j_z=+1/2`$ and $`j_z=1/2`$. Thus, the total number of states is $`K=2^\nu `$. The black hole entropy defined as log of number of states is

$$S=\mathrm{ln}K=\nu \mathrm{ln}2.$$
(3)
On the other hand, the entropy of a black hole is related to the area $`A`$ of its horizon by the famous Bekenstein-Hawking relation (see, e.g., )

$$A=4l_p^2S.$$
(4)
In this way one arrives at the quantization rule for the horizon area

$$A=4\mathrm{ln}2l_p^2\nu ,$$
(5)
with an integer $`\nu `$ and fixed overall numerical constant $`\alpha =4\mathrm{ln}2`$.

It is absolutely crucial here that the patches should be distinguishable. Otherwise, instead of $`2^\nu `$ states, we would have only $`\nu +1`$ states: a single one with all spins up, a single one with one spin down and all other spins up, a single one with two spins down and all other spins up, and so on. Thus, with indistinguishable patches the entropy would be $`S=\mathrm{ln}(\nu +1)`$, which has nothing in common with the required proportionality to the area $`Al_p^2\nu `$, especially if one recalls the classical condition $`\nu 1`$.

One more point should be mentioned here. With the spins assigned to the patches being the only building blocks of the model, it will be natural to assume that the total angular momentum $`J`$ of the black hole is just the sum of these spins. It is clear intuitively that for the random distribution of $`j_z`$ over the patches this total angular momentum should be small. To find how small exactly, let us calculate at first the number $`K(J_z=0)`$ of states with $`J_z=\mathrm{\Sigma }j_z=0`$. Evidently, here the number $`\nu \pm `$ of patches with spins up and down is

$$\nu _+=\nu _{}=\nu /2(\nu 1).$$

Thus,

$$K(J_z=0)=\frac{\nu !}{[(\nu /2)!]^2}.$$

And the entropy of this state, as estimated for $`\nu 1`$ with the Stirling formula,

$$S(J_z=0)=\mathrm{ln}K(J_z=0)=\nu \mathrm{ln}2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\nu $$
(6)
indeed differs from the initial one (3) by a logarithmic correction only.

As to the number of states with $`J=0`$, $`K(J=0)`$, it equals obviously to the difference between the numbers of the states with $`J_z=0`$ and $`J_z=\pm 1`$:

$$K(J=0)=K(J_z=0)K(J_z=\pm 1)=\frac{\nu !}{[(\nu /2)!]^2}\frac{\nu !}{(\nu /21)!(\nu /2+1)!}=\frac{\nu !}{(\nu /2)!(\nu /2+1)!}.$$

The entropy of this state, with $`J=0`$,

$$S(J=0)=\mathrm{ln}K(J=0)=\nu \mathrm{ln}2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}\nu $$
(7)
again differs from (3) (and from (6) as well) by a logarithmic correction only.

Thus, even without the subsidiary condition $`J=0`$, the simple-minded ”it from bit” model can describe in a rather natural way the Schwarzschild black hole.

Let us go over now to the Kerr black hole, rotating one. Its entropy looks as follows (see, e.g., ):

$$S=2\pi \left(M^2+\sqrt{M^4J^2}\right);$$
(8)
here $`M`$ is the black hole mass (to simplify formulae we put now $`c=1`$, $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`k=1`$). As to the black hole angular momentum $`J`$, we assume again that it is the sum of the spins of the patches: $`J=\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐣`$. Let us see whether the ”it from bit” model can reproduce in this way the semiclassical relation (8). It can be easily demonstrated that in the discussed model the number of states with total angular momentum $`J`$ equals

$$K(J)=(2J+1)[K(J_z=J)K(J_z=J+1)]$$

$$=\nu !(2J+1)\left[\frac{1}{(\nu /2J)!(\nu /2+J)!}\frac{1}{(\nu /2J1)!(\nu /2+J+1)!}\right]$$
(9)
$$=\frac{\nu !(2J+1)^2}{(\nu /2J)!(\nu /2+J+1)!}$$

In the limiting case $`1J\nu `$ the ”it from bit” entropy is

$$S_{\mathrm{ifb}}=\mathrm{ln}K(J)=\nu \mathrm{ln}2\frac{2J^2}{\nu }.$$
(10)
But let us look now at the corresponding expansion of the semiclassical formula (8):

$$S=2\pi \left(2M^2\frac{J^2}{2M^2}\right).$$
(11)
Obviously, we should identify $`2M^2`$ with $`\nu \mathrm{ln}2/2\pi `$. But then formula (11) is rewritten as

$$S=\nu \mathrm{ln}2\frac{(2\pi )^2}{\mathrm{ln}2}\frac{J^2}{\nu }.$$
(12)
The difference between numerical factors at $`J^2/\nu `$ is tremendous, the ”it from bit” model strongly underestimates the entropy decrease with $`J`$ in the discussed regime.

In the limit of the extremal black hole, where according to the semiclassical formula (8) $`J`$ acquires its maximum value $`M^2`$ and the entropy equals $`2\pi M^2`$, the situation with ”it from bit” is even worse. One option is to assume here for $`J`$ its maximum possible value in this model which is $`\nu /2`$. In this case the number of states is at most $`2J+1=\nu +1`$ (if one counts possible orientations of $`𝐉`$), and the entropy $`\mathrm{ln}(\nu +1)`$ is negligibly small as compared to its semiclassical value $`2\pi M^2=\nu \mathrm{ln}2/2`$. Another option is to assign here to $`J`$ its semiclassical limiting value $`M^2=\nu \mathrm{ln}2/4\pi `$. But this value is much smaller numerically than $`\nu `$, and in this way we effectively arrive again at formula (10), so that the extremal entropy becomes very close numerically to the Schwarzschild one instead of constituting half of it. Thus, in general case bit is insufficient for it.

## 3 Loop quantum gravity <br>and maximum entropy principle

In a sense, the result for the quantized horizon surface derived in loop quantum gravity \[8–12\] can be considered as a generalization of the ”it from bit” model. Here, a surface geometry is determined by a set of $`\nu `$ punctures on this surface (recall the patches in the ”it from bit” picture). In general, each puncture is supplied by two integer or half-integer angular momenta $`j^u`$ and $`j^d`$:

$$j^u,j^d=0,1/2,1,3/2,\mathrm{}$$
(13)
$`j^u`$ and $`j^d`$ are related to edges directed up and down the normal to the surface, respectively, and add up into an angular momentum $`j^{ud}`$:

$$𝐣^{ud}=𝐣^u+𝐣^d;|j^uj^d|j^{ud}|j^u+j^d|.$$
(14)
The area of a surface is

$$A=\alpha l_p^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}\sqrt{2j^u(j^u+1)+2j^d(j^d+1)j^{ud}(j^{ud}+1)}.$$
(15)
A comment on the last formula is appropriate. Since the quantum numbers $`j`$ entering it can be in principle arbitralily large, the same correspondence between the power of a quantum number and the power of $`\mathrm{}`$ (hidden here in $`l_p^2`$) in the classical limit, dictates that just the sum of square roots, but not for instance the sum of $`j(j+1)`$ should enter the expression for the area.

As to the overall numerical factor $`\alpha `$ in (15), it cannot be determined without an additional physical input. This ambiguity originates from a free (so-called Immirzi) parameter  which corresponds to a family of inequivalent quantum theories, all of them being viable without such an input.

In the case of a Schwarzschild black hole, the problem was attacked in  by introducing into the theory boundary terms corresponding to a Chern-Simons theory on the horizon. The approach results in the situation when a single spin j=1/2 with two possible projections is attached to each puncture. In other words, here each radical in formula (15) contains only $`j^{u(d)}=j`$, $`j^{d(u)}=0`$, $`j^{ud}=j`$, and thus reduces to $`\sqrt{j(j+1)}=\sqrt{3}/2`$. Obviously, in this case the entropy equals again $`\nu \mathrm{ln}2`$, and with the Bekenstein-Hawking relation (4) one fixes immediately the numerical parameter $`\alpha `$ in formula (15): $`\alpha =2\mathrm{ln}2/\sqrt{3}`$. Further elaborations on this approach  (see also ) resulted in more accurate formula (7) for the entropy of a nonrotating black hole: $`S=\nu \mathrm{ln}23/2\mathrm{ln}\nu `$. Thus, for the Schwarzschild black hole, one effectively arrives here again at the ”it from bit” picture with all partial spins added up into $`J=0`$. However, as to the Kerr black hole, we know already that bit is insufficient for it.

It is natural to investigate now whether the general Ansatz (15) is more appropriate for the description of black holes. As to the value of the overall numerical factor $`\alpha `$ in (15), one may hope that it can be determined by studying the entropy of a black hole. It has been done indeed in  under the assumption that the entropy of an eternal black hole in equilibrium is maximum. This assumption goes back to , where it was used in a model of the quantum black hole as originating from dust collapse. It looks quite natural from physical point of view to assume that among the entropies of various surfaces of the given area, it is the entropy of the black hole horizon which is the maximum one.

The entropy of a surface is defined as the logarithm of the number of states of this surface with fixed area, i. e. fixed sum (15). Let $`\nu _i`$ be the number of punctures with a given set of momenta $`j_i^u`$, $`j_i^d`$, $`j_i^{ud}`$. The total number of punctures is

$$\nu =\underset{i}{}\nu _i.$$

To each puncture $`i`$ one ascribes a statistical weight $`g_i`$. Since $`𝐣^{ud}=𝐣^u+𝐣^d`$, this statistical weight equals, in the absence of other constraints, to the number of possible projections of $`j_i^{ud}`$, i. e. $`g_i=2j_i^{ud}+1`$. Then the entropy is

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\left[\underset{i}{}\frac{(g_i)^{\nu _i}}{\nu _i!}\nu !\right].$$
(16)
The structure of expressions (15) and (16) is so different that the proportionality between them for general values of $`j_i^u`$, $`j_i^d`$, $`j_i^{ud}`$ may look impossible. However, as will be demonstrated now, this is the case for the maximum entropy in the classical limit.

But first of all let us note that the requirement of the entropy being proportional to the area is indeed quite nontrivial and restrictive. First of all, it excludes the presence of ”empty” punctures, with $`j_i^u=j_i^d=0`$. Such punctures would not influence the area $`A`$, would increase the combinatorics, and with it the entropy $`S`$. These ”empty” punctures are excluded indeed in loop quantum gravity, but by quite different arguments.

On the other hand, this requirement forbids an excessive concentration of angular momenta at some relatively small number of punctures. The limiting case of such a concentration takes place in the black hole model suggested in . Therein all angular momenta are collected effectively into a single one $`J1`$ at a single puncture, with the statistical weight $`2J+1`$. Thus, while the area in the model  is $`A\sqrt{J(J+1)}J`$, the entropy is $`S\mathrm{ln}(2J+1)\mathrm{ln}J`$.

By combinatorial reasons, it is natural to expect that the absolute maximum of entropy is reached when all values of quantum numbers $`j_i^{u,d,ud}`$ are present. This guess is confirmed by concrete calculations for some model cases . We assume also that in the classical limit the typical values of puncture numbers $`\nu _i`$ are large. Then, with the Stirling formula for factorials, formula (16) transforms to

$$S=\underset{i}{}\left[\nu _i\mathrm{ln}g_i\left(\nu _i+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\nu _i\right]+\left(\underset{i}{}\nu _i+\frac{1}{2}\right)\times \mathrm{ln}\left(\underset{i^{}}{}\nu _i^{}\right).$$
(17)
We have omitted here terms with $`\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2\pi }`$, each of them being on the order of unity. The validity of this approximation, as well as of the Stirling formula by itself for this problem, will be discussed later.

We are looking for the extremum of expression (17) under the condition

$$N=\underset{i}{}\nu _ir_i=\mathrm{const},r_i=\sqrt{2j^u(j^u+1)+2j^d(j^d+1)j^{ud}(j^{ud}+1)}.$$
(18)
The problem reduces to the solution of the system of equations

$$\mathrm{ln}g_i\mathrm{ln}\nu _i+\left(\underset{i^{}}{}\mathrm{ln}\nu _i^{}\right)=\mu r_i,$$
(19)
or

$$\nu _i=g_i\mathrm{exp}(\mu r_i)\underset{i^{}}{}\nu _i^{}.$$
(20)
Here $`\mu `$ is the Lagrange multiplier for the constraining relation (18). Summing expressions (20) over $`i`$, we arrive at the equation on $`\mu `$:

$$\underset{i}{}g_i\mathrm{exp}(\mu r_i)=1.$$
(21)
On the other hand, when multiplying equation (19) by $`\nu _i`$ and summing over $`i`$, we arrive with the constraint (18) at the following result for the maximum entropy for a given value of $`N`$:

$$S_{\mathrm{max}}=\mu N.$$
(22)
Here the terms

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{ln}\nu _i\mathrm{and}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\underset{i^{}}{}\nu _i^{}\right)$$

in expression (17) have been neglected. Below we will come back to the accuracy of this approximation.

Thus, it is the maximum entropy of a quantized surface which is proportional in the classical limit to its area. This proportionality certainly exists for a classical black hole. And this is a very strong argument in favour of the assumption that the black hole entropy is maximum.

It should be stressed that relation (22) is true not only in the loop quantum gravity, but applies to a more general class of approaches to the quantization of surfaces. What is really necessary here, is as follows. The surface should consist of patches of different sorts, so that there are $`\nu _i`$ patches of a given sort $`i`$, each of them possessing a generalized effective quantum number $`r_i`$ and a statistical weight $`g_i`$. Then in the classical limit, the maximum entropy of a surface is proportional to its area.

Let us consider the general case, with $`N`$ given by formula (18), $`g_i=2j_i^{ud}+1`$, and all values of $`j_i^u`$, $`j_i^d`$, $`j_i^{ud}`$ allowed. Here the numerical solution of equation (18) is $`\mu =3.120`$, and the maximum entropy equals

$$S=3.120N=4.836\nu .$$
(23)
The mean values of quantum numbers are

$$j_i^u=j_i^d=1.072,j_i^{ud}=2.129.$$
(24)
Again, it is clear intuitively, and demonstrated explicitly by the above analysis for the simpler case of ”it from bit” model, that with the assumed random distribution of $`j_z^{ud}`$ over the patches the total angular momentum $`𝐉=𝐣_i^{ud}`$ should effectively vanish. Thus, the considered model describes a Schwarzschild black hole.

It should be stressed that in this way one always arrives at the quantization rule for the black hole entropy and area effectively with integer quantum numbers $`\nu `$, as was proposed in the pioneering article .

Let us discuss now the accuracy of our result for the maximum entropy. With all $`j1`$, the number of punctures $`\nu `$ is on the same order of magnitude as $`N`$. Thus, in the classical limit, $`\nu N1`$. Now, according to relation (20), with $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu )<1`$, the numbers $`\nu _i`$ satisfy the condition $`\nu _i>1`$ as long as the quantum numbers $`j`$ are bounded by condition

$$j<\mathrm{ln}N.$$
(25)
Clearly, the typical values of those $`\nu _i`$ which contribute essentially to $`N`$ are large, and the Stirling approximation for $`S`$ is fully legitimate.

On the other hand, the number of terms in the sums in expression (17) is effectively bounded by inequality (25). Thus, the contribution of the terms with $`\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2\pi }`$, omitted in (17), as well as of the term $`1/2\mathrm{ln}\nu `$ retained therein, but neglected in the final expression (22), is on the order of $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ only. The leading correction to our result (22) originates from the term $`1/2\mathrm{ln}\nu _i`$, and constitutes $`\mathrm{ln}^2N`$ in order of magnitude.

Few words on the attempts made in  to calculate the surface entropy in loop quantum gravity. In those papers the distribution of the angular momenta $`j`$ over the punctures is not discussed at all. We cannot understand how one could find the surface entropy without such information.

But what about the description of Kerr black holes in the discussed approach? It looks reasonable here to look for the maximum entropy by introducing, in line with the constraint (18) of fixed area, one more constraint, of fixed total angular momentum:

$$\underset{i}{}j_{z,i}^{ud}=\underset{i}{}(j_{z,i}^u+j_{z,i}^d)=J.$$
(26)
As to the $`x`$\- and $`y`$\- projections of the angular momenta, with their random distribution over the punctures, they effectively add up into zero (see the analogous discussion in the ”it from bit” section).

Some progress is achieved in this way for an extremal black hole: its entropy does not vanish. However, instead of being two times smaller than the entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole of the same mass, it is smaller than the last one by a factor about 1.5 only. As to the entropy decrease for small $`J`$, it is far too small (as this was the case in the ”it from bit” model). So much the more, we have not succeeded in reproducing the general relation (8).

Up to now no satisfactory solution to the problem of description of Kerr black holes in loop quantum gravity has been pointed out. This is a real challenge for the theory.

Acknowledgents

I am grateful to R.V. Korkin, the content of the talk is essentially based on the work done together with him. The investigation was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through Grant No. 01-02-16898, through Grant No. 00-15-96811 for Leading Scientific Schools, by the Ministry of Education Grant No. E00-3.3-148, and by the Federal Program Integration-2001.


text:
# Mm/submm observations of symbiotic binary stars

## 1. Introduction

To date $``$25% of all symbiotic stars have been detected in the cm-wave radio band. In practically all cases, the radio emission is consistent with ff radiation from ionised gas (Seaquist, & Taylor 1990). Seaquist, Taylor, & Button (1984) proposed a simple binary model (the STB model) in which the radio emission originates from the red giant wind, partly ionized by the hot companion. The predicted radio spectrum turns over from optically thick to optically thin emission at a frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, which is related to the binary parameters. The observations of $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ in quiescent S-type systems with known orbital parameters thus provides a critical test of the STB model. Unfortunately, the spectral turnovers have been thusfar determined only in either D-type systems (with unknown orbital periods) or S-type systems recovering from nova outbursts, e.g. AG Peg (e.g. Ivison, Hughes, & Bode 1995).

In the following, we present and discuss results of mm/submm observations of a sample of S-type symbiotic stars collected at 1.3 mm with the IRAM 30-m MRT (February 1997), and at 2, 1.3, 0.85 and 0.45 mm with the SCUBA submm camera on the JCMT (1997–98).

## 2. Testing the STB model

We have selected 20 S-type systems, all quiescent at the time of our observations. Most of these systems have been studied intensively in the optical and UV; binary periods are known for 14 of them, and for 7 systems we also have spectroscopic orbits. For more details we refer to Mikołajewska, & Ivison (2001, hereafter MI01), and Mikołajewska, Ivison, & Omont (2002, hereafter MIO).

Comparison of 1.3-mm flux densities with published H$`\beta `$ fluxes (MIO) indicates that the radio emission from quiescent S-type systems is optically thick at least up to 1.3 mm, in agreement with the STB model which predicts a spectral turnover at submm wavelengths for such systems (Seaquist, Krogulec & Taylor 1993, hereafter SKT93). Our mm/submm continuum spectra (Fig. 1) are also consistent with optically thick thermal emission for all systems except CI Cyg. To constrain $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ and estimate the binary separation for these systems, the optically thin ff emission in the mm range (dotted curves in Fig. 1) was estimated using the H i ff+bf emission measure derived from optical and UV data. The resulting binary separations are in good agreement with the values derived from known spectroscopic orbits (see Fig. 4 of MIO). The mm-wave emission also shows some correlation with the mid-IR flux, and the radio luminosity increases with the $`K[12]`$ colour, which indicates that both the ionised gas and warm dust are involved in the mass flow, and suggests that the cool giant may be the source of this material. We note, however, that the consistency between the mm/submm-wave data and the STB binary model revealed by the work of MIO is not based on direct measurements of the spectral turnover, only on an optically thin emission measure inferred from optical/UV spectroscopy which, in addition, was not collected simultaneously with the radio observations.

Recently, MI01 have determined for the first time the 0.85 mm–6 cm spectral energy distribution (SED) of a prototypical S-type symbiotic system, CI Cyg, during quiescence (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, comparison of the binary separation and the Lyman continuum photon luminosity derived from this SED with the known orbital and stellar parameters of CI Cyg rules out both the STB model as well as models based on the interaction of winds from the binary companions. In particular, the ff turnover frequency determined from the SED in a model-independent manner (Fig. 1) over-estimates the binary separation by a factor of $``$36, while the optically thin ff emission measure under-estimates $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ by a factor of $``$20 relative to the value inferred from optical/UV spectroscopy (Fig. 1). One possible cause of this low, optically thin radio emission is that CI Cyg is one of the few symbiotic systems in which the M giant shows strong tidal distortion, and loses mass via Roche-lobe overflow rather than via a stellar wind. In such a case the bulk of the Balmer H i emission is most likely formed in dense material in the orbital plane (stream and/or accretion disc) whereas the radio emission and high-excitation forbidden lines arise from lower density regions in polar directions.

If the giant does fill its Roche lobe, the M giant’s wind in S-type systems is likely to be focused towards the secondary and/or towards the orbital plane. In particular, gravitational interaction of the cool giant’s wind with the secondary can produce an equatorial-to-polar density contrast as large as 100–1000, giving rise to a bipolar geometry of the symbiotic nebulae (Gawryszczak, Mikołajewska, & Różyczka 2002a). Such a geometry results in significantly different shapes of the H ii region, and the emerging SEDs, compared with their STB counterparts (Gawryszczak, Mikołajewska, & Różyczka 2002b). Moreover, in high-inclination systems with relatively low $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ and high $`\dot{M}/v`$ ($`X1`$ in the STB model) two radio lobes are expected. We note here that the recently resolved radio emission from AG Dra cannot be accounted for by the STB model (Mikołajewska 2002, and references therein) although MIO did not reveal any inconsistency between its SED (in particular, $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, Fig. 1) and the STB model.

## 3. Mass-loss rates

The M giant mass-loss rates derived from 1.3-mm flux densities, applying the WB relation (Wright, & Barlow 1975), are systematically higher than those reported for single M giants (MIO; Fig. 2). Similar results were obtained by SKT93 based on cm-wave observations and Kenyon, Fernandez-Castro, & Stencel (1988) from analysis of IRAS data. MIO also found a correlation between the giant mass-loss rate and the hot component’s luminosity, $`L_\mathrm{h}`$, which may suggest that illumination of the outer atmosphere of the giant is an important effect. The WB relation under-estimates $`\dot{M}`$ if the wind is only partially ionized, which seems to be the case for most if not all quiescent symbiotic systems. SKT93 estimated the magnitude of this under-estimate based on the STB model as a factor of 2, 1.5 and 1.15 for $`X`$ = 0.5, 1, and 5, respectively. In fact, the mass-loss rates can be under-estimated by a factor of 10 or more if the ionized region is highly asymmetric (Gawryszczak et al. 2002b). Since this effect increases with decreasing $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}L_\mathrm{h}`$, it can also account for the correlation between the mass loss estimates based on spherically symmetric models (such as WB and STB) and $`L_\mathrm{h}`$.

### Acknowledgments.

This research was partly founded by KBN Research Grant No. 5 P03D 019 20, and by the JUMELAGE program ‘Astronomie France-Pologne’ of CNRS/PAN.

## References

Gawryszczak, A., Mikołajewska, J., Różyczka, M. 2002a, A&A, 385, 205

Gawryszczak, A., Mikołajewska, J., Różyczka, M. 2002b, this volume

Ivison, R.J., Hughes, D.H., Bode, M.F. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 47

Kenyon, S.J., Fernandez-Castro, T., Stencel, R.E. 1988, AJ, 95, 1817

Mikołajewska, J. 2002, MNRAS, in press

Mikołajewska, J., Ivison, R.J. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 1023 (MI01)

Mikołajewska, J., Ivison, R.J., Omont, A. 2002, Adv. Space Res., in press/astro-ph/0102198 (MIO)

Seaquist, E.R., Taylor, A.R. 1990, ApJ, 349, 313 (ST90).

Seaquist, E.R., Taylor, A.R., Button, S. 1984, ApJ, 284, 202 (STB).

Seaquist, E.R., Krogulec, M., Taylor, A.R. 1993, ApJ, 410, 260 (SKT93).

Wright, A.E., Barlow, M.J. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 41