text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main way to investigate nonlinear differential equations is through revealing and analysing their symmetries. The ideological foundation for this approach was laid at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of twentieth centuries by S. Lie and E. Noether. Since then the most interesting and important results in this field of research have been obtained in development of the theory of integrable systems; for a quite exhaustive list of literature see monographs .

A principal place among nonlinear integrable equations occupy two-dimensional systems which are representable as the zero-curvature condition for some connection on a trivial principal fiber bundle . This transparent background allows for the most effective application of group-algebraic and differential-geometry methods to the study of such systems. A class of that sort, called the non-abelian Toda equations being a subclass of the Toda-type integrable systems , is considered in the present talk. Actually here we deal with the simplest examples of non-abelian Toda systems and concern only the symmetry aspects of the theory.

## 2 Non-abelian Toda systems

Let $`G`$ be a real or complex matrix Lie group whose Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is endowed with a $``$-gradation,

$$𝔤=\underset{m}{}𝔤_m,[𝔤_m,𝔤_n]𝔤_{m+n}.$$

Assume that the $``$-gradations under consideration is generated by a grading operator. It means that there exists an element $`q𝔤`$, called the grading operator, such that

$$𝔤_m=\{x𝔤[q,x]=mx\}.$$

It is known that any $``$-gradation of a semisimple Lie algebra is generated by a grading operator.

From the definition of a $``$-gradation it follows that the subspace $`𝔤_0`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. Denote by $`G_0`$ the connected Lie group corresponding to this subalgebra. Let $`l`$ be a positive integer such that the grading subspaces $`𝔤_m`$ are trivial for $`l<m<0`$ and $`0<m<l`$. In accordance with the group-algebraic approach , the Toda equations are defined as the matrix differential equations

$$_+\left(\gamma ^1_{}\gamma \right)=[c_{},\gamma ^1c_+\gamma ].$$
(2.1)
Here $`\gamma `$ is a mapping from the manifold $`^2`$ with the coordinates denoted by $`x^{}`$ and $`x^+`$, $`c_{}`$ and $`c_+`$ are some fixed mappings from $`^2`$ to $`𝔤_l`$ and $`𝔤_{+l}`$, respectively, satisfying the conditions

$$_+c_{}=0,_{}c_+=0.$$

As usually, we denote the partial derivatives over $`x^{}`$ and $`x^+`$ by $`_{}`$ and $`_+`$. There exist the so-called higher grading  and multi-dimensional  generalisations of the Toda systems.

If the $``$-gradation under consideration is such that the resulting Lie subalgebra $`𝔤_0`$ and therefore the corresponding Lie subgroup $`G_0`$ are abelian, then the corresponding Toda system is called abelian. In any other case one has a non-abelian Toda system. There is a complete classification of the Toda systems associated with classical complex Lie groups .

The Toda equation (2.1) can be derived from the action functional

$$S[\gamma ]=S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\gamma ]+S_\mathrm{T}[\gamma ],$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\gamma ]`$ is the action functional for the Wess–Zumino–Novikov–Witten (WZNW) model on the Lie group $`G_0`$ , and $`S_\mathrm{T}[\gamma ]`$ is a no-derivatives term

$$S_\mathrm{T}[\gamma ]=\kappa dx^{}dx^+\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma ^1c_+\gamma c_{}\right).$$

Here $`\kappa `$ is a free parameter entering the action of the WZNW model, and Tr is the appropriately normalized trace.

As a concrete example we consider in this talk some class of non-abelian Toda systems associated with the real general linear Lie group $`\mathrm{GL}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n}()`$ defined as follows. Let the Lie algebra $`𝔤𝔩_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n}()`$ is supplied with the $``$-gradation generated by the grading operator

$$q=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_n& 0\\ 0& I_n\end{array}\right),$$

where $`I_n`$ is the unit $`n\times n`$ matrix. In this case $`𝔤=𝔤_1𝔤_0𝔤_{+1}`$ and $`l=1`$. Choose the mappings $`c_{}`$ and $`c_+`$ as

$$c_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right),c_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The Lie group $`G_0`$ turns out to be isomorphic to the direct product of two copies of the general linear Lie group $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$, and the mapping $`\gamma `$ has the form

$$\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ are mappings from $`^2`$ to $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$. Toda equation (2.1) decomposes into two matrix differential equations

$$_+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)},_+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}.$$

The general solution to these equations was constructed in paper .

The action functional for the system under consideration is

$$S[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}]=S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}]+S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}]+S_\mathrm{T}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}],$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}]`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}]`$ are the actions for the WZNW model on the above mentioned two copies of the group $`\mathrm{GL}_n()`$, and the no-derivatives term is now of the form

$$S_\mathrm{T}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}]=\kappa dx^{}dx^+\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\right).$$

Here tr means the usual trace.

Indubitable advantage given by the formulation of the system in terms of the action functional is that it allows us to proceed to the Hamiltonian description, which in turn provides a way to consider the symmetries of the system as the transformations generated by conserved charges. The construction of the Hamiltonian formalism can be performed in the spirit of paper .

## 3 Simplest symmetries

The action $`S_{\mathrm{WZNW}}[\gamma ]`$ is invariant with respect to the transformation

$$\gamma (x^{},x^+)\lambda _+(x^+)\gamma (x^{},x^+)\lambda _{}^1(x^{}),$$
(3.1)
where $`\lambda _{}`$ and $`\lambda _+`$ are arbitrary $`G_0`$-valued functions. The total action $`S[\gamma ]`$ of the Toda system inherits only a part of this symmetry. Indeed, it is clear that transformation (3.1) leads again to the action of the Toda system with the mappings $`c_{}`$ and $`c_+`$ changed as follows:

$$c_{}\lambda _{}c_{}\lambda _{}^1,c_+\lambda _+c_+\lambda _+^1.$$

Hence, if the matrix-valued functions $`c_{}`$ and $`c_+`$ are such that

$$\lambda _{}c_{}\lambda _{}^1=c_{},\lambda _+c_+\lambda _+^1=c_+,$$

then (3.1) is a symmetry transformation for the Toda system under consideration. It is worthwhile to call this invariance a WZNW-type symmetry.

For the concrete example of a non-abelian Toda system introduced in the previous section the WZNW-type symmetry is realised as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(x^{},x^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(x^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(x^{},x^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1(x^{}),`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(x^{},x^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+(x^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(x^{},x^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^1(x^{}).`$ (3.3)
It is clear that $`S_\mathrm{T}[\gamma ]`$ is invariant with respect to these transformations.

The action of the WZNW model is invariant also with respect to the conformal transformations

$$x^{}f^{}(x^{}),x^+f^+(x^+)$$

acting on the mapping $`\gamma `$ in accordance with the rule

$$\gamma (x^{},x^+)\gamma (f^{}(x^{}),f^+(x^+)).$$

The action of a Toda system is not invariant with respect to these transformations. Nevertheless, in the case where $`c_{}`$ and $`c_+`$ are constant mappings, one can demonstrate that the corresponding Toda system is invariant with respect to the slightly modified action of the conformal group. To this end, one can first get convinced that if the mapping $`\gamma `$ satisfies the equation (2.1), then the mapping $`\gamma ^{}(x^{},x^+)=\gamma (f^{}(x^{}),f^+(x^+))`$ satisfies the equation

$$_+\left(\gamma ^1_{}\gamma ^{}\right)=_{}f^{}_+f^+[c_{},\gamma ^1c_+\gamma ^{}].$$

One can compensate the factor $`_{}f^{}_+f^+`$ at the right hand side of this equation using the transformation (3.1). To this end, one should put

$$\lambda _{}=\mathrm{exp}(+ql^1\mathrm{ln}_{}f^{}),\lambda _+=\mathrm{exp}(ql^1\mathrm{ln}_+f^+),$$

where $`q`$ is the grading operator. It leads to the relations

$$\lambda _{}c_{}\lambda _{}^1=(_{}f^{})^1c_{},\lambda _+c_+\lambda _+^1=(_+f^+)^1c_+,$$

allowing exactly for the desirable cancellation of the superfluous factor. As the result, the conformally transformed mapping

$$\gamma ^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{exp}(ql^1\mathrm{ln}_+f^+)\gamma ^{}\mathrm{exp}(ql^1\mathrm{ln}_{}f^{})$$
(3.4)
satisfies the initial Toda equation. We see that the space of solutions of the Toda equations is invariant under the appropriately defined action of the group of conformal transformations .

## 4 Characteristic integrals and $`𝑾`$-symmetries

The WZNW-type symmetry and the conformal symmetry do not exhaust all symmetries of a Toda system. To find additional symmetry transformations we can use the following procedure .

First we find some set of conserved charges. In the case under consideration we have an infinite set of conserved charges provided by the so-called characteristic integrals. In the Hamiltonian formalism conserved charges generate symmetry transformations. So, we construct the Lagrangian formulation for our system and then proceed to the corresponding Hamiltonian formulation. After that we consider the symmetry transformations generated by the Hamiltonian counterparts of the conserved charges associated with the characteristic integrals, and finally obtain their Lagrangian version. This allows us, in particular, to obtain the WZNW-type symmetry transformations and the conformal transformations discussed above.

A characteristic integral of a Toda system is, by definition, either a differential polynomial $`W`$ of the Toda fields satisfying the relation

$$_+W=0,$$
(4.1)
or a differential polynomial $`\overline{W}`$ of the Toda fields which satisfy the relation

$$_{}\overline{W}=0.$$
(4.2)
By a differential polynomial we mean a polynomial function of the fields and their derivatives. The existence of the characteristic integrals, under appropriate conditions, guarantees the integrability of the Toda equations .

Let us treat the manifold $`^2`$ as a flat Riemannian manifold with the coordinates $`x^{}`$ and $`x^+`$ being light-front coordinates. The usual flat coordinates $`x^0=t`$ and $`x^1=x`$ are related to the light-front coordinates by the relation

$$x^0=x^{}+x^+,x^1=x^{}+x^+.$$

Using these coordinates, we write equality (4.1) as

$$_tW+_xW=0,$$

where $`_t=/t`$ and $`_x=/x`$. Hence, the function $`W`$ is a density of a conserved charge. Moreover, multiplying $`W`$ by a function which depends only on $`x^{}`$ we again obtain a characteristic integral. Therefore, a characteristic integral generates an infinite set of densities of conserved charges. Similarly, multiplying a characteristic integral satisfying relation (4.2) by functions depending only on $`x^+`$ we again obtain an infinite set of densities of conserved charges.

It is clear that any differential polynomial of characteristic integrals is also a characteristic integral. Moreover, the Poisson bracket of the Hamiltonian counterparts of any two characteristic integrals is again a characteristic integral. Therefore, a necessary step in investigation of characteristic integrals is to show that they form a closed set with respect to the Poisson bracket, or, in other words, that they form an object called a $`W`$-algebra. The elements of a $`W`$-algebra generate the so-called $`W`$-symmetries being a nonlinear extension of the conformal symmetry. The study of such extensions was initiated by A. B. Zamolodchikov , for a review see .

At least two methods can be used to find the characteristic integrals. One of them consists in constructing a generating system of pseudo-differential operators , and the other one is the Drinfeld–Sokolov highest weight gauge . In fact, both of them are based on the representation of the Toda equations as the zero curvature condition of some connection on the trivial principal fibre bundle $`^2\times G^2`$.

For the system under consideration the characteristic integrals appear as the matrix-valued quantities

$`W_1=\kappa \left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\right],`$
$`W_2={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}_{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\right]`$
$`+\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)},`$
satisfying relation (4.1), and the matrix-valued quantities

$`\overline{W}_1=\kappa \left[_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}+_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}\right],`$
$`\overline{W}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}_+\left[_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}\right]`$
$`+\kappa ^2_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1},`$
satisfying relation (4.2).

Denote the Hamiltonian counterparts of the above described characteristic integrals by $`𝒲_1`$, $`𝒲_2`$ and $`\overline{𝒲}_1`$, $`\overline{𝒲}_2`$. It can be shown that they are the generators of a $`W`$-algebra with respect to the Poisson bracket .

To find the form of the infinitesimal symmetry transformations generated by the characteristic integrals we consider first the quantity

$$𝒲_\epsilon (t)=dx\mathrm{tr}\left[\epsilon _1(t,x)𝒲_1(t,x)+\epsilon _2(t,x)𝒲_2(t,x)\right],$$

where $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ are arbitrary infinitesimal matrix-valued functions on $`^2`$ satisfying the relations

$$_+\epsilon _1=_t\epsilon _1+_x\epsilon _1=0,_+\epsilon _2=_t\epsilon _2+_x\epsilon _2=0.$$

The infinitesimal transformations of an observable $`F(t)`$ generated by $`𝒲_\epsilon (t)`$ are given by the relation

$$\delta F(t)=\{𝒲_\epsilon (t),F(t)\}.$$

For the mappings $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ these transformations written in the Lagrangian form are

$`\delta _\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\epsilon _1\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\epsilon _2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}_{}\epsilon _2,`$ (4.3)
$`\delta _\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\epsilon _1\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\epsilon _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}_{}\epsilon _2.`$ (4.4)
Similarly, introducing the quantity

$$\overline{𝒲}_\epsilon (t)=dx\mathrm{tr}\left[\overline{\epsilon }_1(t,x)\overline{𝒲}_1(t,x)+\overline{\epsilon }_2(t,x)\overline{𝒲}_2(t,x)\right],$$

where the infinitesimal matrix-valued functions $`\overline{\epsilon }_1`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }_2`$ satisfy the relations

$$_{}\overline{\epsilon }_1=_t\overline{\epsilon }_1_x\overline{\epsilon }_1=0,_{}\overline{\epsilon }_2=_t\overline{\epsilon }_2_x\overline{\epsilon }_2=0,$$

we come to the following expressions for the infinitesimal transformations

$`\delta _{\overline{\epsilon }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\overline{\epsilon }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\kappa \overline{\epsilon }_2_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}_+\overline{\epsilon }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)},`$ (4.5)
$`\delta _{\overline{\epsilon }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=\overline{\epsilon }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\kappa _+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)1}\overline{\epsilon }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}_+\overline{\epsilon }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}.`$ (4.6)
One can verify that transformations (4.3), (4.4) and (4.5), (4.6) are really symmetry transformations for the Toda system under consideration. Putting $`\epsilon _2=0`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }_2=0`$ we obtain infinitesimal version of the transformations described by relations (3.2), (3.3).

The conformal transformations (3.4) are generated by the Hamiltonian counterparts of the nonzero components of the conformally improved energy-momentum tensor which are connected with the characteristic integrals as

$$T_{}^{}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\mathrm{tr}\left[W_1^22W_2\right],T_{++}^{}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\mathrm{tr}\left[\overline{W}_1^22\overline{W}_2\right].$$

Note that the characteristic integrals $`W_1`$, $`\overline{W}_1`$ and $`W_2`$, $`\overline{W}_2`$ have the conformal spins $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively .

Along the same lines one can investigate also some non-abelian Toda systems related to the real symplectic Lie group $`\mathrm{Sp}_n()`$ . Actually these systems can be considered as the reduction of the systems defined above to the case where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)T})^1=\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`T`$ denotes the transposition with respect to the main skew diagonal. The Toda equations take in this case the form

$$_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1_{}\mathrm{\Gamma })=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^T\mathrm{\Gamma }^1).$$
(4.7)
In the case $`n=1`$ denoting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{exp}F`$ one comes to the equation

$$_+_{}F=\mathrm{exp}(2F)$$

that is the well known Liouville equation. Therefore, it is natural to call equation (4.7) non-abelian Liouville equation.

## 5 Some deliberation

It would be very interesting to extend our consideration to non-abelian Toda equations based on $``$-gradations different from ones we have considered here . For this, one should first construct the corresponding characteristic integrals. Of special interest are higher grading Toda-type systems including matter fields. One of the serious barriers to be overcome in this way is that such systems, in general, cannot be treated with the help of local Lagrangians , and so, the construction of conventional Hamiltonian descriptions seems to be rather problematic.

It is worth to note that the generators of the $`W`$-algebras considered above have conformal spin 1 or 2 only. Nevertheless, we have nonlinear defining relations. As far as we know it is a new phenomenon in the theory of $`W`$-algebras.

Another important direction leads from our work to the problem of quantization of non-abelian Toda systems. There, one cannot avoid the questions on quantum counterparts of our $`W`$-algebras and on the very meaning of the $`W`$-symmetries at the quantum level.

The work of A.V.R. was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant #01–01–00201 and the INTAS under grant #00–00561.


format: text

text:
# A new Wolf-Rayet star in CygnusBased on observations collected at the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre, Calar Alto, operated by the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg, jointly with the Spanish National Commission for Astronomy.

## 1 Introduction

Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, first discovered by Wolf and Rayet in 1867, are characterised by an emission-line spectrum dominated by strong He, N and C features. Their observed properties are believed to be the result of stellar evolution at high initial masses, during which strong mass loss in winds of a few 10-5 M yr-1 at terminal velocities between 400 and 5000 km s-1 (cf. van der Hucht 2001) “peels” the star until it comes to expose at its surface the heavy elements synthesized in its core. WR stars represent the last evolutionary stage of massive stars before the final supernova explosion (Maeder & Conti 1994, Langer & Woosley 1996, Langer & Hegel 1999). The flux ratios among the He, N, and C lines allows the classification of WR stars into subclasses, WN (where He and N lines dominate), WC and WO (when He, C and O features become stronger), and subtypes (WN3-9 and WC4-9 as the ionization degree increases).

WR stars significantly contribute to the energy budget and chemical enrichment of their parent galaxy. Through their stellar winds, they enrich the hosting environment with heavy elements and release over time a kinetic energy comparable to that from supernovae (Leitherer 1998). Given their high luminosities (few 105 L) individual WR stars are easily identified in all the galaxies of the Local Group (Massey & Johnson 1998), while the short lifetimes of such massive stars (several Myr) make them appear generally near their birthplaces, tracing star formation in spiral and starburst galaxies. Indeed, their unmistakable features, detected in the integrated spectra of galaxies undergoing intense bursts of star formation (cf. Conti 2000), make them useful to study starburst phenomena and star formation processes on cosmological scales.

The latest census of WR stars detected in the Milky Way lists 227 such objects (van der Hucht 2001), or about 10$`\%`$ of the estimated Galactic WR population ($``$ 1500 - 2500; Shara et al. 1999). The majority of Galactic WR stars has escaped detection using traditional techniques (such as visible spectroscopy or narrow-band photometry with filters centered on the characteristic WR signature at $`\lambda `$ 4670 Å and its adjacent continuum, cf. Massey & Conti 1983) which are naturally limited by their unability to penetrate the large column densities of absorbing dust along the lines of sight towards distant regions of the galactic disk. Such limitation can be overcome by observing at near-infrared wavelengths, where WR stars also display easily identifiable spectral signatures and the extinction by dust is only a fraction of that at shorter wavelengths.

In this paper we report the discovery of a new nearby WR star, supporting the prediction by van der Hucht (2001) that many such stars in the solar neighbourhood still await discovery at near-infrared wavelengths. Indeed, the object reported here is bright at near-infrared wavelengths but has escaped recognition so far in the visible despite its proximity, due to the high extinction in its direction. The discovery of yet another nearby WR star deserves attention in several respects, as each WR star has its own special features and represents a unique contribution to our understanding of the late stages of massive stellar evolution. Moreover, its location and relation to other young stars in the region yields information on the star formation history in the complex where it formed. The near-infrared observations of the star, to which we will refer as WR 142a following the nomenclature in van der Hucht’s (2001) catalogue, are described in Section 2. The results concerning its spectral classification and intrinsic properties can be found in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 discusses some implications of the WR population in Cygnus.

## 2 Observations

The selection of WR 142a as a target for spectroscopic observations was based on its 2MASS photometry, from which it was apparent that this star is a bright, red object with colours significantly deviating from those of normal stars reddened by foreground dust. Infrared magnitudes listed by 2MASS are $`J=9.22`$, $`H=8.08`$, $`K_S=7.09`$. Its location at $`\alpha (2000)=20^h24^m06.2^s`$, $`\delta (2000)=+41^{}25^{}33^{\prime \prime }`$ places it in the general direction of Cygnus, in a region where several OB associations overlap (see Section 3.4). The USNO catalog lists a star of $`B=18.1`$, $`R=14.7`$ at the position of this object. The only previous reference to it in the literature seems to be Melikian & Shevchenko (1990), who recognized it as a strong emission-line star in their search for such objects in the proximities of the cluster NGC 6910. However, its actual WR nature has not been recognized until now.

We observed WR142a on June 24 and 25 2002, using the near-infrared imager and spectrograph MAGIC mounted on the 1.23m telescope of the German-Spanish Astronomical Center in Calar Alto (Spain). This instrument uses a NICMOS3 $`256\times 256`$ pixel2 detector yielding a scale of 1$`^{\prime \prime }.`$15 per pixel in imaging mode. $`JHK_M`$ imaging and $`H`$ and $`K`$ band spectroscopy were obtained and reduced using the same instrumental setups and techniques described in Comerón et al. (2002); the reader is thus referred to that paper for details. Two spectra obtained on the night of 24 June 2002 at airmasses of 2.05 and 1.67 were individually reduced to confirm the reality of individual features, especially in regions of rapidly varying telluric absorption. The exposure time of the combined spectrum is 12 min. As for the imaging, the exposure times are 7.5 min in each of the $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K_M`$ filters. The images were obtained under conditions suspected to be non-photometric, and flux calibration using a separate image of a standard star was thus not attempted.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 IR spectroscopy and classification

The low-resolution infrared spectrum of WR 142a ($`R240`$) is plotted in Figure 1. Emission lines have been identified by cross-correlation with the The Atomic Line List v2.04 (http://www.pa.uky.edu/$``$peter/atomic) and the K-band spectral atlas of Figer et al. (1997). The most prominent features are due to HeI and HeII, CIII and CIV. Their equivalent widths are listed in Table 1.

We have cross-checked the spectrum of WR 142a with the K-band spectral atlas of Galactic WR stars by Figer et al. (1997) in order to assign WR 142a a WR subtype. The line complex between 2 and 2.2 $`\mu `$m has been particularly useful in the spectral classification, since it is a specific signature (in line wavelength and flux ratio) of WC8 stars (cf. Figure 10 in Figer et al. 1997). Although the dispersion of Figer et al.’s (1997) data is a factor of two higher (R $``$ 525 against 240 of this work), the comparison indicates that the spectrum of WR 142a is almost identical to that of WR 135, a WC8 star in the Galactic OB association Cygnus OB3. And similarly to WR 135, a weak absorption can be detected blueward of the CIV + HeII emission line at $`\lambda `$ = 2.075 $`\mu `$m suggesting a P Cygni profile for this line blend (or for the HeII 2.06 $`\mu `$m feature buried in this line blend). Therefore, we classify WR 142a as a WC8 star.

### 3.2 Colors, distance, reddening and variability

As a first step towards the estimate of the physical properties of WR 142a, we have compared its near-infrared photometry to that of six other nearby WC8 stars (WR 53, WR 60, WR 77, WR 101, WR 117, and WR 135) selected from Williams et al. (1987). Stars with detected companions were excluded. WR 101 and WR 135 have $`JHK`$ photometry also from 2MASS, and WR 113 from Pitault et al. (1983); in all these cases, all published magnitudes agree to better than 0.1 mag. Extinctions in the visible, $`A_V`$, are given for the six reference objects by van der Hucht (2001) based on their visible photometry. A seventh WC8 star, WR 102e, also has available 2MASS photometry. However, the fact that this star is located in the galactic center raises some concerns about its validity as a reference for comparison to the WR population in the solar neighbourhood. Besides the published $`JHK`$ photometry we have also used the extinction given in van der Hucht catalogue, from which we derive intrinsic colours $`(JH)_0`$, $`(HK)_0`$ using the extinction law of Rieke & Lebofsky (1985).

Assuming that the intrinsic colours of WR 142a are the same as the average of those of the reference stars, we obtain $`(JH)_0=0.28\pm 0.25`$. The uncertainty includes both the intrinsic scatter in colours among WC8 stars and possible errors in determining the extinction, which is generally done using $`BV`$ colours. The derived extinction for WR 142a is thus $`A_V=8.1\pm 2.3`$, or $`A_J=2.3\pm 0.6`$. Using the $`K`$ band to estimate the extinction introduces larger uncertainties due to the larger scatter in derived intrinsic $`(HK)_0`$ colours among the reference objects, and we have preferred to exclude it for this purpose. A more accurate estimate is possible by using the measured $`B=18.1`$ in the USNO catalogue, keeping in mind that a possible error may be introduced by variability in the non-simultaneous $`B`$ and $`JHK`$ observations. In that case, we have calculated $`(BV)_0=0.14`$ using the observed $`(BV)`$ of the reference stars and dereddening them with the $`A_V`$ listed by van der Hucht (2001), using $`A_V/(A_BA_V)=3.1`$, thus obtaining $`(BJ)_0=0.42`$. The observed $`(BJ)=8.9`$ thus implies $`A_V=8.1`$, practically identical to the value derived from $`JH`$ but based on a much longer wavelength baseline. The uncertainty, mostly due to the scatter in $`(BJ)_0`$, is accordingly smaller and estimated to be 0.4 mag. We thus adopt $`A_V=8.1\pm 0.4`$, or $`A_J=2.3\pm 0.1`$, as the extinction towards WR 142a.

A similar procedure applied to the $`(VJ)`$ photometry of the reference stars yields an estimate of $`(VJ)_00.56\pm 0.24`$ for WR 142a, again with the caveat of the non-simultaneity of the visual and infrared observations although the relatively small scatter that we find in $`(VJ)_0`$ suggests that this may not be an important factor. Proceeding with the $`(VJ)_0`$ given above and assuming for the visual absolute magnitude of WR 142a the mean value derived by van der Hucht (2001) for WC8 stars, $`M_V=3.74`$, we obtain $`M_J=4.30`$. In this case, to the already noted uncertainty in $`(VJ)_0`$ we must add the scatter in $`M_V`$ found for these stars, which van der Hucht evaluates at 0.5 mag. Using the estimates of the extinction and the absolute magnitude we obtain a distance modulus of $`DM=11.2\pm 0.7`$, corresponding to a distance of $`1.8_{0.5}^{+0.6}`$ kpc.

An alternative possibility consists of using the close similarity between the spectra of WR 142a and WR 135 to assume that the intrinsic properties of both are identical, including intrinsic colours and absolute magnitudes. WR 135 is the bluest star in the reference sample both in $`(JH)_0`$ and $`(VJ)_0`$. The brighter $`M_V`$ listed by van der Hucht (2001) is balanced by the bluer colours to give $`M_J=4.33`$, practically identical to the value used in the above estimate. However, fitting the colours requires a higher extinction ($`A_V=11.0`$ or $`A_J=3.1`$) and the distance modulus thus reduces to 10.2 mag, corresponding to a distance of 1.2 kpc, in the lower end of the range given above.

Despite of the fact that our observations were probably performed under non-photometric conditions as noted in Section 2, it is still possible to check for possible variability by comparing WR 142a to other 2MASS stars in the field. Such comparison suggests that WR 142a was slightly fainter when we observed it than when it was observed by 2MASS, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0.08`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0.07`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=0.25`$. Only the significance of the $`K`$ variability is more than marginal, lying within the amplitude range of the long-term variability of Wolf-Rayet stars reported by Hackwell et al. (1979) and well below the rather extreme case described by Danks et al. (1983).

### 3.3 Properties and environment

The physical properties of WR 142a (mass $`M`$, radius $`R`$, temperature $`T`$) may be estimated with simple relations derived by Schaerer & Maeder (1992) from their models of WNE/WC stars, with the caveat that these models are quite sensitive to the assumed morphology of the stellar wind, i.e. clumpiness, which may change the bolometric luminosity of WRs. The luminosity can be estimated by adopting for WR 142a $`M_V=3.74`$ as determined by van der Hucht (2001) for WC8 stars, and the average bolometric correction $`BC_V=4.12`$ found by Nugis & Lamers (2000) for the WC8 subgroup (taking into account their equation (6) to transform from narrow- to broad-band $`V`$ magnitude). Since $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})=0.4\times (M_V+BC_VM_{}^{\mathrm{BOL}})`$, the total luminosity of WC8 stars turns out to be $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})=5.04`$. If the individual luminosity of WR 135 is adopted instead as more appropriate for WR 142a, we obtain $`\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})=5.24`$.

Using Schaerer and Maeder’s mass-luminosity relation,

$$\mathrm{log}(L/L_{})=3.032+2.695\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})0.461(\mathrm{log}(M/M_{}))^2$$

we obtain a mass between 7.9 and 9.7 M (assuming respectively $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}=5.04`$ and 5.24 as described above). Likewise, the stellar radius $`R`$ and temperature $`T`$ are given approximated by

$$\mathrm{log}(R/R_{})=1.845+0.338\times \mathrm{log}(L/L_{})$$

and

$$\mathrm{log}(T)=4.684+0.0809\times \mathrm{log}(L/L_{})$$

from where we obtain $`R0.8`$ R, $`T125000`$ K, with little dependence on the choice between 5.04 or 5.24 for $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$. Finally, adopting Nugis & Lamers’ equation (24), which gives the stellar mass loss as a function of the stellar present mass, we derive for WR142a a mass-loss rate of $`1.4\times 10^5`$ M yr-1 or $`2.3\times 10^5`$ M yr-1, depending on which one of the masses given above is adopted. It must be stressed that the values above are a simple estimate of the stellar properties of WR142a based on average properties of WC8 stars, and an accurate model atmosphere fitting of its IR spectrum is indeed needed.

Although the winds of late-type WC stars are generally a source of warm dust (Smith & Houck 2001, Chiar et al. 2001), no IRAS mid-infrared point source is detected near the position of WR 142a. This is somewhat unexpected, as the sensitivity of IRAS should enable detection of a typical late WC star within 7 kpc from the Sun (Cohen 1995). Mid-infrared observations provide no evidence either for any extended structure at larger scales around WR 142a, as is sometimes found the neighbourhood of other WR stars (e.g. Miller & Chu 1993, Saken et al. 1995, Pineault & Terebey 1997, Gervais & St-Louis 1999, and references therein). This does not completely rule out the possible existence of an extended nebula, as the wide range of ring nebula sizes around WR stars (Miller & Chu 1993) and the intricate structure of thermal infrared emission in the general direction of Cygnus would naturally make the detection of such a nebula elusive. Near-infrared images of the immediate surroundings of WR 142a (Figure 2) also show it to be rather inconspicuous, with no obvious nebulosity associated to it within the $`5^{}`$ field of view of our images.

### 3.4 Membership

At the estimated distance of $`1.8`$ kpc, WR 142a lies in the extended complex of massive star forming regions composed by several OB associations and part of the molecular complex Cygnus X (e.g. Odenwald & Schwartz 1989). Its location with respect to the three most nearby associations and the other WR stars identified within $`5^{}`$ of it are shown in Figure 3.

The overlap among the associations and the difficulty in precisely establishing their boundaries (or even in establishing them as different entities) makes it difficult to unambiguously assign WR 142a to one of them. Adopting the distribution of members given by Garmany & Stencel (1992), WR 142a lies near the boundaries of both Cygnus OB2 and Cygnus OB9. Association to the latter may be suggested in view of its proximity (less than $`1^{}`$) to the open cluster NGC 6910. The average extinction towards Cygnus OB9, where members obscured by $`A_V>6`$ are listed by Garmany & Stencel (1992), does not conflict with this assignment. It may be interesting to note that WR 142a appears in the sky about $`10^{}`$ West of the compact HII region DWB87 (Dickel et al. 1969) and may be obscured by the molecular cloud surrounding it. No detailed studies of this nebula seem to exist in the literature, preventing us from ascertaining whether a physical connection between WR 142a and DWB87 may exist. On the other hand, it is also possible that WR 142a is actually a member of Cygnus OB2. Cygnus OB2 is a compact OB association (see Knödlseder 2000, Comerón et al. 2002, and references therein) rich in very massive members which are on the average more reddened than those of Cygnus OB9. Cygnus OB2 has four other WR stars, two of which also belong to the WC class, indicating progenitors with initial masses above 60 M (Crowther et al. 1995a), and in this respect the higher content of very massive stars of Cygnus OB2 favors the hypothesis that WR 142a is a member of this association lying in its outskirts. Given the considerable uncertainties affecting the definition of the membership, the boundaries, and the distances of each of these associations (see Comerón et al. 1998 for an additional discussion), the assignment of WR 142a to either Cygnus OB2 or Cygnus OB9 must remain as only tentative for the time being.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

Our near-infrared observations of a source in Cygnus with infrared colours deviating from those of normal, reddened stars has brought up the serendipitous discovery of another WR star in this complex of rich OB associations. Table 2 summarizes the parameters of this star, WR 142a.

The detection of WR 142a adds one more example of a late evolved star to the massive star content of this region. It is a remarkable fact that Cygnus OB2 contains examples of all the stages in the evolutionary path of the most massive stars, O main sequence $``$ Of/WN $``$ LBV $``$ WN $``$ WC for initial masses about 60 M (Langer et al. 1994). The addition of one more member of the rare class of stars with such high initial masses is thus a valuable one to a region that can be considered as the best avaliable laboratory for the observational study of stellar evolution at the upper end of the main sequence.

The abundant massive stars content of the complex Cygnus OB2/OB9, where over 100 O-type stars and descendants have been identified (Garmany & Stencel 1992, Massey et al. 1995, Knödlseder 2000, Comerón et al. 2002), leads to the expectation that this complex may be at present or in the near future the scenario of intense supernova activity. Taking 7.1 Myr as the expected lifetime of a late O-type star (Meynet et al. 1994, Schaerer & de Koter 1997), the content of Cygnus OB2/OB9 would lead to the expectation of a rate of about 1 SN every less than 70,000 yr. The observability of the radio-continuum signature of individual supernova remnants is limited in time and highly dependent on selection effects that are difficult to model (Green 1991), but the inferred interval between supernovae in Cygnus is rather short as compared to the estimated age of many supernova remnants (Matthews et al. 1998). Thus, the fact that none has been observed within 2 degrees from the centre of Cygnus OB2 (cf. Green 2001) suggests that no evolved massive star has gone through the supernova phase yet. This poses some constraints on the age of Cygnus OB2. According to the evolutionary track for an initial mass of 60 M computed by Langer et al. (1994), a star enters the WC phase when its mass has decreased to 15.3 M. Only when its present mass is as small as 3.92 M, the star can be considered a probable candidate for a supernova explosion. This happens after 4.065 $`\times `$ 106 yrs from the main-sequence phase. Moreover, according to Langer et al. (1994), WC stars pop up around 3 million years. Hence, we may argue that Cygnus OB2 is as young as 3 - 4 million years, basically in agreement with Massey et al. (2001) who derived, from photometry of OB main-sequence stars, a mean age of 2.6 $`\times `$ 106 yrs.

An inspection of van der Hucht’s (2001) catalogue reveals that Cygnus OB2 is the richest association in number of WC stars compared to WN stars, and the discovery of the new WC star reported here underlines this difference with respect to other associations. This could be interpreted as the result of a shallower IMF combined with the young age of the association. Indeed, an IMF slope of -0.9 has been measured for Cygnus OB2 by Massey (1998) and the cluster turn-off mass has been determined of about 120 M by Massey et al. (2001).

The discovery of a new Wolf-Rayet at a distance less than 2 kpc from the Sun reported here dramatically illustrates the incompleteness that affects the census of even the most massive stars in our galactic neighbourhood, while stressing the need for dedicated infrared surveys to improve the sample. Such efforts will be certainly worthwhile, given the critical dependence that our understanding of the star formation history and stellar mass function in OB associations has on working on complete samples, especially when the most massive and rarest members are concerned.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank an anonymous referee whose comments improved this manuscript. Also, it is a pleasure to thank the staff of the Calar Alto observatory, especially Mr. Santos Pedraz, for their assistance during the observing run in which the observations presented here were obtained. We also appreciate the help of Ms. Uta Grothkopf in making available to us the original article of Melikian and Shevchenko, and of Ms. Petia Andreeva in translating it from Russian. This paper made use of data obtained as part of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation; and of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) , the exclusive production of gluino pairs in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is mediated by $`s`$-channel photons and $`Z^0`$-bosons, which couple to the gluinos via triangular quark and squark loops. In this Talk, we report about a recent study  of the potential of high-energy linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders for the production of gluino pairs within the MSSM. Similar studies have been performed earlier for the production of sfermion pairs . Taking into account realistic beam polarization effects, photon and $`Z^0`$-boson exchange, and current mass exclusion limits, we scan the MSSM parameter space for various $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass energies to determine the regions, where gluino production should be visible. Furthermore we clarify the theoretical questions of the relative sign between the two contributing triangular Feynman diagrams, of the possible presence of an axial vector anomaly, and the conditions for vanishing cross sections – three related issues, which have so far been under debate in the literature.

## 2 Results

The scattering process

$$e^{}(p_1,\lambda _1)e^+(p_2,\lambda _2)\stackrel{~}{g}(k_1)\stackrel{~}{g}(k_2)$$
(1)
with incoming electron/positron momenta $`p_{1,2}`$ and helicities $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ and outgoing gluino momenta $`k_{1,2}`$ proceeds through the two Feynman diagrams A and B in Fig. 1 with $`s`$-channel photon and $`Z^0`$-boson exchange and triangular quark and squark loops. Higgs boson exchange is not considered due to the negligibly small electron Yukawa coupling, but it could well be relevant at muon colliders. The process occurs only at the one-loop level, since the gluino as the superpartner of the gauge boson of the strong interaction couples neither directly to leptons nor to electroweak gauge bosons. Our analytical results are presented in Ref.  in full detail. Taking into account chiral squark mixing, we find that pairs of identical (Majorana) gluinos are produced by a parity violating axial vector coupling induced by mass differences between the chiral squarks and the axial vector coupling of the $`Z^0`$-boson. The (mass-independent) ultraviolet singularities contained in the loop integrals cancel among the two contributing Feynman diagrams. As we have checked explicitly (even for complex squark mixing matrices), adding the two amplitudes induces not only a cancellation of the ultraviolet singularities and of the logarithmic dependence on the scale parameter, but also a destructive interference of the finite remainders. This happens separately for each weak isospin partner. Our analytical results have been obtained in two independent analytical calculations and have been implemented in a compact Fortran computer code. As a third independent cross-check, we have recalculated the production of gluino pairs in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation with the computer algebra program FeynArts/FormCalc  and found numerical agreement up to 15 digits.

Our calculations involve various masses and couplings of SM particles, for which we use the most up-to-date values from the 2002 Review of the Particle Data Group . In particular, we evaluate the electromagnetic fine structure constant $`\alpha (m_Z)=1/127.934`$ at the mass of the $`Z^0`$-boson, $`m_Z=91.1876`$ GeV, and calculate the weak mixing angle $`\theta _W`$ from the tree-level expression $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1m_W^2/m_Z^2`$ with $`m_W=80.423`$ GeV. Among the fermion masses, only the one of the top quark, $`m_t=174.3`$ GeV, plays a significant role due to its large splitting from the bottom quark mass, $`m_b=4.7`$ GeV, while the latter and the charm quark mass, $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV, could have been neglected like those of the three light quarks and of the electron/positron. The strong coupling constant is evaluated at the gluino mass scale from the one-loop expression with five active flavors and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LO}}^{n_f=5}=83.76`$ MeV, corresponding to $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.1172`$. A variation of the renormalization scale by a factor of four about the gluino mass results in a cross section uncertainty of about $`\pm 25`$ %. Like the heavy top quark, all SUSY particles have been decoupled from the running of the strong coupling constant.

We work in the framework of the MSSM with conserved $`R`$\- (matter-) parity, which represents the simplest phenomenologically viable model, but which is still sufficiently general to not depend on a specific SUSY breaking mechanism. Models with broken $`R`$-parity are severely restricted by the non-observation of proton decay, which would violate both baryon and lepton number conservation. We do not consider light gluino mass windows, on which the literature has focused so far and which may or may not be excluded from searches at fixed target and collider experiments . Instead, we adopt the current mass limit $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}200`$ GeV from the CDF  and D0  searches in the jets with missing energy channel, relevant for non-mixing squark masses of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}325`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$. Values for the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, below 2.4 are already excluded by the CERN LEP experiments, although this value is obtained using one-loop corrections only and depends in addition on the top quark mass . In order to delimit the regions of large gluino cross sections, we have scanned the MSSM parameter space over $`\mathrm{tan}\beta [1.6;50]`$, the Higgs mass parameter $`\mu =[2;2]`$ TeV, the trilinear coupling $`A_q[6;6]`$ TeV, and the squark mass parameter $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}[200;2000]`$ GeV. We found that the cross section is visible only for parameter choices resulting in large squark mass splittings, specified below, and that its sensitivity to individual parameter choices is small.

If not stated otherwise, we will present unpolarized cross sections for a $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider like DESY TESLA, gluino masses of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=200`$ GeV, and squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{S}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{C}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}=m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=325`$ GeV. We will consider two cases of large squark mass splittings: I.) On the one hand, the masses of the superpartners of left- and right-handed quarks need not be equal to each other. In this scenario we will vary the right-handed up-type squark mass parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ between 200 and 1500 GeV. II.) On the other hand, the superpartners of the heavy quarks can mix into light and heavy mass eigenstates. This alternative is restricted by the CERN LEP limits on the light top and bottom squark masses, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}100`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}99`$ GeV , and on SUSY one-loop contributions  to the $`\rho `$-parameter, $`\rho _{\mathrm{SUSY}}<0.0012`$ . In this case we assume the maximally allowed top squark mixing with $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=45.2^{}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=110`$ GeV, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=506`$ GeV, which can be generated by choosing appropriate values for the Higgs mass parameter, $`\mu =500`$ GeV, and the trilinear top squark coupling, $`A_t=534`$ GeV. For small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, mixing in the bottom squark sector remains small, and we take $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}=0^{}`$. Although the absolute magnitude of the cross section depends strongly on the gluino mass and collider energy, the relative importance of the different contributions is very similar also for higher gluino masses and collider energies.

First we examine the conditions found in Ref.  for vanishing of the photon and $`Z^0`$-boson contributions, restricting ourselves to the third generation. Since we expect the photon contribution to cancel for equal left- and right-handed squark masses, we vary the right-handed top squark mass parameter, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, between 200 and 1500 GeV, but keep $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=325`$ GeV fixed (case I), since top and bottom squarks generally interfere destructively due to their opposite charge and weak isospin quantum numbers. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the photon contribution cancels indeed for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, i.e. for all flavors $`q`$ with equal squark masses. Due to their charge, top (s)quarks contribute four times as much as bottom (s)quarks, whose contribution is even more suppressed by the condition $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}`$. The $`Z^0`$-boson contribution can never cancel, since $`m_tm_b`$, and therefore it depends only weakly on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$, but it can become minimal for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. As $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ gets significantly larger (or smaller) than $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, the photon contribution starts to dominate over the $`Z^0`$-boson contribution. If only $`m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ differs from $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, the third generation contributes almost 100% to the total cross section. However, if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{C}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}`$ are varied simultaneously, all three generations contribute to the total cross section, which can therefore become significantly larger.

When $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{C}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{T}}=m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and large mass splittings are generated only by mixing in the top squark sector (case II), photon contributions are suppressed by more than two orders of magnitude. Fig. 3 shows that the

$`Z^0`$-boson contributions from top and bottom squarks interfere destructively due to opposite values of their weak isospin quantum numbers, except for $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}45.2^{}`$, where the imaginary parts of the amplitudes interfere constructively. It is therefore advantageous to keep the bottom squark mass splitting small. As is also evident from Fig. 3, mixing in the bottom squark sector is of little importance. Note that the central region with maximal top/bottom squark mixing is excluded by the CERN LEP limits on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}`$, and the $`\rho `$-parameter. When $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and the diagonal elements of the squark mixing matrix become much larger than the quark masses and the off-diagonal elements of the matrix, the role of squark mixing is reduced, as expected. Squarks from the first two generations contribute at most 10% at low $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and are otherwise strongly suppressed.

At future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders it will be possible to obtain relatively high degrees of polarization, i.e. about 80% for electrons and 60% for positrons. For these degrees of polarization, we show in Fig. 4 a scan in the center-of-mass energy of a future $`e^+e^{}`$

collider for various gluino masses and maximal top squark mixing (case II). The cross section rises rather slowly due to the factor $`\beta ^3`$ for $`P`$-wave production of the gluino pairs. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=200`$ GeV we observe an interesting second maximum, which arises from the intermediate squark pair resonance at $`\sqrt{s}=2m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=650`$ GeV. At threshold, the cross section depends strongly on the gluino mass and is largest for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=200`$ GeV, which we consider to be the lowest experimentally allowed value. It drops fast with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, so that for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>500`$ GeV no events at colliders with luminosities of 1000 fb-1 per year can be expected, irrespective of their energy. Smaller squark mixing (cf. Fig. 3) or larger values of $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ will reduce the cross section even further. Far above threshold, it drops off like $`1/s`$ and becomes independent of the gluino mass.

The slow rise of the cross section can be observed even better in Fig. 5, where the sensitivity of a $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV collider like

DESY TESLA to gluino masses around 200 GeV has been plotted. For the CERN LHC experiments, a precision of $`\pm 30\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}`$ ($`12\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25}`$) GeV is expected for gluino masses of 540 (1004) GeV. If the masses and mixing angle(s) of the top (and bottom) squarks are known, a precision of $`\pm 5\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ GeV can be achieved at DESY TESLA for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=200`$ GeV and maximal top squark mixing with an integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 per center-of-mass energy point.

As has already been mentioned above, the Majorana nature of the gluino leads to a vanishing forward-backward asymmetry. In order to establish this feature experimentally, the asymmetry has to be measured with an accuracy of at least 7–10%, which are the values relevant for Dirac fermions such as up- (charm) and down-type (strange/bottom) quarks . As a consequence, the production cross section must be known with about the same precision. In view of the results obtained in Fig. 5, such a measurement appears to be extremely difficult if not impossible.

## 3 Conclusions

In this Talk, we have reported on a recent study of gluino pair production at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders . In this study, we have resolved a long-standing discrepancy in the literature about the relative sign of the quark and squark loop contributions to the production of gluino pairs in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. We have found that the ultraviolet divergence cancels for each squark flavor separately and not between weak isospin partners. Our results rely on two completely independent analytical calculations and one computer algebra calculation. Furthermore, we have investigated the prospects for precision measurements of gluino properties, such as its mass or its Majorana fermion nature, at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. We have taken into account realistic beam polarization effects, photon and $`Z^0`$-boson exchange, and current mass exclusion limits. Previously, only light gluinos at center-of-mass energies up to the $`Z^0`$-boson mass had been investigated. Within the general framework of the MSSM, we have concentrated on two scenarios of large left-/right-handed up-type squark mass splitting and large top squark mixing, which produce promisingly large cross sections for gluino masses up to 500 GeV or even 1 TeV. Gluino masses of 200 GeV can then be measured with a precision of about 5 GeV in center-of-mass energy scans with luminosities of 100 fb-1/point. However, when both the left-/right-handed squark mass splitting and the squark mixing remain small, gluino pair production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation will be hard to observe, even with luminosities of 1000 fb-1/year.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No. KL 1266/1-2 and Graduiertenkolleg Zukünftige Entwicklungen in der Teilchenphysik.


text:
# The 𝐾 correction

## 1 Introduction

The expansion of the Universe provides astronomers with the benefit that recession velocities can be translated into radial distances. It also presents the challenge that sources observed at different redshifts are sampled, by any particular instrument, at different rest-frame frequencies. The transformations between observed and rest-frame broad-band photometric measurements involve terms known as “$`K`$ corrections” (Humason, Mayall, & Sandage, 1956; Oke & Sandage, 1968).

Here we define the $`K`$ correction and give equations for its calculation, with the goals of explanation, clarification, and standardization of terminology.

In what follows, we consider a source observed at redshift $`z`$, meaning that a photon observed to have frequency $`\nu _o`$ was emitted by the source at frequency $`\nu _e`$ with

$$\nu _e=[1+z]\nu _o.$$
(1)
The apparent flux of the source is imagined to be measured through a finite observed-frame bandpass $`R`$ and the intrinsic luminosity is imagined to be measured through a finite emitted-frame bandpass $`Q`$. The $`K`$ correction is used in relating these two quantites.

Technically, the $`K`$ correction described here includes a slight generalization from the original conception: The observed and emitted-frame bandpasses are permitted to have arbitrarily different shapes and positions in frequency space (as they are in, e.g., Kim et al, 1996). In addition, the equations below permit the different bandpasses to be calibrated to different standard sources.

## 2 Equations

Consider a source observed to have apparent magnitude $`m_R`$ when observed through photometric bandpass $`R`$, for which one wishes to know its absolute magnitude $`M_Q`$ in emitted-frame bandpass $`Q`$. The $`K`$ correction $`K_{QR}`$ for this source is *defined* by

$$m_R=M_Q+DM+K_{QR},$$
(2)
where $`DM`$ is the distance modulus, defined by

$$DM=5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[\frac{D_L}{10\mathrm{pc}}\right],$$
(3)
where $`D_L`$ is the luminosity distance (e.g., Hogg, 1999) and $`1\mathrm{pc}=3.086\times 10^{16}\mathrm{m}`$.

The apparent magnitude $`m_R`$ of the source is related to its spectral density of flux $`f_\nu (\nu )`$ (energy per unit time per unit area per unit frequency) by

$$m_R=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}f_\nu (\nu _o)R(\nu _o)}}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}g_\nu ^R(\nu _o)R(\nu _o)}}\right],$$
(4)
where the integrals are over the observed frequencies $`\nu _o`$; $`g_\nu ^R(\nu )`$ is the spectral density of flux for the zero-magnitude or “standard” source, which, for Vega-relative magnitudes, is Vega (or perhaps a weighted sum of a certain set of A0 stars), and, for AB magnitudes (Oke & Gunn, 1983), is a hypothetical constant source with $`g_\nu ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\nu )=3631\mathrm{Jy}`$ (where $`1\mathrm{Jy}=10^{26}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{Hz}^1=10^{23}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$) at all frequencies $`\nu `$; and $`R(\nu )`$ describes the bandpass, as follows:

The value of $`R(\nu )`$ at each freqency $`\nu `$ is the mean contribution of a photon of frequency $`\nu `$ to the output signal from the detector. If the detector is a photon counter, like a CCD, then $`R(\nu )`$ is just the probability that a photon of frequency $`\nu _o`$ gets counted. If the detector is a bolometer or calorimeter, then $`R(\nu )`$ is the energy deposition $`h\nu `$ per photon times the fraction of photons of energy $`\nu `$ that get absorbed into the detector. If $`R(\nu )`$ has been properly computed, there is no need to write different integrals for photon counters and bolometers. Note that there is an implicit assumption here that detector nonlinearities have been corrected.

The absolute magnitude $`M_Q`$ is defined to be the apparent magnitude that the source *would* have if it were $`10\mathrm{pc}`$ away, at rest (i.e., not redshifted), and compact. It is related to the spectral density of the luminosity $`L_\nu (\nu )`$ (energy per unit time per unit frequency) of the source by

$$M_Q=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}\frac{L_\nu (\nu _e)}{4\pi (10\mathrm{pc})^2}Q(\nu _e)}}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}g_\nu ^Q(\nu _e)Q(\nu _e)}}\right],$$
(5)
where the integrals are over emitted (i.e., rest-frame) frequencies $`\nu _e`$, $`D_L`$ is the luminosity distance, and $`Q(\nu )`$ is the equivalent of $`R(\nu )`$ but for the bandpass $`Q`$. As mentioned above, this does not require $`Q=R`$, so this will lead to, technically, a generalization of the $`K`$ correction. In addition, since the $`Q`$ and $`R`$ bands can be zero-pointed to different standard sources (e.g., if $`R`$ is Vega-relative and $`Q`$ is AB), it is not necessary that $`g_\nu ^Q=g_\nu ^R`$.

If the source is at redshift $`z`$, then its luminosity is related to its flux by

$$L_\nu (\nu _e)=\frac{4\pi D_L^2}{1+z}f_\nu (\nu _o),$$
(6)
$$\nu _e=[1+z]\nu _o.$$
(7)
The factor of $`(1+z)`$ in the luminosity expression (6) accounts for the fact that the flux and luminosity are not bolometric but densities per unit freqency. The factor would appear in the numerator if the expression related flux and luminosity densities per unit wavelength.

Equation (2) holds if the $`K`$ correction $`K_{QR}`$ is

$$K_{QR}=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[[1+z]\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}f_\nu (\nu _o)R(\nu _o)\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}g_\nu ^Q(\nu _e)Q(\nu _e)}}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}g_\nu ^R(\nu _o)R(\nu _o)\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}f_\nu \left(\frac{\nu _e}{1+z}\right)Q(\nu _e)}}\right].$$
(8)
Equation (8) can be taken to be an operational definition, therefore, of the $`K`$ correction, from observations through bandpass $`R`$ of a source whose absolute magnitude $`M_Q`$ through bandpass $`Q`$ is desired. Note that if the $`R`$ and $`Q`$ have different zero-point definitions, the $`g_\nu ^R(\nu _e)`$ in the numerator will be a different function from the $`g_\nu ^Q(\nu _o)`$ in the denominator.

In equation (8), the $`K`$ correction was defined in terms of the apparent flux $`f_\nu (\nu )`$ in the observed frame. This is the direct observable. Most past discussions of the $`K`$ correction (e.g., Oke & Sandage, 1968; Kim et al, 1996) write equations for the $`K`$ correction in terms of either the flux or luminosity in the emitted frame. Transformation from observed-frame flux $`f_\nu (\nu _o)`$ to emitted-frame luminosity $`L_\nu (\nu _e)`$ gives

$$K_{QR}=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[[1+z]\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}L_\nu ([1+z]\nu _o)R(\nu _o)\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}g_\nu ^Q(\nu _e)Q(\nu _e)}}{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _o}{\nu _o}g_\nu ^R(\nu _o)R(\nu _o)\frac{\mathrm{d}\nu _e}{\nu _e}L_\nu (\nu _e)Q(\nu _e)}}\right].$$
(9)
In the above, all calculations were performed in frequency units. In wavelength units, the spectral density of flux $`f_\nu (\nu )`$ per unit frequency is replaced with the spectral density of flux $`f_\lambda (\lambda )`$ per unit wavelength using

$$\nu f_\nu (\nu )=\lambda f_\lambda (\lambda ),$$
(10)
$$\lambda \nu =c,$$
(11)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light. The $`K`$ correction becomes

$$K_{QR}=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[\frac{1}{[1+z]}\frac{{\displaystyle d\lambda _o\lambda _of_\lambda (\lambda _o)R(\lambda _o)d\lambda _e\lambda _eg_\lambda ^Q(\lambda _e)Q(\lambda _e)}}{{\displaystyle d\lambda _o\lambda _og_\lambda ^R(\lambda _o)R(\lambda _o)d\lambda _e\lambda _ef_\lambda ([1+z]\lambda _e)Q(\lambda _e)}}\right],$$
(12)
where, again, $`R(\lambda )`$ is defined to be the mean contribution to the detector signal in the $`R`$ bandpass for a photon of wavelength $`\lambda `$ and $`Q(\lambda )`$ is defined similarly. Note that the hypothetical standard source for the AB magnitude system, with $`g_\nu ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\nu )`$ constant, has $`g_\lambda ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\lambda )`$ not constant but rather $`g_\lambda ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\lambda )=c\lambda ^2g_\nu ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\nu )`$.

Again, transformation from observed-frame flux $`f_\lambda (\lambda _o)`$ to emitted-frame luminosity $`L_\lambda (\lambda _e)`$ gives

$$K_{QR}=2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[\frac{1}{[1+z]}\frac{{\displaystyle d\lambda _o\lambda _oL_\lambda \left(\frac{\lambda _o}{1+z}\right)R(\lambda _o)d\lambda _e\lambda _eg_\lambda ^Q(\lambda _e)Q(\lambda _e)}}{{\displaystyle d\lambda _o\lambda _og_\lambda ^R(\lambda _o)R(\lambda _o)d\lambda _e\lambda _eL_\lambda (\lambda _e)Q(\lambda _e)}}\right].$$
(13)
Equation (13) becomes identical to the equation for $`K`$ in Oke & Sandage (1968) if it is assumed that $`Q=R`$, that $`g_\nu ^Q=g_\nu ^R`$, that the variables $`\lambda _0`$, $`F(\lambda )`$, and $`S_i(\lambda )`$ in Oke & Sandage (1968) are set to

$`\lambda _0`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _e,`$
$`F(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`L_\lambda (\lambda ),`$
$`S_i(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda R(\lambda ),`$ (14)
and that the integrand $`\lambda `$ is used differently in each of the two integrals. Similar transformations make the equations here consistent with those of Kim et al (1996), although they distinguish between the classical $`K`$ correction and one computed for photon counting devices (an unnecessary distinction); their most similar equation is that given for $`K_{xy}^{\mathrm{counts}}`$.

## 3 Discussion

To compute an accurate $`K`$ correction, one needs an accurate description of the source flux density $`f_\nu (\nu )`$, the standard-source flux densities $`g_\nu ^R(\nu )`$ and $`g_\nu ^Q(\nu )`$, and the bandpass functions $`R(\nu )`$ and $`Q(\nu )`$. In most real astronomical situations, none of these is known to better than a few percent, often much worse. Sometimes, use of the AB system seems reassuring (relative to, say, a Vega-relative system) because $`g_\nu ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\nu )`$ is known (i.e., defined), but this is a false sense: In fact the standard stars have been put on the AB system to the best available accuracy. This involves absolute spectrophotometry of at least some standard stars, but this absolute flux information is rarely known to better than a few percent. The expected deviations of the magnitudes given to the standard stars from a true AB system are equivalent to uncertainties in $`g_\nu ^{\mathrm{AB}}(\nu )`$.

The classical $`K`$ correction has $`Q(\nu )=R(\nu )`$ and $`g_\nu ^Q(\nu )=g_\nu ^R(\nu )`$. This eliminates the integrals over the standard-source flux density $`g_\nu ^R(\nu )`$. However, it requires good knowledge of the source flux density $`f_\nu (\nu )`$ if the redshift is significant. Many modern surveys try to get $`R(\nu )Q([1+z]\nu )`$ so as to weaken dependence on $`f_\nu (\nu )`$, which can be complicated or unknown. This requires good knowledge of the absolute flux densities of the standard sources if the redshift is significant. This kind of absolute calibration is often uncertain at the few-percent level or worse.

Note that if equation (2) is taken to be the definition of the $`K`$ correction, then the statement by Oke & Sandage (1968) that the $`K`$ correction “would disappear if intensity measurements of redshifted galaxies were made with a detector whose spectral acceptance band was shifted by $`1+z`$ at all wavelengths” becomes incorrect; the correct statement is that the $`K`$ correction would not depend on the source’s spectrum $`f_\nu (\nu )`$.

It is a pleasure to thank Bev Oke for useful discussions. This research made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System, and was partially supported by funding from NASA and NSF.