text:
# Local Spectral Density for a Periodically Driven System of Coupled Quantum States with Strong Imperfection in Unperturbed Energies

## I Introduction

The statistical properties of many-body quantum objects attract considerable attention in a broad range of modern physics including condensed matter physics and quantum optics. Of a special interest are the properties specifying the temporal evolution for mesoscopic systems of quantum states coupled by interaction. Extensive investigations of many-body interacting systems (such as nuclei, many-electron atoms, quantum dots, quantum spin glasses and quantum computers) have shown that the state-state interaction can be responsible for the quantum localization effect and the quantum chaos in isolated complex systems . As in Random Matrix Theory (RMT) , the level spacing statistics is well described by the Wigner-Dyson distribution and the individual basis states are spread over the large number of eigenstates. In a sense the interaction leads to dynamic thermalization without coupling to an external thermal bath. On the other hand, to our knowledge, there are no direct theoretical studies for mesoscopic systems driven by an external field.

In the work we apply a RMT approach in order to investigate the localization effect for a complex system of coupled quantum states in the presence of an external field. In the approach a single matrix from a given statistical ensemble (characterized by a few matrix parameters) represents the Hamiltonian $`𝐇\left(t\right)`$ for the typical (generic) dynamical system of given class. Our system is represented by a matrix, which includes a leading diagonal with disordered random values and random off-diagonal elements inside a band with the halfwidth $`b`$. This band random matrix with disordered diagonal (BRMDD) is a generic Hamiltonian model for the systems with strong static imperfection in the unperturbed energy levels. The imperfection plays an essential role for the quibit composition and can destroy the operability of quantum computer . BRMDD-based models were applied to study the electron transport problem  and the problem of interacting particles in a random potential . The results obtained with the help of these models are of an obvious interest also in analyzing such few-freedoms physical objects as the vibrational quasicontinuum of polyatomic molecule .

The statistical properties of conservative BRMDD-based systems were studied in some detail . The shape, the localization length and the inverse participation ratio (IPR) for eigenfunction have been investigated with the help of numerical simulations  and the supersymmetry approach . These investigations have exhibited the Lorentzian shape for the local spectral density (LSD) of states under the circumstances when a non-perturbative localization regime is realized. The state-state interaction strength, at which the eigenstates are extended over the whole matrix size $`N`$ and the eigenenergy level spacing statistics has the Wigner-Dyson form, have been revealed for the BRMDD with essentially large band (when $`2b+1\sqrt{N}`$) . The association between ergodic properties of LSD and the matrix parameters have been clarified recently for the BRMDD with arbitrary small band . The lack of ergodicity for LSD is shown in  to be identified with an exponential increase in IPR with the strength of state-state interaction.

We study the LSD of states for a generic BRMDD-based quantum system to be excited by an external quasi-monochromatic field. The LSD was introduced in 1955 by Wigner  and successfully employed in RMT to describe statistically the localization effects for complex quantum systems  (including the systems represented by band random matrices with reordered leading diagonal ). In our study this quantity specifies spreading of the energy concentrated initially in an individual basis state $`|g`$, between the quasienergies and gives the quasienergy spectrum of $`\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2`$ where $`C\left(\omega \right)`$ is the Fourier transform for correlation

$$C\left(t\right)=g\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐇\left(t\right)t/\mathrm{}\right)\right|g.$$
(1)
As for the conservative systems , the shape of LSD may be characterized by the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of a quasienergy scale, on which the individual state $`|g`$ is localized. The number of quasienergies populating this scale is given by the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega =L`$ designated here as a localization length of LSD ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ is the mean quasienergy spacing). Hence the quantity $`L`$ specifies the greatest possible number of quasienergies, where the basis state $`|g`$ can be effectively admixed. The ergodic properties for the system can be identified with the structure of LSD. The non-ergodic LSD is a strongly fluctuating spiked function and the IPR $`\xi `$, which gives the actual number of quasienergies involving the state $`|g`$, is low in comparison with $`L`$. In the ergodicity case the LSD is monotonic and the number $`\xi `$ approaches the value of $`L`$.

Here we study the shape and the ergodic features of LSD and estimate the shape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the IPR $`\xi `$ as functions of field-system interaction strength. The functions are analyzed in relation to relevant properties (the mean quasienergy spacing, the width, the localization length and the IPR) specifying the localization effect for our BRMDD-based system in the absence of external field.

## II Model desription

We consider a generic system of quantum states, the unperturbed energy levels of those are depicted in the inset of figure 1. The system consists of a single state $`|g`$ and $`N=2K+1`$ states $`|k`$ ($`k=K,\mathrm{},K`$). The total Hamiltonian of the system is considered as the sum

$$𝐇\left(t\right)=𝐇^{(0)}+𝐇^{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}\left(t\right).$$
(2)
Here the time-independent operator $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ describes a state-state interaction in the absense of field. The time-dependent part $`𝐇^{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}\left(t\right)`$ specifies a field-system interaction.

In the basis of unperturbed states the Hamiltonian $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ is represented in terms of a real symmetric matrix with statistically independent random elements

$$i\left|𝐇^{(0)}\right|j=E_i^{(0)}\delta _{ij}+i\left|𝐕\right|j$$
(3)
where the off-diagonal elements $`i\left|𝐕\right|j=V_{ij}=V_{ji}`$ specify the state-state interaction ($`i,j=g,K,\mathrm{},K`$). In the model we take into account an interaction between the states $`|k`$. The corresponding elements $`V_{k^{}k}`$ are distributed uniformly in the interval $`[V,V]`$ with $`V_{k^{}k}=0`$ and $`V_{k^{}k}^2=V^2/3=v^2`$ if $`\left|k^{}k\right|<b`$ or are zero otherwise. The coupling of the state $`|g`$ with $`|k`$ is ignored and $`V_{gk}=V_{kg}=0`$. The diagonal elements $`E_k^{(0)}`$ corresponding to the energy levels of states $`|k`$ are uniformly distributed according to the Poisson statistics with the mean spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between adjacent levels: $`K\mathrm{\Delta }E_k^{(0)}K\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One of the energy levels (for definiteness, we take the level $`E_0^{(0)}`$ for the state $`|0`$) is located in the midpoint of interval $`[K\mathrm{\Delta },K\mathrm{\Delta }]`$: $`E_k^{(0)}E_0^{(0)}=0`$. The state $`|g`$ is the lowest one. The energy levels are chosen so that $`E_0^{(0)}E_g^{(0)}2K\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note that in the basis of states $`|k`$ the operator $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ is represented by a BRMDD.

An external periodic field with the frequency $`\omega _f=E_0^{(0)}E_g^{(0)}`$ stimulates the transitions between the non-perturbed basis states $`|g`$ and $`|0`$. The field-induced coupling between $`|g`$ and the states $`|k`$ with $`k0`$ is accepted to be negligible. The temporal profile of the field is shown in figure 1 to be a piecewise function with the envelope $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega _ft)`$. The total number of pieces covering the field period interval $`T_f=2\pi /\omega _f`$ is equal to $`M`$. At large $`M`$ the field shape is close to monochromatic one. On each of the time pieces $`[t_m,t_{m+1}]`$ (the integer $`m`$ gives the number of piece interval) the field is time-invariant and the field-system interaction is represented by

$$𝐇^{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)}\left(t_m\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi m/M)𝐃.$$
(4)
Here the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ specifies the strength of field-system interaction. The operator $`𝐃`$ specifies the field-induced coupling between the states:

$$i\left|𝐃\right|j=\delta _{i0}\delta _{gj}+\delta _{ig}\delta _{0j}.$$
(5)
At such an approximation the evolution of system for one field period interval is described by a unitary operator

$$𝐔(T_f)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left[𝐇\left(t_m\right)\right]T_f/M\mathrm{}\right).$$
(6)
From diagonalization of the matrix $`𝐔(T_f)`$ we obtain the eigenfunctions $`|\alpha _j`$ and the quasienergies $`\omega _j`$. The quantity $`W_{jg}=|\alpha _j|g|^2`$ gives a probability to find the probing basis state $`|g`$ in the eigenstate $`|\alpha _j`$.

The described model can be considered as a driven two-state system (the states $`|g`$ and $`|0`$), the upper state $`|0`$ of which is coupled by interaction with a number of others quantum states. The interaction-induced probability distribution of the state $`|0`$ over the eigenstates of $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ corresponds to a quasienergetic distribution of $`|0`$ in the absence of field ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$). Since the operator $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ is given in terms of a BRMDD the probability distribution of $`|0`$ over quasienergy scale is described by the Breight-Wigner shape (that is, by the Lorentzian contour)

$$\rho _0\left(\omega \right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2/4}$$
(7)
of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In some sense the state $`|0`$ is Lorentzian-broadened. Therefore we associate our BRMDD-based system with a two-state system, the upper state of which is continuously Lorentzian-broadened with the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ because of irreversible losses to an external thermal bath. Here the lower state has no losses and hence is not broadened. This two-state system with irreversible losses (TSSIL) is stimulated by an external monochromatic field. Such a well-known model (see, for instance, ) corresponds to our BRMDD-based system in the limit of infinitely large number $`N`$ of coupled states $`|k`$.

Depending on the ratio between the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the TSSIL model gives two shapes of $`\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2`$ . At $`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<1`$ the correlation $`C(t)`$ is an decaying aperiodical function of time. Then the shape of $`\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2`$ is described by a contour

$$\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2=\frac{a_1a_2(a_1+a_2)}{8\pi }\frac{1}{\left(\omega ^2+a_1^2/4\right)\left(\omega ^2+a_2^2/4\right)}$$
(8)
with coefficients $`a_{1,2}^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2/2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2/4\mathrm{\Omega }^2)}`$. At a significantly weak field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$) this shape is close to the Lorentzian contour, the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of that is a quadratic function of the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0.$$
(9)
That implies a single exponential decay with time for $`C(t)`$. At a stronger field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>1`$) the shape of $`\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2`$ is given by

$$\left|C\left(\omega \right)\right|^2=\frac{d_2(d_2^2+d_1^2)}{\pi }\frac{1}{(4\omega ^2+d_2^2d_1^2)^2+4d_2^2d_1^2},$$
(10)
where $`d_1^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2/4`$ and $`d_2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2`$. Then the correlation $`C(t)`$ shows a decaying oscillation. In the limit of a strong field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$) the shape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is invariant to the Rabi frequency and approximates the magnitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2`$.

## III Numerical simulation

The properties of LSD are analized for a wide range of parameters $`N`$, $`v`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`3<N<1000`$, $`10^3<v/\mathrm{\Delta }<10^2`$ and $`10^2<\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Delta }<10^2`$). The total number $`M`$ of time pieces covering the period interval $`T_f`$ is 32. The shape and the IPR of LSD are determined from averaging over disorder (that is, over many random matrices). The number of disorder realization is more than 200.

### A Shape of LSD

We restrict the study by the case of moderate strengths of state-state interaction when the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is essentially small compared to the whole quasienergy scale ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }N\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$). It implies that the perturbation-induced variations in level density are negligible and the quasinenergies $`\omega _n`$ are homogeneously distributed in the energy band $`[K\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega ,K\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega ]`$ with the mean quasienergy spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$. Then the shape of LSD can be defined as

$$\rho \left(\omega \right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega }\frac{_jW_{jg}\delta (\omega \omega _j)}{_j\delta (\omega \omega _j)},$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the averaging over disorder. We associate the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ with contours represented in equations (8) and (10) and determine the coefficients $`a_{1,2}`$ and $`d_{1,2}`$ by mean square fitting of equation (8) or (10) to an averaged LSD. The shape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is estimated from the obtained coefficients as a twice halfwidth for the right slope of $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ in the positive part of quasienergy scale.

The numerical simulation for different magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, $`\xi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ shows that the properties of $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ are determined by some factors. First of all, that is the mean quasienergy spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$. Another important factor is the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of shape $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$ for a probability distribution of $`|0`$ over quasienergies in the absence of field. We should distinguish two localization regimes to be realized for the distribution. A perturbative localization regime takes place when the state-state interaction is weak and the state $`|0`$ is concentrated mainly in an individual quasienergy. For this regime the distribution width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is small in comparison with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$. On the other hand, the strong state-state coupling results in a broad spreading of $`|0`$ over the quasienergy scale. Such a regime (designated here as a non-perturbative one) is characterized by large magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$. Certainly, the third significant factor charachterizing the features of $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ is the strength $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of field-system interaction. Our study demonstrates that the ergodic properties to be specified in terms of IPR $`\xi _0`$ for the quasienergetic distribution of $`|0`$ have no effect on the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$. Therefore, we consider the shape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$.

Similar to the TSSIL model, at a weak field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<1`$) the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ is shown in Figure 2 to be well described by contour (8). The obtained values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfy the requirement $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The type of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence for the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is specified by relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Our study demonstrates that the low values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ give the linear low for the dependence. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is seen from the inset of Figure 3 to be a linear $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-independent function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }2\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(12)
This dependence can be considered as a manifestation of the perturbative regime for distribution $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ (when a non-perturbative localization regime for $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$ is realized) the increase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ results in the transition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the linear law to the quadratic one. We associate such a behavior of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the magnitude of localization length $`L`$ for LSD. Figure 3 shows that a linear function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }A\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega /\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}$$
(13)
takes place when $`L1`$. The coefficient $`A=0.7`$ is obtained from mean square fitting of (13) to calculated values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. On the other hand, at $`L1`$ the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence for the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is close to the quadratic low (9) predicted by the TSSIL model. As for distribution $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$, the transition from the linear to quadratic $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be associated with crossover of the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ from the perturbative to non-perturbative localization regime.

At a strong field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>1`$) the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ is shown in Figure 2 to be well fitted by contour (10) obtained from the TSSIL model. As for the case of weak field, the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence for the shape width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is determined by the localization regime realized for shape $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$. Figure 4 demonstrates that at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0>\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega `$ the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is in good agreement with a relevant curve obtained from the TSSIL model. At high field amplitudes (when $`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$) the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approximates the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2`$. The minor discrepancy between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the curve predicted by the TSSIL model can be explained by a divergence of the temporal profile of field from the monochromatic shape. At the perturbative regime of $`\rho _0\left(\omega \right)`$ the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is proportional to the TSSIL curve. Our analysis shows that for any magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the calculated values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are higher then ones from the TSSIL model by a factor of 1.4. In the limit of high field amplitudes the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is close to the magnitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/1.4`$.

### B Inverse participation ratio of LSD

We investigate the IPR $`\xi `$ under the circumstances of localized regime for the probability distribution of basis state $`|0`$ over the eigenstates of $`𝐇^{(0)}`$. It implies that the state $`|0`$ is spread over a sufficiently large number of the eigenstates and $`N\xi _01`$. Here the quantity $`\xi _0`$ is the IPR for the probability distribution of $`|0`$ and gives the actual number of eigenstates involving the state $`|0`$ . In the study the main attention is paid to the case of $`\xi 1`$. We accept the IPR as $`\xi =(_j|W_{jg}|^2)^1`$ and obtain this quantity from numerical simulation. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ means the averaging over disorder. The IPR $`\xi `$ is considered as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\xi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. Results of the study are represented in Figure 5.

Our study demonstrates that at fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ the IPR $`\xi `$ varies proportionally with the parameter $`\xi _0`$. This fact testifies that the change in $`\xi `$ with the Rabi frequency is due to transformations in the shape of LSD. For instance, in the limit of strong field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$) the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the shape $`\rho \left(\omega \right)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-independent and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2`$. As a result, the quantity $`\xi `$ is also invariant to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and approximates the magnitude of $`\xi _0`$ (see Figure 5). In other words, the IPR of LSD is equal to the IPR for the distribution of $`|0`$ over the eigenstates of $`𝐇^{(0)}`$ (here we should take into account the presence of two peaks of LSD in the negative and positive parts of quasienergy spectrum). As indicated earlier, at a weaker field ($`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$) the variation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ give rise to essential shape transformations both in the shape width and in the contour form. The analysis of calculated data shows that the behavior of IPR for this parameter region can be empirically approximated by the law:

$$\xi B\xi _0(\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)^\beta ,$$
(14)
where the coefficients $`B=1.54`$ and $`\beta =1.18`$ are obtained from mean square fitting of (14) to calculated values of $`\xi `$.

Notice that the observed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence of IPR is close to the linear law and differs significantly from the expected quadratic dependence to be realized in the case of the Lorentzian shape for LSD. Probably, this difference is attributed to the fact that we are not far enough in the asymptotic regime of weak field implying $`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_01`$. In our simulation we have $`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_00.1`$ and the shape of LSD appers to can not be well reduced to the Lorentzian contour. Unfortunately, the numerical simulation of localized regime for LSD with $`2\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<0.1`$ requires too large matrix sizes and much computational efforts being beyond our numerical abilities.

## IV Conclusion

We have analyzed localization and ergodic properties of LSD for a periodically excited generic system of coupled quantum states with strong imperfection in the unperturbed energies. These properties have been demonstrated to be determined essentially by a state-state interaction resulting in the localization effect for the system in the absence of external field. If the interaction is so strong that the conservative system exhibits this effect the shape of LSD can be obtained from a relevant model of driven two-state system with irreversible losses. In a sense the state-state interaction may be recognized as the losses acting till the mesoscopic effect becomes evident. The time scale and the rate of a correlation decay caused by such losses are specified in terms of the shape width and the IPR of LSD.

Author thanks V. Churakov for useful discussions and remarks.


format: text

text:
# How Massive Single Stars End their Life

## 1 Introduction

The fate of a massive star is governed chiefly by its mass and composition at birth and by the history of its mass loss. For single stars, mass loss occurs as a result of stellar winds for which there exist semi-empirical estimates. Thus, within currently existing paradigms for the explosion, the fate of a star of given initial mass and composition is determined (the Russell-Vogt theorem). If so, one can calculate realization frequencies for stellar explosions and remnants of various kinds and estimate how these might have evolved with time.

Such estimates are fraught with uncertainty. The litany of complications is long and requires discussion (§ 6). No two groups presently agree, in detail, on the final evolution of any massive star (including its explosion energy, remnant mass, and rotation rate) and the scaling of mass loss with metallicity during different evolutionary stages is widely debated. Still it is worthwhile to attempt an approximate table of histories. We would like to know, within the comparatively well understood domain of stars that do not experience mass exchange with a companion and for a particular set of assumptions regarding mass loss and explosion, what sort of supernova each star produces and what sort of bound remnant, if any, it leaves. If possible, we would also like some indication of which massive stars might make gamma-ray bursts.

In this paper we construct such a table of stellar fates and remnants. In § 2 we describe our assumptions regarding mass loss, explosion mechanism(s), and remnant properties, and in § 6 discuss the uncertainties. Section 4 delineates the sorts of stellar explosions and collapses we want to distinguish, and in § 5 we discuss the resulting realizations of different outcomes as a function of metallicity in the galaxy.

## 2 Assumptions

### 2.1 Stellar Models and Paradigms

The stellar models used in this paper were taken from Woosley & Weaver (1995); Heger & Woosley (2002b); Woosley et al. (2002) and Heger et al. (2003a). These papers treat the evolution of massive stars in the range 9 to 300 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ calculated without rotation from birth on the main sequence to death, either as iron-core collapse supernovae (helium core masses at death less than about 65 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) or pair instability supernovae (helium core masses at death greater than 65 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and up to about 135 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$). The effects of mass loss were included in those studies as discussed in § 2.2.

We shall presume here that the explosion mechanism, however it may operate, and the remnant properties are determined by the mass of the helium core when the star dies. (Perhaps the carbon oxygen core mass is a better discriminant, but systematics of the two are very similar). As the mass of the helium core increases, so does its binding energy and entropy. Because of its higher entropy, a larger helium core also has, on the average, a larger iron core mass, and a shallower density gradient around that core (Woosley et al., 2002). Consequently such stars are harder to explode (Fryer, 1999; Fryer & Kalogera, 2001). Even in “successful” explosions where a strong outward shock is born, mass may later fall back onto a neutron star remnant turning it, within one day, into a black hole. We thus distinguish black holes that are produced promptly or “directly” from those made by fall back.

Fryer (1999) has estimated that the helium core mass where black hole formation by fall back ensues is about $`8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (a $``$25 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main sequence star) and that direct black hole formation occurs for helium cores over $`15\mathrm{M}_{}`$ ($`40\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main sequence star with no mass loss). These numbers are uncertain (§ 6.2), but are representative choices. It is assumed that a baryonic remnant mass of over 2.0 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ will produce a black hole.

While the helium core mass governs the explosion mechanism, the hydrogen envelope is largely responsible for determining the spectrum (at peak) and light curve of common Type II supernovae. Stars with massive hydrogen envelopes when they die will be Type IIp; low mass envelopes will give Type IIL and IIb; etc. (§ 4). An exception are supernovae of Types Ib and Ic whose light curves do depend sensitively on the helium core mass since all the hydrogen envelope has been removed. The light curves of Types IIb, Ib, Ic, and 87A-like explosions are also sensitive to the amount of 56Ni made in the explosion.

### 2.2 Mass loss

The principal physics connecting the final evolution of a star to its metallicity is its mass loss. Low metallicity stars have less mass loss and have bigger helium cores and hydrogen envelopes when they die. To a lesser extent, metallicity also affects whether the presupernova star is a red or blue supergiant (Langer & Maeder, 1995).

For main sequence stars and red supergiants the mass loss rates employed in the studies cited above were taken from Nieuwenhuijzen & de Jager (1990). For Wolf-Rayet stars, a mass-dependent mass loss rate (Langer, 1989) was assumed using the scaling law established by Brown (1997); Wellstein & Langer (1999), but lowered by a factor 3 (Hamann & Koesterke, 1998). Wind-driven mass loss is believed to be metallicity dependent and a scaling law $`\sqrt{Z}`$ has been suggested for hot stars (Kudritzki, 2000; Nugis & Lamers, 2000). Woosley et al. (2002) assumed that the same scaling law holds for Wolf-Rayet stars (Vanbeveren, 2002) and blue and red supergiants as well. “Metallicity” is assumed here to be the initial abundance of heavy elements, especially of iron, not the abundances of new heavy elements like carbon and oxygen in the atmospheres of WC and WO stars (§ 6.1).

In very massive stars above $``$60 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the epsilon mechanism for pulsational driven mass loss sets in and enhances the mass loss during central hydrogen burning. Opacity-driven pulsations also become important, if not dominant, at high metallicity (Baraffe et al., 2001). At very low metallicity on the other hand, Baraffe et al. (2001) have shown that primordial stars should not have significant mass loss due to pulsations. This suggests significant evolution in the mass loss of very massive stars with metallicity (Figs. 14).

## 3 Remnant Properties

Fig. 1 shows the expected remnant types as a function of mass and initial “metallicity” for the above assumptions. In preparing Fig. 1, it is assumed that stars below $`9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ do not form massive enough cores to collapse, that they end their lives as white dwarfs. Just above this mass lies a narrow range, $`910\mathrm{M}_{}`$, where degenerate oxygen-neon cores are formed that either collapse due to electron capture (Barkat et al., 1974; Miyaji et al., 1980; Nomoto, 1984; Habets, 1986; Miyaji & Nomoto, 1987; Nomoto, 1987; Nomoto & Hashimoto, 1988) and make a neutron star or lose their envelopes and make white dwarfs (Garcia-Berro & Iben, 1994; Ritossa et al., 1996; Garcia-Berro et al., 1997; Iben et al., 1997; Ritossa et al., 1999). Above $`10`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ core collapse is the only alternative.

Wherever this transition between white dwarf formation and iron core collapse lies, it should depend very little on metallicity and thus appears as a vertical line in Fig. 1. At low metallicities, the boundaries for black hole formation are also defined entirely by the initial stellar mass since there is a one to one correspondence between initial stellar mass and final helium core mass.

For stars of higher metallicity, mass loss becomes increasingly important resulting in smaller helium cores for a given initial mass. If the star loses its entire hydrogen envelope (to the right of the green line in Figs. 14), its rate of mass loss increases significantly (e.g., Langer 1989; Hamann et al. 1995) producing much smaller helium cores at collapse. This effect underlies the abrupt change in the otherwise vertical boundaries between neutron star, fallback black hole and direct black hole formation. For very massive stars, the remnant of the collapsing star depends sensitively on the metallicity. Above 40 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, low metallicity stars form black holes directly, while at higher metallicities black holes of smaller mass are produced by fall back until, ultimately, only neutron stars are made. Winds are assumed to be stronger in higher mass stars, so the metallicity at which these transitions occur decreases with mass. But beyond $`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$, this limit may rise again due to high enough initial mass or the significant role of evolution phases with lower mass loss rates (e.g., a WNL phases; see Brown et al. 2001).

At low metallicities, there is also a range of masses for massive stars that leave behind no remnant whatsoever. These are the pair-instability supernovae. If the helium core exceeds $`65\mathrm{M}_{}`$, corresponding to a $`140\mathrm{M}_{}`$ initial mass for stars without mass loss, the pulsational pair instability (Heger & Woosley, 2002b) becomes so violent that the star is disrupted entirely. When the helium core mass at the end of central carbon burning exceeds $`135\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for non-rotating stars (initial mass of $`260\mathrm{M}_{}`$ without mass loss), photo-disintegration in the center leads to collapse to a very massive black hole ($`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$), once again forming a black hole directly (Fryer et al., 2001; Heger & Woosley, 2002b). However, as the metallicity increases, mass loss shifts the regime of pair-instability supernovae to higher initial masses. At still higher metallicities, these supernovae do not occur at all (Baraffe et al., 2001) because the progenitor stars are pulsationally unstable.

## 4 Supernovae

### 4.1 Supernovae of Type IIp and IIL

It has long been recognized that massive stars produce supernovae (Baade & Zwicky, 1938). In this paper, we assume the following progenitor properties for the different core collapse supernova types:

| SN Type | pre-SN stellar structure |
| --- | --- |
| IIp | $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ H envelope |
| IIL | $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ H envelope |
| Ib/c | no H envelope |

The lower and upper limits of main sequence mass that will produce a successful supernova (“M-lower” and “M-upper”) — one with a strong outgoing shock still intact at the surface of the star — has long been debated. On the lower end, the limit is set by the heaviest star that will eject its envelope quiescently and produce a white dwarf. Estimates range from $`6`$ to $`11\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with smaller values characteristic of calculations that employ with a large amount of convective overshoot mixing (Marigo et al., 1996; Chiosi, 2000) and the upper limit determined by whether helium shell flashes can eject the envelope surrounding a neon-oxygen core in the same way they do for carbon-oxygen cores (§ 3). It may also slightly depend on metallicity (Cassisi & Castellani, 1993). Here we will adopt $`9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for M-lower.

The value of M-upper depends on details of the explosion mechanism and is even more uncertain (§ 6.2). Fryer & Kalogera (2001) estimate $`40\mathrm{M}_{}`$, but calculations of explosion even in supernovae as light as $`15\mathrm{M}_{}`$ give widely varying results. It is likely that stars up to at least $`25\mathrm{M}_{}`$ do explode, by one means or another, in order that the heavy elements be produced in solar proportions. The number of stars between $`25`$ and $`40\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is not large. Here we have taken what some may regard as a rather large value, M-upper equals $`40\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Fig. 2).

For increasing metallicity mass loss reduces the hydrogen envelope at the time of core collapse. A small hydrogen envelope ($`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$) can’t sustain a long plateau phase in the light curve, and only Type IIL supernovae or, for very thin hydrogen layers, Type IIb supernovae result (Barbon et al., 1979; Filippenko, 1997). It is also necessary for Type IIL supernovae that the radius be large (Swartz et al., 1991) and helpful if the 56Ni mass is not too small. The minimum metallicity for Type IIL supernovae in single stars, is set by the requirement that the mass loss needs to be strong enough to remove enough of the hydrogen envelope (Fig. 2). In single stars Type IIL/b SNe are formed only in a thin strip where the hydrogen envelope is almost but not entirely lost. Gaskell (1992) finds that Type IIL supernovae are currently about 10 % - 20 % as frequent as Type IIp.

For increasing metallicity this domain shifts to lower initial mass. Below a certain minimum metallicity we do not expect Type IIL supernovae from single stars at all. Indeed, those stars that form at the lowest (possible) metallicities will be so massive that they frequently form black holes by fall back and have not very luminous supernovae. This will be particularly true if the stars explode as blue supergiants but lack radioactivity.

### 4.2 Type Ib and Ic Supernovae

A complication is that Type Ib/c SNe with masses above 4-5 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, which may be the most common ones to come from single stars, also have dim displays even if they are still powerful explosions (Ensman & Woosley, 1988), i.e., the progenitor stars’ cores are not so massive that they encounter significant fallback. In this paper, we do not differentiate these types of supernovae from our set of normal supernovae. Our assumptions regarding the different types of supernovae are summarized in the table below:

| Type Ib/c |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| He core mass | explosion | display |
| at explosion | energy |  |
| $`15\mathrm{M}_{}`$ | direct collapse | none |
| $`158\mathrm{M}_{}`$ | weak | dim |
| $`85\mathrm{M}_{}`$ | strong | possibly dim |
| $`5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ | strong | bright |
| if not rotating | | |
| --- | --- | --- |

Clearly, mass loss is a key parameter and both high metallicities (and high initial masses) are required to produce Type Ib/c supernovae in single stars. Woosley et al. (2002) find that for solar metallicity the limit for non-rotating stars is $`34\mathrm{M}_{}`$. These supernovae can be weak and their later fallback will produce BH remnants. As with the Type II black-hole forming supernovae, we anticipate that this fallback, in particular of the $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ lost this way, may weaken the brightness of the supernova display, similar to the case of weak Type II SNe.

### 4.3 Nickel-deficient Supernovae

The light curve of most supernovae is a consequence of two energy sources - shock-deposited energy and radioactivity, especially the decay of 56Ni to 56Fe. There are cases however, where the radioactive component may be weak or absent. If the hydrogen envelope is still present, a bright supernova may still result with the brightness depending on the explosion energy (Popov, 1993), but the light curve lacks the characteristic radioactive “tail” (e.g., Sollerman et al. 1998; Turatto et al. 1998; Benetti et al. 2002). If the hydrogen envelope is is gone (Type Ib/c), the consequences for the light curve are more dramatic and the supernova may be for practical purposes invisible.

Four cases of nickel-deficient supernovae may be noted.

* *Stars in the mass range $`9`$ to $`11\mathrm{M}_{}`$.* Such stars have steep density gradients at the edge of degenerate cores. The shock wave from core collapse heats very little material to greater than $`5\times 10^9`$ K and very little ($`0.01\mathrm{M}_{}`$) 56Ni is ejected (Mayle & Wilson, 1988)
* *Stars which make 56Ni but where the 56Ni falls back into the remnant.* This occurs for more massive stars with the threshold mass dependent upon both the presupernova structure and the explosion mechanism and energy. The boundary here is somewhat fuzzy because of the operation of mixing in conjunction with fallback. The lower limit for this regime is probably slightly larger than that for BH formation by fallback, the upper limit is where BHs are formed directly without initiating a supernova, i.e., $`10\mathrm{M}_{}`$ helium core mass $`15\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (stellar masses $`30\mathrm{M}_{}M40\mathrm{M}_{}`$ without mass loss).
* *Pair-instability supernovae with helium core masses in the range 65 to $`85\mathrm{M}_{}`$.* Pair-instability supernovae, which probably only existed in the early universe can have light curves ranging from very faint if they have lost their hydrogen envelopes and eject no 56Ni to exceptionally brilliant if the converse is true (helium core $`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$; Heger & Woosley 2002b; Heger et al. 2002a).
* *Pulsational pair-instability supernovae with helium core masses in the range $``$40 to $`65\mathrm{M}_{}`$.* This instability occurs after central carbon burning but before the collapse. Though each pulse can have up to several $`10^{51}\mathrm{erg}`$, only the outer layers of the star are expelled and contain no $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ (see below).

### 4.4 Pair-instability supernovae

Very massive stars ($`M100\mathrm{M}_{}`$) still form in the present galaxy (Najarro & Figer, 1998; Eikenberry et al., 2001), but above $`60\mathrm{M}_{}`$, nuclear-powered and opacity driven pulsations occur that increase the mass loss ($`ϵ`$\- and $`\kappa `$-mechanisms). Recently, Baraffe et al. (2001) have shown that both mechanisms are suppressed in extreme Pop III stars. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that at sufficiently low metallicity ($`Z10^4\mathrm{Z}_{}`$) very massive stars may retain most of their mass through the end of central helium burning, forming a massive helium core (Baraffe et al., 2001; Kudritzki, 2002; Marigo et al., 2003).

For zero-metallicity stars above $`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (helium cores $`42\mathrm{M}_{}`$; Woosley 1986; Chiosi 2000; Heger & Woosley 2002b) stars encounter the the pair instability after central carbon burning (e.g., Bond et al. 1984; Heger & Woosley 2002b). Between $`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`140\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (helium core mass $`65\mathrm{M}_{}`$) the instability results in violent pulsations but not complete disruption. The implosive burning is not energetic enough to explode the star. Depending on the mass of the star and the strength of the initial pulse, subsequent pulses follow after $`1\mathrm{yr}`$ to $`10,000\mathrm{yr}`$. These pulsations continue until the star has lost so much mass, or decreased in central entropy, that it no longer encounters the pair instability before forming an iron core in hydrostatic equilibrium. Since the iron core mass is large and the entropy high, such star probably finally make black holes.

The typical energy of these pulses can reach a few $`10^{51}`$$`\mathrm{erg}`$ and easily expels the hydrogen envelope, which is only loosely bound, in the first pulse (Heger & Woosley, 2002b) – when these stars finally collapse they are thus hydrogen-free. Subsequent pulses may eject the outer layers of the helium core as well. Though the kinetic energy of these pulses may be well in excess of normal supernovae, they are less bright since they lack any $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ or other radioactivities that could power an extended light curve. However, the collision of shells ejected by multiple pulses could lead to a bright display.

For stars between $`140`$ and $`260\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (helium cores of $`64`$ to $`133\mathrm{M}_{}`$) the pair-instability is violent enough to completely disrupt the star in the first pulse (Ober et al., 1983; Bond et al., 1984; Heger & Woosley, 2002b). Explosion energies range from $`3\times 10^{51}`$$`\mathrm{erg}`$ to $`10^{53}\mathrm{erg}`$ and the ejected $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ mass ranges from zero to $`50\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at the high-mass end (Heger & Woosley, 2002b). Above $`260\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the stars directly collapse to a black hole (Fryer et al., 2001; Heger & Woosley, 2002b). Rotation would of course affect these mass limits.

### 4.5 Very energetic and asymmetric supernovae

#### 4.5.1 Jet-powered supernovae

A jet-driven supernova (JetSN) is a grossly asymmetric supernova in which most of the energy comes from bipolar outflow from a central object. Though such supernovae may occur in association with gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), not all jet-powered supernovae will have sufficiently relativistic ejecta to make such a hard display. The class of jet-powered supernovae is thus a broad one having GRB progenitors as a subset.

Jet-Driven supernovae can be formed with or without hydrogen envelopes (MacFadyen et al. 2001; Nomoto et al. 2002; Fig. 4). The hydrogen-free JetSNe are closely related to GRBs. Whether such stars produce JetSNe or GRBs (or both) depends upon the rotation and the explosion mechanism. Until we understand both better, we can not distinguish between the two.

#### 4.5.2 Gamma-ray bursts and collapsars

The currently favored model for the formation of gamma-ray bursts assumes that a narrowly beamed ($`\theta 10^{}`$) highly relativistic jet ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>100`$) leaves a compact “engine” and produces $`\gamma `$-rays either by internal shocks or by running into some external medium (Frail et al., 2001). Currently two classes of GRBs are distinguished: long and short bursts (Fishman & Meegan, 1995). It is assumed that the short class might originate from binary neutron stars (Eichler et al., 1989), the long class could be produced by the collapse of the core of a massive star (e.g., Popham et al. 1999). In the present work we adopt this assumption, focus on the long class of GRBs, and use “GRB” synonymous for this class.

The term “collapsar” is used to describe all massive stars whose cores collapse to black holes and which have sufficient angular momentum to form a disk. There are three possible varieties.

* collapsars that form black holes “directly” during the collapse of a massive core. Although the star collapses and initially forms a proto-neutron star, it is unable to launch a supernova shock and eventually (after $``$1 s) collapses to form a black hole (Woosley, 1993; MacFadyen & Woosley, 1999).
* collapsars that form black holes by fallback after an initial supernova shock has been launched (MacFadyen et al., 2001). The explosion is too weak to eject much of the star, and the subsequent fallback of material causes the neutron star in the core to collapse and form a black hole.
* collapsars which do not form proto-neutron stars at all, but instead quickly collapse into massive black holes which grow through accretion (Fryer et al., 2001). These collapsars lead to the formation of massive ($``$300 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) black holes.

|  |  | energy | initial |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| type | time-scale | budget | BH mass |
| I | short | low | small |
| II | long | low | small |
| III | long | high | large |

The results can be summarized as:

* Type I and II collapsars without a hydrogen envelope can make ordinary GRBs, though those of Type II will tend to be longer.
* Type II and III collapsars without a hydrogen envelope – maybe even with – can make very long GRBs (in their rest frame).
* All three types can make bright jet-powered supernovae if a hydrogen envelope is present.

Though we have described them as GRB progenitors, collapsars probably produce a variety of outbursts from X-ray flashes to jet-driven supernovae. Calculations to reliably show which stars make GRBs as opposed to just black holes are presently lacking (though see Heger & Woosley 2002a). Here we will assume that collapsars are made by some subset of those stars that make black holes (Fig. 3).

It is agreed however, that collapsars can only form GRBs if the star has lost its hydrogen envelope prior to collapse. Mass loss depends both on the stellar mass and metallicity and as both increase, the star uncovers more and more of its hydrogen envelope. The green curve in Figs. 3 and 4 denotes the boundary between stars which retain some of their hydrogen envelope and those that lose all of their hydrogen through mass loss. Above $`30\mathrm{M}_{}`$, mass loss from winds become important, and as the initial mass of the star increases, lower and lower metallicities are required to retain the hydrogen envelope. Between $`100140\mathrm{M}_{}`$, pulsational instabilities are able to drive off the hydrogen layers of the star, even at zero metallicities. This boundary, which determines where stars lose their hydrogen envelopes marks the lower bound for GRB producing collapsars. The upper bound is set by those stars that collapse to form black holes.

## 5 Stellar Populations

With our evaluation of the possible fates of massive stars from § 4, we estimate the distribution of compact remnants and of observable outbursts produced by these single stars. The results will be uncertain. Not only do the predictions depend sensitively on the regions outlined in Figs. 14, but also on the initial mas function (IMF) and its evolution.

In Fig. 6, we plot the fraction of massive stars forming neutron stars (solid line) and black holes (dotted line) assuming a Salpeter IMF (Salpeter, 1955). At low metallicities, roughly 20 % of massive stars form black holes, and roughly 75 % form neutron stars. Half of those black holes form through fallback, the other half through direct collapse. Only $`4\%`$ of black holes form massive ($`>`$$`200\mathrm{M}_{}`$) black holes. $`1\%`$ of massive stars form pair-instability supernovae (leaving behind no remnant whatsoever). As the metallicity increases, the fraction of stars producing black holes first increases slightly (as the pair-instability mechanism is shut off) and then decreases near solar metallicity as most massive stars lose so much mass that they collapse to form neutron stars instead of black holes. At these high metallicities, all black holes are formed through fallback. Note that direct collapse black holes are larger than fallback black holes and black holes will be larger, on average, at low metallicity. In addition, if the black hole kick mechanism is powered by the supernova explosion, direct black holes will not receive kicks and these large black holes will tend to have small spatial velocities.

There is increasing evidence that the IMF is more skewed toward massive stars (relative to a Salpeter IMF) at low metallicities (e.g., Bromm et al. 2001; Abel et al. 2002, 2000). To include these effects, we have used the IMF for Population III by Nakamura & Umemura (2001). The thin lines in Fig. 6 show the change in the distribution of black holes and neutron stars using the Nakamura & Umemura (2001) IMF with the following parameters: $`m_{p_1}=1.5`$, $`m_{p_2}=50`$, $`\kappa =0.5`$, $`\alpha =\beta =1.35`$ (see Nakamura & Umemura 2001 for details). We employ this IMF up to a metallicity that corresponds to the last occurrence of (non-pulsational) pair instability supernovae (Fig. 2). Note that at low metallicities, where the IMF is skewed toward massive stars, the fraction of massive stars that form black holes is nearly twice as large as that predicted by a Salpeter IMF. Most of these black holes are formed through direct collapse.

If the mass limit at which weak supernovae occur decreases from $`25\mathrm{M}_{}`$ down to $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the fraction of neutron stars and typical Type IIp supernovae at low metallicities drops below $`70\%`$. The fraction of stars that form weak IIp supernovae and black holes increases to compensate this decrease. Table 1 summarizes the population fractions for different assumptions for the IMF and for the lower limit of the stellar core mass (i.e., lower limit of the initial mass for hydrogen-covered stars) resulting in fallback black hole formation. As mentioned above, here we assume that this corresponds to the maximum stellar/core mass forming strong SNe.

In Panel A of Fig. 7, we show the distribution of Type II supernovae. Most ($`90\%`$) single massive stars produce Type II SNe (solid line). Most of these produce normal Type IIp SNe (dashed line). Roughly $`10\%`$ of all massive stars produce weak Type IIp SNe (dot-dashed line). As the metallicity approaches solar, some fraction of massive stars will produce Type IIL SNe. In Panel B, we plot the Type Ib/c SNe distribution. Single stars will not produce Type Ib/c SNe until the metallicity gets large enough to drive strong winds. At first, most Type Ib/c SNe will be produced by “weak” explosions that form black holes by fallback (dot-dashed line), but as the metallicity rises, an increasing fraction of “strong” Ib/c SNe is produced (long dashed line). Pair-instability SNe only occur at low metallicities and, for our choice of IMF, both pulsational and non-pulsational pair instability supernovae each constitute only about $`1\%`$ of all massive stars. When using the IMF by Nakamura & Umemura (2001) the pair SNe rates increase by a factor $`3`$ (thin lines). Note that in Panel B of Fig. 7 the pair SNe rate is scaled by a factor $`10`$.

Fig. 8 shows the distribution of GRBs and JetSNe (explosions arising from collapsars). Since in the frame of the present paper we cannot well distinguish between GRBs and JetSNe and, lacking a better understanding of rotation, these rates are upper limits only. The solid line in Fig. 8 reflects the total fraction of massive, single stars that could produce GRBs or JetSNe. The dotted line denotes the fraction of massive stars that could produce GRBs. To produce GRBs, the massive star must lose all of its hydrogen envelope, but still collapse to form a black hole. Hence, there is a narrow window of metallicities which allow GRB production in single stars. Because pulsational instabilities are able to eject the hydrogen envelope of stars even at zero metallicities, some GRBs could be formed at low metallicities. As in Fig. 6, the thin lines denote the differences caused by using the Nakamura & Umemura (2001) IMF at low metalicities.

To determine a distribution of evolutionary outcomes versus redshift, we not only need to know the metallicity dependence of stellar winds, but we also need to know the metal distribution and spread as a function of redshift. This cosmic age-metallicity relation is likely to have large spreads and a weak trend (Pei & Fall, 1995), as is also the case for this relation within the Milky Way (Matteucci, 2001; Pagel, 1997). These dependencies are difficult to determine because on a more global galactic or cosmological scale metals may be redistributed so that, e.g., most of the metals even for low metallicity stars could be produced in stars of metallicity. However, to give a flavor of possible redshift effects, we assume that the metallicity axis in Figs. 14 is indeed logarithmic and use the metallicity redshift distribution assumed by Lloyd-Ronning et al. (2002): Pei et al. (1999) distribution versus redshift with a Gaussian spread using a $`1\sigma `$ deviation set to $`0.5`$ in the logarithm of the metallicity. With these assumptions we can determine the distribution of neutron stars (thick solid line), black holes (thick dotted line), Type II SNe (thin solid line), Type Ib/c SNe (thin dotted line), pair supernovae (thin dashed line) as a function of redshift (or look-back time; Fig. 9). This suggests a trend in the populations of massive star outcomes versus redshift.

## 6 Uncertainties and possible consequences

### 6.1 Uncertainties in mass loss

Our mass loss rates explicitly include only radiatively driven mass loss, though the exact nature of the Wolf Rayet star mass loss is unknown. We do not include pulsational ejection and similar eruptions or by excretion disks in rapidly rotating stars (“$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-limit”; Langer 1997). The magnitude of these mass loss mechanisms depends upon the composition of the star. For hot stars both the absolute value and the metallicity-dependence of wind-driven mass loss are reasonably well understood and theoretically modeled (Kudritzki, 2000, 2002). For most of the other mass loss mechanisms and temperature and mass regimes, we have insufficient observational data or theoretical mass loss models to make precise predictions of a massive star’s destiny. This is one reason we do not give precise values for metallicity along the axes in Figs. 14.

Though there is general consensus that reducing the initial metallicity of a massive star will increase its mass when it dies, the scaling of mass loss with $`Z`$ during different stages of the evolution is controversial. We have made the simplest possible assumption, that mass loss rates scale everywhere as the square root of initial metallicity, essentially as the square root of the iron abundance. This is almost certainly naive. Vink et al. (2001) argue for a scaling Z0.69 for stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>25,000\mathrm{K}`$ and $`Z^{0.64}`$ for B-supergiants with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}<25,000\mathrm{K}`$. Nugis & Lamers (2000) argued for a $`Z^{0.5}`$ scaling in WN and WC stars, but for WC stars at least they had in mind the abundance of carbon in the atmosphere of the star, not the initial metallicity. On theoretical grounds, Kudritzki (2002) discusses a universal scaling for mass loss in hot stars that goes at $`Z^{0.5}`$ but which has a threshold below which the mass loss declines more sharply.

For red supergiants, even the mass loss at solar metallicity is not well determined. At higher stellar masses the mass loss from luminous blue variables and WR stars also constitutes a major source of uncertainty as do pulsationally-induced and rotationally-induced outflows (see above).

### 6.2 Uncertainty in the explosion mechanism

The mechanism whereby the collapse of the iron core in a massive star results in a strong explosion has been debated for decades. The current paradigm is based on a neutrino powered “hot bubble” formed just outside the young proto-neutron star, but even the validity of this paradigm is debated along with its specific predictions (Herant et al., 1994; Burrows et al., 1995; Janka & Mueller, 1996; Mezzacappa et al., 1998). The role of rotation and magnetic fields is also contentious (Leblanc & Wilson 1970; Fryer & Heger 2000; Ardeljan et al. 2001; Wheeler et al. 2002; § 6.3).

Our intuition here has been guided by parametric surveys in which the explosion is simulated using a piston. The numerous uncertainties are thus mapped into choices of the piston’s location and motion. These parameters are constrained by the requirement that the explosion not eject too much neutron-rich material (hence a minimum mass interior to the piston) and that the kinetic energy of the explosion measured at infinity be $`10^{51}\mathrm{erg}`$. Though a single event, SN 1987A occurred for a representative helium core mass ($`6\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and had a measured kinetic energy at infinity of $`11.5\times 10^{51}\mathrm{erg}`$ (Woosley, 1988; Arnett et al., 1989; Bethe & Pizzochero, 1990). The requirement that supernovae typically make $``$0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of 56Ni also means that the piston cannot be situated too far out or produce too weak an explosion. There are also more subtle conditions - that the mass cut frequently occur in a location where past (successful) calculations of the explosion have found it, that the distribution of remnant masses resemble what is observed for neutron stars, that the integrated ensemble of abundances resemble Population I in our galaxy, and so on.

Fig. 5 shows the remnant masses for a survey of explosions in solar metallicity stars that neglects mass loss. The progenitor stars described in Woosley et al. (2002) were exploded using a piston located at the edge of the “iron core”. The iron core was defined by the location of an abrupt jump in the neutron excess (electron mole number = $`Y_\mathrm{e}=0.49`$). A constant kinetic energy at infinity ($`1.2\times 10^{51}\mathrm{erg}`$) was assumed (see also Woosley & Weaver 1995). In fact, the explosion energy will probably vary with mass. Fryer (1999) calculates that the explosion energy will actually weaken as the mass of the helium core increases. Thus fall back could have an even earlier onset and more dramatic effects than Fig. 5 would suggest.

The apparent non-monotonic behavior in Fig. 5 is largely a consequence of the choice of where the piston was sited. The neutronized iron core may have a variable mass that depends on details of oxygen and silicon shell burning (Woosley et al., 2002). The density gradient around that core can also be highly variable. Thus enforcing a constant kinetic energy at infinity does not always lead to a predictable variation of remnant mass with initial mass. More recent unpublished calculations by Heger et al. (2003a), also of zero metallicity stars, place the piston at an entropy jump (dimensionless entropy S/$`N_\mathrm{A}k_\mathrm{B}=4`$) rather than a $`Y_\mathrm{e}`$ jump. This choice, which is more consistent with explosion models, assumes that an explosion develops when the accretion rate declines rapidly. The rapid decline is associated with the density (and entropy) discontinuity near the base of the oxygen burning shell. Such a prescription gives more nearly monotonic results and, in particular the bump around $`17\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in Fig. 5 is absent.

Nevertheless Fig. 5 does suggest that the lines separating black hole formation by fall back from neutron stars in Figs. 1 - 4 should be interpreted only as indicating trends. They may not be as smooth or as monotonic as indicated.

### 6.3 Uncertainty in the effects of rotation

Rotation can enhance the mass loss in stars and a spread in initial rotation can smear out the transitions between the different mass and metallicity regimes. We have not considered cases where rotationally enhanced mass loss might be important. In such cases the limiting mass for loss of the hydrogen envelope could be lowered and, at the same time, the mass of the helium core increased (Heger et al., 2000; Meynet & Maeder, 2000). The higher mass loss would tend to lower the metallicity for divisions between Type II and Type Ib/c supernovae as well is the divisions between strong, weak and no supernova explosions. The higher helium core masses with increase the metallicity divisions between strong, weak, and no supernova explosions. The total change will depend on the competition of the larger helium core masses and enhanced mass loss rate.

If the core is rotating rapidly at collapse, rotation may also influence the explosion mechanism and especially the possibility of making a GRB. Also pair-creation supernovae could be significantly affected by rotation, in particular the lower mass limit for direct black hole formation (Glatzel et al., 1985; Stringfellow & Woosley, 1988). Early calculations that followed angular momentum in massive stars (e.g., Kippenhahn & Thomas 1970; Kippenhahn et al. 1970; Endal & Sofia 1976, 1978; Tassoul 2000) all found sufficient angular momentum retained in the core to reach critical rotation (“break-up velocity”) before the final central burning phases. More recent calculations by Heger (1998); Heger et al. (2000) find presupernova core rotation rates in massive stars that would lead to sub-millisecond neutrons stars just around break-up if angular momentum were conserved perfectly during the collapse. Calculations by Meynet & Maeder (1997); Maeder & Zahn (1998); Maeder & Meynet, priv. com. (2000) indicate core rotation rates after central helium burning similar to those found by Heger et al. (2000).

Recently Spruit (2002) has discussed a “dynamo” mechanism based on the interchange instability that allows the estimation of magnetic torques to be included in models for stellar evolution. Preliminary calculations by Heger et al. (2002b, 2003b) that include these torques find a presupernova angular momentum equivalent to 5 - 10 milliseconds – still somewhat faster than observed young pulsars, but too slow for collapsars. If the estimates of magnetic torques by Spruit (2002) are valid then single stars are unlikely to produce collapsars and rotation is probably not a factor in the explosion of common supernovae. Nevertheless, in Fig. 3 we indicate the regimes where the structure of the star, excluding the question of sufficient rotation, is favorable for collapsars and GRBs.

## 7 Conclusions and Observational Tests

We have described, qualitatively, the likely fates of single massive stars as a function of metallicity. Our results suggest various trends in the observations of these objects which may be subject to observational tests.

* Normal Type Ib/c SNe are not produced by single stars until the metallicity is well above solar. Otherwise the helium core mass at death is too large. This implies that most Type Ib/c SNe are produced in binary systems where the binary companion aids in removing the hydrogen envelope of the collapsing star.
* Although less extreme than Type Ib/c SNe, single stars also do not produce Type IIL SNe at low metallicities. Similar to Type Ib/c SNe, Type IIL SNe from single stars are probably “weak” SNe until the metallicity exceeds solar, also implying that Type IIL SNe are produced in binaries.
* If GRBs are produced by single star collapse (perhaps unlikely given the constraints on angular momentum), single stars only make up a small subset of GRB progenitors at higher metallicities. It is more likely that binary systems form GRBs. Such systems will occur more frequently at low metallicities (Fryer et al., 1999).
* Jet-driven supernovae from single stars are likely to be much more common than GRBs from single stars.

It is difficult to make direct comparisons to observations without including binary stars in our analysis, but there are a number of constraints that should be considered. First, an increasing number of JetSNe and weak supernovae explosions are being discovered (Nakamura et al., 2001; Sollerman et al., 1998; Turatto et al., 1998). Although there is an observational bias against the discovery of weak supernovae and they are much dimmer than JetSNe, they may still dominate the sample of stars more massive than 25 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Clearly, good statistics (and correct analysis of the systematics) are necessary to determine the relative ratio of jet-driven and weak SNe. With such statistics, we may be able to place constraints on the rotation of massive stellar cores.

If the IMF becomes more top-heavy at low metallicity ($``$$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4\mathrm{Z}_{}`$; Bromm et al. 2001; Schneider et al. 2002) the number of core collapse supernovae (mostly Type IIp) and GRBs (if occurring in single stars) should significantly increase at high redshift. If the current estimates of a characteristic mass of $`100\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for primordial stars (Bromm et al., 1999; Abel et al., 2002; Nakamura & Umemura, 2001) is correct we should expect a large fraction of pair SNe and very massive black holes (or Type III collapsars) at zero metallicity, as well as an increase of massive black holes from stars in the 60–140 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ region.

We thank Bruno Leibundgut for discussions about supernova classifications and Thomas Janka, Ewald Müller, and Wolfgang Hillebrandt for many helpful conversations regarding the explosion mechanism. This research has been supported by the NSF (AST 02-06111), the SciDAC Program of the DOE (DE-FC02-01ER41176), the DOE ASCI Program (B347885). AH is supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant B341495 to the Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University of Chicago and acknowledges supported by a Fermi Fellowship of the Enrico Fermi Institute at The University of Chicago. The work of CF was funded by a Feynman Fellowship at LANL.


text:
# Diffractive heavy pseudoscalar-meson productions by weak neutral currents

## Abstract

A first theoretical study for neutrino-induced diffractive productions of heavy pseudoscalar-mesons, $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _b`$, off a nucleon is performed based on factorization formalism in QCD. We evaluate the forward diffractive production cross section in perturbative QCD in terms of the light-cone wave functions of $`Z`$ boson and $`\eta _{c,b}`$ mesons, and the gluon distribution of the nucleon. The diffractive production of $`\eta _c`$ is governed by the axial vector coupling of the longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ boson to $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair, and the resulting $`\eta _c`$ production cross section is larger than the $`J/\psi `$ one by one order of magnitude. The bottomonium $`\eta _b`$ production, which shows up for higher beam energy, is also discussed.

Exclusive diffractive leptoproductions of neutral vector mesons provide unique insight into an interplay between nonperturbative and perturbative effects in QCD. The diffractive processes are mediated by the exchange of a Pomeron with the vacuum quantum numbers, whose QCD description is directly related to the gluon distributions inside the nucleons for small Bjorken-$`x`$ BFGMS ; FKS ; RRML . The processes also allow us to probe the light-cone wave functions (WFs) of the vector mesons. Relating to the latter point, however, the applicability is apparently limited to probing the neutral vector mesons due to the vector nature of the electromagnetic current.

In this talk, we propose the exclusive diffractive productions of mesons in terms of the neutrino beam. The weak currents allow us to observe both neutral and charged mesons by $`Z`$ and $`W`$ boson exchanges, and these mesons can be not only vector but also other types of mesons including pseudoscalar mesons. Thus, such processes may reveal structure of various kinds of mesons, the coupling of the QCD Pomeron to quark-antiquark pair with various spin-flavor quantum numbers, and also information on the CKM matrix elements. There already exist some experimental data for $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`D_s^\pm `$, $`D_s^{}`$ E815 ; E632 , $`D_s^+`$ CHORUS , and $`J/\psi `$ production E815 , although the amount of the data is not enough. On the other hand, there are only a few theoretical calculations, e.g., for the $`J/\psi `$ production in a vector meson dominance model BKP  and for $`D_s^{}`$ production with the generalized parton density LS . Here, our interest will be directed to diffractive productions of heavy pseudoscalar mesons, $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _b`$. So far $`\eta _c`$ has been observed via the decays of $`J/\psi `$ or $`B`$ mesons produced by $`p\overline{p}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ reactions, while $`\eta _b`$ has not been observed. The diffractive productions via the weak neutral current will give a direct access to $`\eta _c`$ as well as a new experimental method to identify $`\eta _b`$ by e.g. measuring the two photon decay.

We treat the $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _b`$ productions by generalizing the approach in the leading logarithmic order of perturbative QCD, which has been developed successfully for the vector meson electroproductions BFGMS ; FKS ; RRML . We consider the near-forward diffractive productions $`Z^{}(q)+N(P)\eta _Q(q+\mathrm{\Delta })+N^{}(P\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`Q=c,b`$, and each momentum is labeled in Fig.1. Here the total center-of-mass energy $`W=\sqrt{(P+q)^2}`$ is much larger than any other mass scales involved, i.e., $`W^2𝒬^2(=q^2),t(=\mathrm{\Delta }^2),m_Q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2,\mathrm{}`$ with $`m_Q`$ the heavy-quark mass. $`tm_Q^2`$ and $`m_Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ are also assumed. The crucial point is that at such high $`W`$ the scattering of the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair on the nucleon occurs over a much shorter timescale than the $`Z^{}Q\overline{Q}`$ fluctuation or the $`\eta _Q`$ formation times (see Fig.1). As a result, the production amplitudes obey factorization in terms of the $`Z`$ and $`\eta _Q`$ light-cone WFs. Also, a hard scale $`m_Q`$ ensures the application of perturbative QCD for the $`Z`$ WFs even for $`𝒬^2=0`$. The $`Q\overline{Q}`$-$`N`$ elastic scattering amplitude, sandwiched between the $`Z`$ and $`\eta _Q`$ WFs, is further factorized into the $`Q\overline{Q}`$-gluon hard scattering amplitude and the nucleon matrix element corresponding to the (unintegrated) gluon density distribution BFGMS ; FKS ; RRML . The participation of the “new players” $`Z`$ and $`\eta _Q`$ requires an extension of the previous works BFGMS ; FKS ; RRML  by introducing the corresponding light-cone WFs.

First of all, we discuss the extension due to the participation of the $`Z`$ boson. The $`ZQ\overline{Q}`$ weak vertex of Fig. 1 is given by $`(g_W/2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W)\gamma _\mu (c_Vc_A\gamma _5)`$, where $`(g_W/2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W)^2=\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2`$ with $`G_F`$ the Fermi constant and $`M_Z`$ the $`Z`$ mass. $`c_V=1/2(4/3)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W,c_A=1/2`$ for the $`c`$-quark and similarly for the $`b`$-quark. As usual, we introduce the two light-like vectors $`q^{}`$ and $`p^{}`$ by the relations $`q=q^{}(𝒬^2/s)p^{}`$, $`P=p^{}+(M_N^2/s)q^{}`$, $`s=2q^{}p^{}`$ with $`M_N`$ the nucleon mass, and the Sudakov decomposition of all momenta, e.g., $`k=\alpha q^{}+\beta p^{}+k_{}`$ ($`k_{}^2=\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2`$). We also introduce the polarization vectors $`\epsilon ^{(\xi )}`$ ($`\xi =0,\pm 1`$) of the virtual $`Z`$ boson to satisfy $`_\xi (1)^{\xi +1}\epsilon _{\mu }^{(\xi )}{}_{}{}^{}\epsilon _\nu ^{(\xi )}=g_{\mu \nu }+q_\mu q_\nu /M_Z^2`$, which is the numerator of the propagator for the massive vector boson. Because the $`q_\mu q_\nu /M_Z^2`$ term vanishes when contracted with the neutral current, we conveniently choose as $`\epsilon ^{(0)}=q^{}/𝒬+p^{}𝒬/s`$ and $`\epsilon ^{(\pm 1)}=\epsilon _{}^{(\pm 1)}=(0,1,\pm i,0)/\sqrt{2}`$ for the longitudinal ($`\xi =0`$) and transverse ($`\xi =\pm 1`$) polarizations respectively. The light-cone WFs for the virtual $`Z`$ boson can be obtained in analogy with the photon light-cone WF used in the $`J/\psi `$ electroproductions BFGMS ; FKS  as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{Z(\xi )}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{g_W}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha (1\alpha )}\overline{u}_\lambda (k)\text{/}\epsilon ^{(\xi )}\left(c_Vc_A\gamma _5\right)v_\lambda ^{}(qk)}{\alpha (1\alpha )𝒬^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2+m_Q^2}},`$ (1)
where $`u_\lambda (k)`$ ($`v_\lambda ^{}(qk)`$) denote the on-shell spinor for the (anti)quark with helicity $`\lambda ^{()}`$.

Next we proceed to the light-cone WFs for the $`\eta _Q`$ meson. It is convenient to exploit the correspondence with the case of the $`J/\psi `$ electroproductions. The light-cone WFs for the heavy vector mesons $`V=J/\psi ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ have been discussed in many works, but are still controversial in the treatment of subleading effects like the Fermi motion corrections FKS ; RRML ; hood , corrections to ensure the pure $`S`$-wave $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state ivanov ; HIKT , etc. Here we employ the vector-meson light-cone WFs given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{V(\varpi )}{}_{}{}^{}(\alpha ,𝒌_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{v}_\lambda ^{}(q+\mathrm{\Delta }k)}{\sqrt{1\alpha }}}\gamma ^\mu e_{\mu }^{(\varpi )}{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\lambda (k)}{\sqrt{\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{M_V}},`$ (2)
where $`M_V`$ and $`e_\mu ^{(\varpi )}`$ ($`\varpi =0,\pm 1`$) are the mass and the polarization vector of the vector meson with $`(q+\mathrm{\Delta })^2=M_V^2`$, $`e^{(\varpi )}(q+\mathrm{\Delta })=0`$, and $`e^{(\varpi )}e^{(\varpi ^{})}=\delta _{\varpi \varpi ^{}}`$. $`\left[1+(\text{/}q+\text{/}\mathrm{\Delta })/M_V\right]/2`$ denotes the projection operator, $`^2=`$, to ensure the $`S`$-wave $`Q\overline{Q}`$ state in the heavy-quark limit hood ; BJ . (This projection operator coincides with that discussed in Ref. ivanov  up to the binding-energy effects of the quarkonia.) Note that eq. (2) reduces to the vector-meson WFs of Ref. BFGMS  by the replacement $`1`$. Essential difference of eq. (2) from the “perturbative” WFs (1) is that the scalar function $`\varphi (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ contains nonperturbative dynamics between $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$. Now the light-cone WFs of the $`\eta _Q`$ meson can be derived from eq. (2) utilizing spin symmetry, which is exact in the heavy-quark limit. This symmetry relates the $`S`$-wave states, $`\eta _Q`$ and the three spin states of the vector meson. Namely, $`M_{\eta _Q}=M_V`$, and the pseudoscalar state is related to the vector state with longitudinal polarization as $`|\eta _Q=2\widehat{S}_Q^3|V(\varpi =0)`$, where $`\widehat{S}_Q^3`$ is the third component of the hermitean spin operator $`\widehat{S}_Q^i`$ which acts on the spin of the heavy quark $`Q`$ but does not act on $`\overline{Q}`$. This implies that the $`\eta _Q`$ WFs are given by the replacement $`u_\lambda 2S^3u_\lambda `$ in eq. (2), where $`S^3`$ is a matrix representation of $`\widehat{S}_Q^3`$ as $`S^3=\gamma _5(\text{/}q+\text{/}\mathrm{\Delta })\text{/}e^{(0)}/(2M_V)`$ which is related to a spin matrix $`\sigma ^{12}/2=\gamma _5\gamma ^0\gamma ^3/2`$ in the meson rest frame by a Lorentz boost in the third direction:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{\eta _Q}{}_{}{}^{}(\alpha ,𝒌_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{v}_\lambda ^{}(q+\mathrm{\Delta }k)}{\sqrt{1\alpha }}}\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{u_\lambda (k)}{\sqrt{\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})}{M_{\eta _Q}}}.`$ (3)
This result shows that the $`\eta _Q`$ is described by the same nonperturbative WF $`\varphi (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ as the vector meson. We also note that, due to the presence of $``$, the “$`Q\overline{Q}\eta _Q`$ vertex” involves pseudovector as well as pseudoscalar coupling.

Combining our $`Z`$ and $`\eta _Q`$ WFs with the $`Q\overline{Q}`$-$`N`$ elastic amplitude BFGMS , we get the total amplitude $`^{(\xi )}`$ for the polarization $`\epsilon ^{(\xi )}`$ of the virtual $`Z`$ boson. We find $`^{(\pm 1)}=0`$, which reflects conservation of helicity in the high energy limit, and

$`i^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2W^2}{\sqrt{N_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_Wm_Qc_A}{M_{\eta _Q}𝒬\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\alpha _s(𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)\left[1+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\text{ln}x}}\right]`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`xG(x,𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^2){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒬}}{\alpha (1\alpha )}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑bb^2\varphi ^{}(\alpha ,b)K_1\left(b\stackrel{~}{𝒬}\right),`$
where $`x=(𝒬^2+M_{\eta _Q}^2)/s`$, $`𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=(𝒬^2+M_{\eta _Q}^2)/4`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=[\alpha (1\alpha )𝒬^2+m_Q^2]^{1/2}`$, $`K_1`$ is a modified Bessel function, and $`G(x,𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)`$ is the conventional gluon distribution. Eq. (4) is written in the “$`\stackrel{}{b}`$-space” conjugate to the $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$-space via the Fourier transformation; $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ denotes the transverse separation ($`b|\stackrel{}{b}|`$) between $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$. In derivation of eq. (4) we retain only the leading $`\mathrm{ln}(𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)`$ contribution, which corresponds to the “color-dipole picture” FKS ; SHIAH . As expected, the result (4) is proportional to $`c_A`$ so that the $`\eta _Q`$ meson is generated by the axial-vector part of the weak current. (For comparison, we also calculate the diffractive vector meson production via the weak neutral current. Using eq. (2), we find that $`^{(0)}`$ and $`^{(\pm 1)}`$ give the production of the longitudinally and transversely polarized vector mesons, respectively, and that all these amplitudes are proportional to the vector coupling $`c_V`$.)

Combining eq. (4) with the $`Z`$ boson propagator and the weak neutral current by a neutrino, the forward differential cross section for the $`\eta _Q`$ production is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}\eta _Q)}{dsd𝒬^2dt}}|_{t=0}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(8\pi )^3E_\nu ^2M_N^2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_W^2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬^2}{\left(𝒬^2+M_Z^2\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1ϵ}}\left|^{(0)}\right|^2,`$ (5)
where $`E_\nu `$ is the neutrino beam energy in the lab system, and $`ϵ=[4(1y)Q^2/E_\nu ^2]/[2\{1+(1y)^2\}+Q^2/E_\nu ^2]`$ with $`y=s/(2M_NE_\nu )`$. In order to evaluate the corresponding elastic $`\eta _Q`$ production rate, we assume the $`t`$-dependence as $`d^3\sigma /dsd𝒬^2dt=d^3\sigma /dsd𝒬^2dt|_{t=0}\mathrm{exp}(B_{\eta _Q}t)`$ with a constant diffractive slope, as in the case of the vector meson production. Integrating over $`t`$, $`𝒬^2`$ and $`s`$, we get the elastic production rate $`\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}\eta _Q)`$ as a function of $`E_\nu `$.

For numerical computation of $`\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}\eta _Q)`$, we need explicit form of the nonperturbative WF $`\varphi (\alpha ,\stackrel{}{b})`$ of eq. (4). As mentioned above, we can use the corresponding nonperturbative part of the vector-meson WF and we use the one which was constructed in Ref. SHIAH  based on non-relativistic Cornell potential model for heavy quarkonia with $`m_{c(b)}=1.5(4.9)`$ GeV. Also, we use the empirical values for the masses $`M_{\eta _c}=2.98`$ GeV, $`M_N=0.94`$ GeV and $`M_Z=91.2`$ GeV. For $`\eta _b`$, we use an estimate $`M_{\eta _b}=9.45`$ GeV HK . Because the slope $`B_{\eta _Q}`$ introduced above is unknown, we assume that $`B_{\eta _Q}`$ has the same value as that for the corresponding vector meson: $`B_{\eta _c}=4.5`$ GeV-2 and $`B_{\eta _b}=3.9`$ GeV-2 (See Ref. RRML ). For the gluon distribution function $`G(x,𝒬_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)`$ of eq. (4), we employ GRV95 NLO parameterization GRV95 .

We show the elastic $`\eta _c`$ production rate, $`\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}\eta _c)`$, by the solid curve in Fig. 2. The result monotonically increases as a function of the beam energy $`E_\nu `$. Such behavior is similar with that observed in the $`\pi `$-production data by the neutral and charged currents E632 . For comparison, we show the elastic $`J/\psi `$ production rate $`\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}J/\psi )`$ by the dashed curve. The rate for $`\eta _c`$ production is much larger than that for $`J/\psi `$ by a factor $`20`$. This is mainly due to the relevant weak couplings, $`c_A`$ for $`\eta _c`$ and $`c_V`$ for $`J/\psi `$, as $`(c_A/c_V)^27`$. Also, most of the remaining factor arises from the different behavior of the $`Z`$ light-cone WFs (1) between the axial-vector and vector channels, resulting in a few times difference in the overlap integrals with the corresponding meson WFs. In Fig. 2, we also show the $`\eta _b`$ production rate $`\sigma (\nu N\nu ^{}N^{}\eta _b)`$ by the dotted curve. Although the rate for $`\eta _b`$ is generally much smaller than that for $`\eta _c`$, the former increases more rapidly than the latter for increasing $`E_\nu `$. Therefore, the $`\eta _b`$ production rate could become comparable with the $`J/\psi `$ or $`\eta _c`$ productions for higher beam energy. It suggests a possibility to observe $`\eta _b`$ through the diffractive productions by high intensity neutrino beams available at ongoing or forthcoming neutrino factories.

In conclusion, we have computed the diffractive production cross sections of $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _b`$ mesons via the weak neutral current. Using the new results of the light-cone WFs for $`Z`$ and $`\eta _{c,b}`$, the production rates are obtained based on the factorization formalism in QCD. Our results demonstrate that neutrino-induced productions will open a new window to measure $`\eta _{c,b}`$.

A.H. was supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.


text:
# References

BIHEP-TH-2002-56

Minkowski Brane in Asymptotic dS5 Spacetime without Fine-tuning

Zhe Chang111changz@mail.ihep.ac.cn, Shao-Xia Chen222ruxanna@mail.ihep.ac.cn and Xin-Bing Huang333huangxb@mail.ihep.ac.cn

Institute of High Energy Physics
Chinese Academy of Sciences
P.O.Box 918(4), 100039 Beijing, China

## Abstract

We discuss properties of a $`3`$-brane in an asymptotic 5-dimensional de-Sitter spacetime. It is found that a Minkowski solution can be obtained without fine-tuning. In the model, the tiny observed positive cosmological constant is interpreted as a curvature of 5-dimensional manifold, but the Minkowski spacetime, where we live, is a natural $`3`$-brane perpendicular to the fifth coordinate axis.

PACS numbers: 98.80.-k, 11.25.-w, 04.50.+h, 98. 80. Es

The tiny but not zero cosmological constant has puzzled astrophysicists and physicists for nearly a century. Various attempts have been made in trying to solve the puzzle. However, up to now, there hasn’t been a theory that can give a cosmological constant whose order is the same as that of the observed value.

New progress made in this direction came from the brane world picture of cosmology, and in particular, the Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenario. The RS model was proposed by Randall and Sundrum to aim at a reasonable explanation of the hierarchy between the electro-weak scale and Planck scale in the four-dimensional effective field theory. In this scenario, the spacetime is five-dimensional. We live in a 3-brane, which is perpendicular to the fifth coordinate axis. The fifth dimension can be compact or noncompact. All matter and interactions except gravity are confined to the 3-brane. Since the RS model was proposed, many physicists- have been trying to apply it to such issues as the hierarchy problem, cosmological constant problem, localization of gravity, dynamics of the brane, and the realization of the $`AdS_5`$ spacetime in string theory.

In this Letter, we consider an asymptotic $`dS_5`$ spacetime, which is characterized by a positive cosmological constant. It is found that there is a natural solution of Minkowski brane without fine-tuning.

We start from the action of the dS $`5`$-dimensional spacetime with a dilaton field $`\varphi `$ ($`\varphi (x_5)`$)

$$S=d^5x\left(\sqrt{G}\left(R\frac{4}{3}(\varphi )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }\right)\sqrt{g}\delta (x_5)Ve^{b\varphi }\right),$$
(1)
where $`G`$ and $`g`$ are determinants of the five-dimensional spacetime metric $`G_{MN}`$ and the four-dimensional brane metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, respectively. The Einstein equation corresponding to the action reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{G}\left(R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R\right)\frac{4}{3}\sqrt{G}\left(_M\varphi _N\varphi \frac{1}{2}G_{MN}(\varphi )^2\right)\hfill \\ +\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }\sqrt{G}G_{MN}+\sqrt{g}Ve^{b\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \delta (x_5)\right)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
The equation of motion of the dilaton is as following

$$\sqrt{G}\left(\frac{8}{3}^2\varphi a\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }\right)b\sqrt{g}V\delta (x_5)e^{b\varphi }=0.$$
(3)
Following Randall and Sundrum, we assume that the metric of the five-dimensional spacetime is of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2A(x_5)}g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +(dx^5)^2,$$
(4)
where

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_4},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_4},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_4},1).$$
(5)
Please note that, in general, the $`3`$brane can be any symmetric space. With the above ansatz for the metrics on 5-dimensional spacetime and $`3`$-brane, we transform the equations(3) and (2) into the form

$$\frac{8}{3}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{32}{3}A^{}\varphi ^{}a\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }bV\delta (x_5)e^{b\varphi }=0,$$
(6)
$$3A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{4}{3}(\varphi ^{})^2+3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{2A}+\frac{1}{2}Ve^{b\varphi }\delta (x_5)=0,$$
(7)
$$6(A^{})^26\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{2A}\frac{2}{3}(\varphi ^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }=0,$$
(8)
where the notation  denotes differentiation with respect to $`x_5`$. We are interest on finding a natural Minkowski solution of the brane system without fine-tuning.

Away from the $`3`$-brane, the equations of motion of the system (bulk equations) reduce to the form

$$\frac{8}{3}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{32}{3}A^{}\varphi ^{}a\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }=0,$$
(9)
$$3A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{4}{3}(\varphi ^{})^2+3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{2A}=0,$$
(10)
$$6(A^{})^26\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{2A}\frac{2}{3}(\varphi ^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }=0.$$
(11)
The difficulty in trying to solve the bulk equations comes from the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ terms. Here, we present a natural Minkowskin solution of the bulk equations of motion in integration form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & A(x_5)=\frac{2\alpha }{a}\mathrm{ln}\left(a\sqrt{D}\left[12H(x_5)\right]x_5+2d\right)e^{c\left[2H(x_5)1\right]x_5}+hx+\eta ,\hfill \\ & & \varphi (x_5)=\left[2H(x)1\right]_{0^\pm }^{x_5}𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{D}{\left(\frac{a\sqrt{D}\left[12H(x)\right]x}{2}+d\right)^2}+\frac{9}{4}e^{c\left[2H(x)1\right]x}},\hfill \\ & & \overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`D{\displaystyle \frac{3a\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4(a+8\alpha )}},`$ $`c,h,d,\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ are constants, and $`H(x)`$ is the Heviside function

$$H(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& \mathrm{for}x>0,\\ 0,& \mathrm{for}x<0.\end{array}$$

In figures 1 and 2, we give a plot of the dilaton field $`\varphi (x_5)`$ with selected parameters $`a_{}=0.189,d_{}=1.545,c_{}=28.481,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=10^4,\alpha =8.776\mathrm{and}h_{}=4.01\times 10^3`$ for $`x<0`$; $`a_+=0.01,d_+=15.875,c_+=19.63,\mathrm{\Lambda }_+=10^4,\alpha =413.56\mathrm{and}h_+=8.306\times 10^3`$ for $`x>0`$.

FIG.1 The behavior of the dilaton field $`\varphi (x)`$.

FIG.2 The behavior of the dilaton field $`\varphi (x)`$ for $`x<0`$.

The matching conditions on the brane for Minkowski solution (12) are of the form

$$\sqrt{\frac{D_+}{d_+^2}+\frac{9}{4}e^{c_+}}+\sqrt{\frac{D_{}}{d_{}^2}+\frac{9}{4}e^c_{}}=\frac{3}{8}bVe^{b\varphi (0)},$$
(13)
$$\frac{8\sqrt{D_+}}{9a_+d_+}+e^{c_+}+h_+\frac{8\sqrt{D_{}}}{9a_{}d_{}}+e^c_{}h_{}=\frac{1}{6}Ve^{b\varphi (0)}.$$
(14)
Acknowledgements: The work was supported in part by the NSF of China.