text:
# Note on Matrix Model with Massless Flavors

## 1 Introduction

The field theory v.s matrix model conjecture proposed by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  has caught a lot of attentions recently(from  to ). The beautiful point of this conjecture is that a lot of non-trivial complex calculations of exact low energy superpotential in the field theory side can be easily done in the corresponding matrix model. Even in the case that there is no exact solution in the matrix model, perturbative calculation is still much easier than the one in the corresponding field theory. For example, the Montonen-Oliver duality can be derived (at least perturbatively) by matrix model in 111We want to thank Freddy Cachazo for discussing about this point..

Although the matrix model conjecture is inspired by studies of geometric engineering of field theories in string theory, it can be proved in the pure field theory. Two recent papers  laid solid grounds for this conjecture. It was realized that properties of chiral rings and anomalies are very powerful tools to uniquely determine the exact low energy effective superpotential. These two papers dealt with the prototype example, i.e., $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with one adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and tree level superpotential deformed from the corresponding $`𝒩=2`$ theory. Using same idea in  Seiberg has generalized the field theory proof of matrix model conjecture to the massive fundamental flavors . The result explained why field theory calculations are recaptured by matrix models studies in .

In , it was assumed that the matrix $`m(z)`$ is not degenerated, so all quarks are massive and are integrated out. Therefore, the low energy effective action does not depend on the meson operator. The result is related to the fact that polynomials $`q(z)`$ has been fixed when solving the loop equation. It was also remarked in  that an ambiguity in $`q(z)`$ will sign the appearance of more fields in the effective superpotential.

In this note, we will try to do a little more than that in  by letting matrix $`m(z)`$ to be degenerated. Under the new situation, the low energy effective action will be a function of not only glueball fields $`S_i`$, but also some massless fields (mesons $`M_i^j`$). In fact, we will show that with just a little bit of modifications, the method of  can be applied to our new cases.

The organization of the note is following. In section two we briefly review the result in . In section three we make our proposal to the study of massless flavors. In section four we give conclusion and discussion.

## 2 Review of results in

In , Seiberg considered a general $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ theory with the adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`N_f`$ fundamental $`Q^i`$ and $`N_f`$ anti-fundamental $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_j`$. The tree level superpotential is

$$W_{tree}=TrW(\mathrm{\Phi })+\stackrel{~}{Q}_im_j^i(\mathrm{\Phi })Q^j$$
(1)
with the function $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and matrix $`m_j^i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ to be following polynomials

$`W(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_k}{k+1}}z^{k+1}`$ (2)
$`m_j^i(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}}m_{j,k}^iz^{k1}`$ (3)
To solve the theory, it is useful to define following chiral operators

$`T(z)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right),`$ (4)
$`w_\alpha (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right),`$ (5)
$`R(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_\alpha W^\alpha }{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right),`$ (6)
$`M_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}Q^j`$ (7)
which will satisfy following loop equations given by anomaly considerations

$`[W^{}(z)T(z)]_{}+tr[m^{}(z)M(z)]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2R(z)T(z)+w_\alpha (z)w^\alpha (z)`$ (8)
$`[W^{}(z)w_\alpha (z)]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`2R(z)w_\alpha (z)`$ (9)
$`[W^{}(z)R(z)]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`R(z)^2`$ (10)
$`[(M(z)m(z))_i^j]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`R(z)\delta _i^j`$ (11)
$`[(m(z)M(z))_i^j]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`R(z)\delta _i^j`$ (12)
where $`tr`$ is over the flavor index while $`Tr`$, over the color index. Among these equations (10) is same as in the case of pure adjoint field and can be solved by

$$W^{}(z)R(z)+\frac{1}{4}f(z)=R(z)^2$$
(13)
with $`f(z)=4[W^{}(z)R(z)]_+`$ of degree $`(n1)`$. Equations (11) and (12) can be written as

$`(M(z)m(z)q(z))_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`R(z)\delta _i^j,q(z)=[M(z)m(z)]_+`$ (14)
$`(m(z)M(z)\stackrel{~}{q}(z))_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`R(z)\delta _i^j,\stackrel{~}{q}(z)=[m(z)M(z)]_+`$ (15)
with consistent condition $`\stackrel{~}{q}=mqm^1`$. The solution of (14) (15) can be written as

$$M(z)=R(z)m^1(z)+q(z)m^1(z)$$
(16)
To avoid singularities in the solution (16) when $`m(z)`$ has a zero eigenvalue, $`q(z)`$ has been uniquely fixed to remove these singularities.

If we write $`W^{}(z)=g_n_{i=1}^n(za_i)`$, in the case that $`m(a_i)0`$ for all $`a_i`$, all quarks are massive and should be integrated out. The low energy field theory is just the pure SUSY Yang-Mills theory and the remainded massless fields are these $`S_i,\omega _\alpha ^i`$. Using the similar counting as in , it can be shown that only genus two and genus one can contribute. The answer for the effective superpotential is given by

$$W_{eff}(S_i,w_\alpha ^i,N_i)=d^2\psi _0(S_i(\psi ))+_1(S_i)$$
(17)
with

$`_0(S_i(\psi ))`$ $`=`$ $`_0^{pert}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i^2(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{S_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$ (18)
$`_1(S_i)`$ $`=`$ $`_1^{pert}(S_i)`$ (19)
to be contributions of sphere and disk respectively.

The corresponding matrix model for above field theory (1) is given by free energy $`\widehat{}`$ through

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\widehat{N}^2}{\widehat{g}^2}\widehat{})=𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}𝑑\widehat{Q}𝑑\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\mathrm{exp}(A)$$
(20)
with the action

$$A=\frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}[TrW(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_im_j^i(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})\widehat{Q}^j].$$
(21)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is $`\widehat{N}\times \widehat{N}`$ matrix, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`N_f\times \widehat{N}`$ matrix and $`\widehat{Q}`$, $`\widehat{N}\times N_f`$ matrix. The relevent resolvents are given by

$`\widehat{R}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{g}}{\widehat{N}}}Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}})`$ (22)
$`\widehat{M}_i^j(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}}}\widehat{Q}^j`$ (23)
In the large $`\widehat{N}`$ limit with fixed $`N_f`$, loop equations in the matrix model become

$`[W^{}(z)\widehat{R}(z)]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}(z)^2`$ (24)
$`[(\widehat{M}(z)m(z))_i^j]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}(z)\delta _i^j`$ (25)
$`[(m(z)\widehat{M}(z))_i^j]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}(z)\delta _i^j`$ (26)
which exactly correspond to these in the field theory (10) (11) (12). From these we can identify

$$\widehat{R}(z)=R(z),\widehat{M}(z)=M(z)$$
(27)
We need to seperate out the sphere and disk contributions to free energy in the matrix model by $`\widehat{}_0=lim_{\widehat{N}\mathrm{}}\widehat{}`$, $`\widehat{}_1=lim_{\widehat{N}\mathrm{}}\frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}(\widehat{}\widehat{}_0)`$. Then it can be shown that

$$_0=\widehat{}_0,_1=\widehat{}_1.$$
(28)
Thus it established the equivalence between the gauge theory and the matrix model.

## 3 The degenerated matrix $`m_i^j(z)`$

As mentioned in the introduction, the derivation in the section two is under the assumption that $`m(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a generic non-degenerated matrix. If the matrix $`m(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is degenerated, some flavors will be massless and the low energy effective action will involve more variables than these $`S_i,w_\alpha ^i`$. However, since the $`SU(N_i)`$ parts are confined and there are only $`U(1)`$ parts left, the proper low energy variables are not $`Q^i,\stackrel{~}{Q}_j`$, but meson fields $`M_j^i=\stackrel{~}{Q}_jQ^i`$ which are singlets of $`SU(N_i)`$.

To get the effective superpotential as a function of $`S_i,w_\alpha ^i`$ and $`M_j^i`$, we will adopt a trick used in . In that paper, to study the field theory of double trace deformation

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{g_2}{2}Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)+g_4Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^4)+\stackrel{~}{g}_2(Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^2))^2$$
(29)
and the corresponding matrix model, we linearlized it by involving an additional gauge singlet field $`A`$ with superpotential

$$W_{tree}=\frac{1}{2}(g_2+4\stackrel{~}{g}_2A)Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^2)+g_4Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^4)\stackrel{~}{g}_2A^2W_{single}\stackrel{~}{g}_2A^2$$
(30)
Now, except the last term $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2A^2`$ which does not include the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`W_{single}`$ is in the typical form of cases discussed in . According to the prescription in these two papers, what we need to do is just to integrate field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ while leaving field $`A`$ untouched222We like to thank Freddy Cachazo for emphsizing this point to us.. In another word, the exact effective action is given by minimizing

$$W_{single}^{(exact)}(A,S_i)\stackrel{~}{g}_2A^2$$
(31)
regarding to $`A`$. The $`W_{single}^{(exact)}`$ can be calculated by field theory or matrix model methods. If we use the matrix model method, we need only to use $`W_{single}`$ in (30) to calculate the free energy $`_0`$ and get

$$W_{single}^{(exact)}(A,S_i)=N_i\frac{_0(S_i,A)}{S_i}$$
(32)
where measure term has been included into $`_0(S_i,A)`$ implicitely.

Same logic tells us how to deal with the degenerated matrix $`m`$. What we need to do is to involve some new fields $`X_i^j`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\mathrm{\Phi },X)`$ is not degenerated. Therefore the analysis in the section two can be applied and corresponding matrix model can be derived. More explicitely, the tree level superpotential will be the form

$$\stackrel{~}{W}=W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q},X)+L(X)$$
(33)
where matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}(\mathrm{\Phi },X)`$ in $`W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q},X)`$ will be non-degenerated. Now to the part $`W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q},X)`$, $`X`$ can be treated as parameters and situation is reduced to the standard one in (1). It is not hard to see that every step in  is valid and need no modifications: we just integrate all $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ (but do not touch $`X`$). Especially the action for the corresponding matrix model is just given by $`W(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q},X)`$. From this matrix model we can calculate $`\widehat{}_k(S_i,w_\alpha ^i,X),k=0,1`$. The only modification of above procedures is that we need to minimize the action

$$W^{(exact)}(\mathrm{\Phi },Q,\stackrel{~}{Q},X)+L(X)$$
(34)
regarding to $`X`$. It is exactly this minimization giving the final effective action as a function of $`S_i,w_\alpha ^i`$ as well as the meson fields.

To demonstrate our idea, let us use one simple example with only $`N_f`$ flavors and degenerated mass matrix $`m=\left[\begin{array}{cc}m_{K\times K}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]`$. This simple model has been discussed in , but now we use our new understanding to redo it. Involving the new field $`X_i^j`$, the superpotential will become

$$W=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_im_j^iQ^j+\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{N_fK}{}}X_a^b(M_b^a+\stackrel{~}{Q}_bQ^a)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\stackrel{~}{m}_j^iQ^jtr(XM)$$
(35)
where $`X`$ can be treated as Lagrangian mulitpler, $`M`$ mesone fields and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}m_{K\times K}& 0\\ 0& X_a^b\end{array}\right]`$. With the new non-degenerated mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, we can apply the analysis in  and reduce the field theory problem to the matrix model. Using (20) and (21) the matrix integration is

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\widehat{N}^2}{\widehat{g}^2}\widehat{})=𝑑\widehat{Q}𝑑\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\widehat{N}}{\widehat{g}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_i\stackrel{~}{m}_j^i\widehat{Q}^j)$$
(36)
This matrix integration has been done in  and we got

$$W_{exact}=N_c(det(\stackrel{~}{m})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f})^{\frac{1}{N_c}}tr(XM)=N_c(det(m)det(X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f})^{\frac{1}{N_c}}tr(XM)$$
(37)
where the first term is got from the matrix model. Next thing we need to do is to minimize superpotential (37) regarding to $`X`$. Differentiating $`\frac{}{X}`$ we get

$$M=X^1(det(m)det(X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f})^{\frac{1}{N_c}}$$
(38)
Taking determinant of (38) at two sides, we get

$$det(X)=\frac{(det(M))^{\frac{N_c}{N_fKN_c}}}{(det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f})^{\frac{N_fK}{N_fKN_c}}}$$
(39)
Putting (39) back into (38) we solve

$$X=M^1(\frac{det(M)}{det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}})^{\frac{1}{N_fKN_c}}$$
(40)
So finally we have

$$W_{exact}=(N_c(N_fK))(\frac{det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}}{det(M)})^{\frac{1}{N_c(N_fK)}}$$
(41)
This is exactly the result got in  (notice that $`K`$ in this paper should be $`N_fK`$ in equation (2.5) of ). From above calculations, we see how the dependence of $`W`$ on meson fields can be recovered from the minimization of field $`X`$.

We can repeat same calculation before the glueball field $`S`$ has been integrated out. The effective action is given in  as

$$W=N_c[S\mathrm{log}(\frac{S}{(det(m)det(X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f})^{\frac{1}{N_c}}})S]tr(XM)$$
(42)
Minimizing it regarding to $`X`$, we get

$$X=SM^1$$
(43)
Putting it back into (42) we find

$$W=(N_c(N_fK))[S\mathrm{log}(\frac{S}{(\frac{det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}}{det(M)})^{\frac{1}{N_c(N_fK)}}})S]$$
(44)
which is same form found in  (equation (3.5)).

There are several points we like to remark. First, results in  are got by the insertion of proper delta-functions while here, by involving new fields $`X`$. In fact, this new method shed light on the origin of delta functions. In our new method, we minimize $`X`$ after the integration in matrix model. However, in our example the contribution of $`X`$ to the exact effective action comes from $`_1`$ term only, i.e., $`W=_1+L(x)+\mathrm{}.`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ are terms do not have $`X`$. Minimizing $`W`$ relative to $`X`$ is equal to minimizing $`_1+L(x)`$ in matrix model, which in turn is equal to integrating $`X`$ fields in the matrix model using the full action (including the $`tr(XM)`$ terms) directly. Applying the $`𝑑X`$ to action (35) we get immediately the delta function

$$\delta (M_b^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_bQ^a).$$
(45)
So the analysis given by Seiberg explains the proposal made in . The delta function (45) can be understood from another point of view: it changes the coordinate $`Q,\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ in UV theory to proper coordinate $`M`$ in IR333 This point of view is also given by K. Ohta in  where the appearance of delta function is explained from this point of view.. We want to emphasize that in general situations (for example the baryonic deformation in superpotential), minimizing $`X`$ at the level of effective action is not same as integrating $`X`$ at the level of free energy in matrix model (for example, the double trace deformation in ), so the insertion of delta functions will be modified.

Second, our example (35) does not apply to the case $`N_c<N_fK`$ because in this case, the number of parameters $`M_a^b`$ is more than the one of physical parameters in the moduli space444 For case $`N_c<N_fK`$, parameters $`M`$ are $`(N_fK)^2`$ while by Higgsing mechanism, there are only $`2(N_fK)N_cN_c^2`$ massless fields. For case $`N_cN_fK`$, by Higgsing mechanism, there are $`2(N_fK)N_c(N_c^2(N_cN_f+K)^2)=(N_fK)^2`$, so it is equal to the number of meson fields $`M`$.. To deal with these extra parameters, we can involve extra fields $`Y`$ as multipliers of constraints and minimize the effective action relative to $`Y`$. Another way is to treat $`X_a^b`$ not totally independent to each other when minimizing the action. No matter which method to be used, it is more involving, but also promising to solve the matrix model with baryonic deformation.

Third, when $`N_c=N_fK`$, (42) and (44) reduce to

$$W=S\mathrm{log}(\frac{det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}}{det(M)})$$
(46)
which, after minimizing $`S`$, gives $`W=0`$ and

$$det(m)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3N_cN_f}=det(M)$$
(47)
as the quantum corrected moduli space .

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we made a little step along the analysis given by Seiberg in  for the field theory v.s. matrix model conjecture in the case with fundamental flavors. We allow the matrix $`m(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ to be degenerated so that the low energy effective superpotential will depend on both the glueball fields $`S_i,w_\alpha ^i`$ and other massless fields, for example, mesons $`M`$. We showed that, by involving new fields $`X`$ as Langrangian multipliers, the analysis in  can be translated into this new case with just a little modification. Furthermore this new method explains the insertion of delta function in the matrix model integrations proposed in .

It is obvious that there are still a lot of works needed to be done. For example, it will be nice to generalize the discussion to the superpotential with baryonic like deformations. The case of multi gauge groups is also interesting because it will shed light on various things, like chiral fields and duality. One of most important things is still the investigation of dualities in the matrix model. It is very interesting to see if the matrix model can fascinate the study of dualities in field theories.

## Acknowledgements

We want to thank the discussion with Vijay Balasubramanian, Freddy Cachazo, Yang-Hui He, Min-xin Huang, Vishnu Jejjala, Asad Naqvi and Nathan Seiberg. We want also to express our appreciation of the generous hospitality of the High Energy Group at the University of Pennsylvania. This research is supported under the NSF grant PHY-0070928.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I  Introduction

Radiative decays of B–mesons provide a unique opportunity for exploring physics beyond the SM. In the SM, a leading contribution is from a virtual $`W`$–top (charm/up) loop accompanied by a real photon with GIM suppression. New physics effects, which are also loop induced, could be same order if mass scale of the new physics is not far from that of $`W`$ and top-quark. This is exactly the case of softly broken low–energy supersymmetry (SUSY).

At early stage of the investigation, $`bs\gamma `$ was expected to provide a clear signature of supersymmetry , however, experimental and theoretical progress have eventually revealed that there remains little room for a new physics contribution. The world average of the branching ratio has reached an accuracy of $`10`$ % level,

$$BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)=\left(3.41\pm 0.36\right)\times 10^4,$$
(1)
where four independent measurements  are combined, including a recent result from BaBar collaboration. We add up all the errors of a single measurement in quadrature choosing a conservative value from asymmetric errors. Theoretical calculation of the inclusive decay in the SM has improved over several stages and next–to–leading order (NLO) QCD calculation has completed recently ,

$$BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)=\left(3.70\pm 0.30\right)\times 10^4.$$
(2)
There are a variety of numbers quoted by different authors possibly because of their choice of input, however, they are overlapping with the measured value within their $`1`$ $`\sigma `$ errors, whose magnitude is similar to those of the experiments. The SM again successfully explain the process with this level of accuracy and therefore new physics effects should be confined to lie within the remaining uncertainty. In particular, possible mass spectrum and flavor mixing of SUSY particles are expected to be strongly constrained from these results. To discuss them with the quoted accuracy, it becomes important to introduce (SUSY–) QCD corrections beyond LO.

Going beyond the SM, NLO calculation has also been completed in two Higgs doublet model (2HDM) . In supersymmetry, NLO formulas are available only for limited parameter space , while NLO-level analysis has been performed assuming minimal flavor violation (MFV) . In the analysis, two dominant effects, resummation of QCD logarithms and threshold correction to the bottom quark mass  have been identified. On the other hand, most of the analysis including general flavor mixing (GFM) in squark sector so far has been done using LO formulas or, at most, with LO matching of SUSY contribution .

In this paper, we present the results of our analysis of $`bs\gamma `$ in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with GFM in the squark sector. In addition to the NLO contributions from the SM and the 2HDM, we introduce NLO QCD corrections and leading NLO SUSY–QCD effects to dominant SUSY contributions, which enable us to compare the results with the experiments and existing NLO-level analysis in MFV.

## II Minimal Flavor Violation

In the SM, after integrating out $`W`$ and top quark, the short-distance physics is described by the following effective Lagrangian ,

$$=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}\left[C_i\left(\overline{\mu }\right)P_i+C_i^{}\left(\overline{\mu }\right)P_i^{}\right],$$
(3)
where $`P_i^{}`$ represent chirality partners of $`P_i`$, which are suppressed by $`m_s/m_b`$ in the SM while this is not necessarily true in its extensions. At $`\overline{\mu }=\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$, the Wilson coefficient of the four-fermion operator $`C_2`$ has a tree level contribution and dominant loop contribution comes to the coefficient of (chromo–) magnetic operator, $`C_7`$ ($`C_8`$). These coefficients mix with each other by renormalization group evolution between $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{b}`$. Then $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ is evaluated at $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{b}`$ based on the heavy–quark expansion. For this part of calculation, we follow the NLO calculation of  with updated numbers in .

In the 2HDM, the charged Higgs boson $`H^{}`$ also contributes to $`C_{7,8}`$ replacing $`W`$ in the SM. This always adds constructively to the contribution from the SM, which pushes up the mass of $`H^{}`$ until it almost decouples form the process unless other contributions cancel it. We use matching condition in  at $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$ to estimate this contribution at NLO.

In the MSSM, SUSY doubles the number of physical states and the contributions to $`bs\gamma `$ of CKM origin. SUSY partners of $`W`$ and $`H^{}`$ mix with each other and form charginos, which contribute to the process with up-type squarks as the corresponding contributions in the SM/2HDM. This contribution comes constructively or destructively depending on whether the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu <0`$ or $`\mu >0`$. If we assume the CKM matrix is a unique source of flavor mixing in both quark and squark and limit ourselves to the above contributions (MFV framework), $`bs\gamma `$ provides a strict bound on mass spectrum of SUSY partners.

We illustrate this in Constrained MSSM (CMSSM). In FIG. 1, we take $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ (left) and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ (right) and fix $`A_0=0`$. We scan $`m_0`$ over the region below $`1000`$ GeV and impose the constraints from direct SUSY searches. The green band shows a calculation, where the one–loop chargino contribution to $`C_{7,8}`$ is estimated at $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$. The blue band shows a improved calculation, where the SUSY contribution is estimated at the common mass scale of squarks, $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ using NLO QCD matching condition in  and evolved down to $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$ using NLO anomalous dimensions in  with 6 quark flavor. Here we also take into account the effect of threshold correction to the bottom quark mass in the charged Higgs and higgsino couplings as described later, which corresponds to a leading $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhanced part of the NLO SUSY–QCD correction. This calculation reproduces well the results of the second reference of  in MFV. The dashed two lines indicate the $`2\sigma `$ experimental bounds and the solid line shows the prediction in the SM. As clearly seen, the $`\mu `$ negative case and low $`m_{1/2}`$ region are disfavored, especially, at larger value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Note that the NLO–level corrections are playing a crucial role in setting a lower bound of $`m_{1/2}`$ from the plot at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ and $`\mu >0`$.

These bounds in MFV are rather model dependent, however, often used as one of reliable constraint to estimate other processes in supersymmetry, especially, where flavor mixing is less important, such as in detection of LSP cold dark matter . These bounds often exclude parameter regions, which otherwise predict interesting signature in on–going or future experiments. If we take this seriously, a question arises how robust the bounds really are, if we go beyond MFV.

## III General Flavor Mixing

Without any ad–hoc ansatz, gauge symmetry of the SM can not fix the flavor mixing in the soft SUSY breaking terms or, in turn, the squark mass matrices. This general flavor mixing in down-type squarks induces new neutralino and gluino contributions to $`bs\gamma `$. The latter is important because of enhancement by strong coupling constant. To parameterize this new flavor mixing, it is convenient to introduce following dimensionless parameters,

$$\delta _{LL}^d=\frac{\left(m_Q^2\right)_{23}}{\sqrt{\left(m_Q^2\right)_{22}\left(m_Q^2\right)_{33}}},\delta _{LR}^d=\frac{m_b\left(A_d\right)_{32}^{}}{\sqrt{\left(m_D^2\right)_{33}\left(m_Q^2\right)_{22}}},$$
(4)
and similarly for $`\delta _{RR}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RL}^d`$. Counter–parts of these flavor violating (FV) terms between $`1`$$`2`$ generations are severely constrained by CP violating parameter in $`K`$$`\overline{K}`$ mixing, while these $`2`$$`3`$ FV–terms have been rather stringently constrained by $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ .

In this article we extend the analyses including leading NLO corrections. As explained in the previous section with MFV, we introduce NLO resummation of QCD logs to $`C_{7,8}^{()}`$ assuming the common mass scale, $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for squarks and gluinos, which tend to be heavier than other states in most of interesting SUSY breaking models. As with the chargino contribution, we follow  for NLO QCD matching of the neutralino and gluino contributions. We checked that SUSY loop–induced contributions to $`C_{16}^{()}`$ is numerically less important in the estimation of $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$. Detailed analysis at LO  shows that a complete analysis with GFM introduces new operators other than those in Eq.(3). Inclusion of them is out of scope of this paper, while the analysis has shown that they are less important at LO. NLO matching also requires $`O\left(\alpha _s\right)`$ corrections from gluino. To include this NLO SUSY–QCD corrections, we introduce the effective coupling constants for $`W`$ and $`H^{}`$ after decoupling of squarks and gluino . We have re-calculated them including full flavor mixing. On the other hand, this procedure is not justified for the SUSY contributions themselves which ’decouple’ in its framework. Instead of calculating full two-loop diagrams, we take into account leading $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhanced parts of them. We insert finite counter–terms into the LO SUSY contributions, which are required by the renormalizaton of the quark mass matrix to keep their flavor–diagonal form. These ’two–loop’ level corrections are enhanced by an explicit $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ factor relative to the corresponding two–loop diagrams. This insertion is performed on higgsino coupling  and the F–term contributions of squark mass matrix. In the calculation, we include all sources of flavor mixing by numerically diagonalizing mass matrices, instead of using the mass–insertion approximation. Technical details of the calculation can be found in the reference . In the following section, we will illustrate the impact of these corrections beyond LO and robustness of the MFV prediction against GFM with them.

## IV Focusing effect

We have identified NLO focusing effect especially in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu >0`$ region, which considerably relaxes the constraints on the squark flavor–mixing. We illustrate this in CMSSM inserting the FV–terms at $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$.

FIG. 2 shows similar plots of $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ as FIG. 1 with GFM for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. The upper middle window is a case for $`\delta _{LR}^d=\pm 0.02`$ at $`\mu >0`$. The green bands correspond to a calculation with LO matching condition and the blue bands show that with the leading NLO corrections. The branching ratio is strongly focusing toward its SM value, once the NLO-level corrections are included. Similar strong focusing at $`\mu >0`$ is generic for $`\delta _{RL}^d=0.05`$ (upper right), $`\delta _{LL}^d=\pm 0.1`$ (lower middle) and $`\delta _{RR}^d=0.5`$ (lower right). We do not plot the case for $`\delta _{RL}^d=0.05`$ and $`\delta _{RR}^d=0.5`$ because the branching ratio is almost symmetric about these FV–terms. At $`\mu <0`$, focusing is not obvious as seen in the cases of $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ (upper left) and $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ (lower left) and we suppress $`\delta _{RL}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RR}^d`$ cases here.

Focusing effect comes from two sources. Firstly, renormalization group evolution of $`C_{7,8}`$ from $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ to $`\overline{\mu }_\mathrm{W}`$ reduces the overall amplitude of these coefficients. NLO QCD matching of them at $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ brings further suppression. Secondly, gluino contribution to the mass matrix of down-type quark shows remarkable alignment with the dominant Wilson coefficients at $`\mu >0`$, which is taken into account by including the leading NLO SUSY–QCD corrections at $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ as described in the previous section. This considerably reduces the LO gluino contribution to $`C_{7,8}^{()}`$. This alignment is enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and dominates the focusing effect in the figure at $`\mu >0`$. At $`\mu <0`$, the SUSY–QCD corrections cause anti–alignment instead, which competes with the overall suppression by renormalization group evolution and results in small focusing ( or de–focusing ) in the figure. Some NLO suppression of SUSY contribution already exits in MFV as shown in FIG. 1, however, flavor mixing is essential for the focusing effect with GFM as described above. More detailed discussion can be found in reference .

## V Relaxation of Constraints on SUSY and FV Terms

The introduction of GFM changes the whole picture of $`bs\gamma `$ constraint on SUSY parameters. Therefore, the focusing effect has strong implication on analysis of SUSY models beyond MFV. We again illustrate this in CMSSM. FIG. 3 shows contour–plots of $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ in the $`m_{1/2}`$ and FV–term plane. Here, we choose the CMSSM parameters as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, $`A_0=0`$ and $`m_0=500`$ GeV. The upper left (middle) window is for $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ at $`\mu <0`$ ($`\mu >0`$). The light (dark) blue bands show allowed regions within the $`1\sigma `$ ($`2\sigma `$) experimental error. Outside of these regions is labeled as ’excluded’. Comparing the plot at $`\mu <0`$, remarkably wider allowed–regions at $`\mu >0`$ roughly measure an impact of the focusing effect. It is worth to comment that the ’excluded’ region between the two bands is very shallow and small reduction of experimental value ( for example, if we do not include the recent BaBar data ) easily accommodates most of this region with $`2\sigma `$ error except for small $`m_{1/2}`$ part. Similar NLO-level relaxations exist in the plots for $`\delta _{RL}^d`$ (upper right) and $`\delta _{RR}^d`$ (lower right). These plots are almost symmetric about the FV–terms because new gluino contributions appear in $`C_{7,8}^{}`$ and contribute to the branching ratio quadratically without interfering the MFV contributions in $`C_{7,8}`$. In these cases, new contributions always come constructively and almost all of the region in the plot is not allowed at $`\mu <0`$ , which is omitted in the figure. In the case of $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ ( lower left and middle windows ), the strong suppression of gluino contribution is rather unclear because of a new chargino contribution generated by coexisting SU(2)–related GFM among up-type squarks. In these plots, $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ seems to be more sensitive to $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RL}^d`$ than $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RR}^d`$. However, it should be noted that natural scale of $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ ($`\delta _{RL}^d`$) is suppressed by $`m_b/M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}\text{ }<O\left(10^2\right)`$ in Eq. (4), where we follow the definitions widely used in the literature. Even though the focusing effect considerably reduces the gluino contribution generated by GFM, the branching ratio still shows strong dependence on $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ and $`\delta _{LR}^d`$ because of the interference between the gluino contributions and the MFV contributions to $`C_{7,8}`$. In addition, the new chargino contribution is present in the $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ case. We can read the lower bound of $`m_{1/2}`$ in MFV as $`m_{1/2}\text{ }>200`$ ($`600`$) GeV at $`\mu >0`$ ($`\mu <0`$). However, FV–term of $`\left|\delta _{LL}^d\right|0.05`$ ( $`\left|\delta _{LR}^d\right|0.01`$ ) could easily remove (or double) this bound, which is not necessary considered as a fine tuning. This is more striking at $`\mu <0`$, where the focusing effect is not so obvious. On the other hand, this bound does not change much with $`\delta _{RR}^d`$ or $`\delta _{RL}^d`$ if $`\delta _{RR}^d\text{ }<0.4`$ and $`\delta _{RL}^d\text{ }<0.015`$, where the focusing effect plays crucial role in relaxing the constraints. This means that NLO-level calculation is essential to test flavor models, for example, based on SO(10) SUSY GUT, which tend to have large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## VI Conclusions

We have analysed $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ in MSSM with general flavor mixing including leading NLO corrections within the SM operator basis, assuming the common mass scale, $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for squarks and gluino. We have identified the NLO focusing effect, which reduces the gluino contribution to $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ relative to that with LO matching condition. This effect leads to a considerable relaxation of the constraints on flavor mixing terms, especially for $`\delta _{LR}^d`$. Including the focusing effect, we have shown in CMSSM that $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ is still very sensitive to $`\delta _{LL}^d`$ and $`\delta _{LR}^d`$. The lower bound for $`m_{1/2}`$ obtained in MFV can be easily removed by them even at $`\mu <0`$, while it is rather stable against $`\delta _{RR}^d`$ and $`\delta _{RL}^d`$. NLO-level calculation appears to be essential in analysis of SUSY models beyond MFV with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This calls for a future complete NLO calculation of $`BR\left(BX_s\gamma \right)`$ in supersymmetry which could be applicable in more general circumstance.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank P. Gambino and T. Blazek for helpful comments.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Water inevitably present at the surface of biological macromolecules and self-organized assemblies plays a critical role in the structure, stability and function of these systems . However, the layer of water that surrounds these systems is rather thin, typically 1-3 layers thick. Thus, the study of hydration layer has turned out to be rather difficult. Dielectric relaxation studies measure the collective response of the whole system and, therefore, are not a sensitive probe of the dynamics of the hydration water. NMR techniques (NOE and NMRD) have the required spatial resolution but lack the dynamic resolution. Neutron scattering techniques are beginning to be applied to study the dynamics of hydration layer in these systems . Solvation dynamics may be a reasonably good probe because it can have both the temporal and spatial resolution , yet it provides only a collective response. In this circumstance, computer simulation can play a very important role in understanding the nature of the hydration water.

As the hydration layer is spatially heterogeneous even on a molecular length scale and because the microscopic interactions are quite complex, a purely analytical study of this system is prohibitively difficult. In order to capture some of the basic physics of the dynamics in such systems, a model in terms of a dynamic exchange between bound and free water molecules  has been proposed. The bound water molecules are those which are singly or doubly hydrogen bonded to the protein or to the surface of a self assembled aggregate while the free water molecules are not. The microscopic dynamical event is an exchange between these two states of water within the hydration layer. The model predicts the emergence of a slow decay when the binding energy is high. In this limit, the time constant of the slow decay is just the inverse of the rate of bound to free transition. Although this model has been semi-quantitatively successful in explaining wide range of behavior, the basic assumption of the existence of bound and free water molecules remained unsubstantiated.

In addition to the above, bound and free water molecules give a convenient way to categorize the water molecules in the hydration layer. The bound molecules can be further sub-divided into two categories – singly hydrogen bonded or doubly hydrogen bonded. We shall denote these two by IBW1 and IBW2, respectively. Free water molecules are denoted by IFW (interfacial free water).

Recently, we have presented several studies aimed at understanding various aspects of interfacial water . These studies were based on detailed atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of an anionic micelle, CsPFO (Cesium pentafluorooctanoate). These studies have confirmed the existence of slow water and ion dynamics in the interfacial region. We have also studied the lifetime of hydrogen bonds that the water molecules form with the micellar polar head groups (PHG) and found that it becomes considerably longer than that between two water molecules in the bulk.

In the present work, we have extended our previous study to investigate in detail, the equilibrium structure of the interfacial water. Our study has clearly revealed (we believe for the first time) that the water at the interface of CsPFO consists of three different species – IBW2, IBW1 and IFW, in the ratio, 1.1:8:0.9, i.e., the bound to free water ratio is 9:1. This large ratio is a signature of the highly polar character of the anionic micelle.

## 2 Results

As the details of the simulation have been discussed elsewhere , we directly proceed to the discussion of the results. Figure 1 illustrates the average geometries adopted by IBW1 and IBW2 water species. The figure is not just an illustration – we have given all the details about average bond lengths and the bond angles calculated from the simulation. There are features which are absent in IBW1 but present in IBW2, such as a well-defined distance between the water and the second (non-bonded) oxygen of the polar head group. This feature at 4.7Å is prominent for IBW2 water molecules but absent for IBW1. An examination of the full distribution of bond lengths and bond angles, and not just their averages, show that the environment around bound water species is, in general, more well defined relative a water molecule in pure water.

In figure 2 we present the monomer energy distribution, for all the three species, as also for water molecules in the bulk. It is seen that the interfacial water molecules have peaks at lower energies – the doubly bonded species (IBW2) have the lowest potential energy. It is also worth noting that the bound water molecules have considerably lower energy values than the the free water molecules. It is this enhanced stability which makes the bound species identifiable, even when they are transient because of the dynamic exchange between the free and bound species. A large part of this stabilisation comes from the stronger hydrogen bonds that bound water molecules form with the surfactant head groups.

In figure 3 we provide a schematic of the free energies of the three species, calculated from their average concentrations. Despite the reduced monomer energy arising out of two water-headgroup hydrogen bonds, the IBW2 state is less stable than the IBW1 state due to entropic considerations (less number of suitable configurations). The reversible reactions between these states of water on such a surface should determine the dynamical response of interfacial water.

Note that figure 3 describes the free energy and not the binding energy of the three species. The binding energy can be inferred from figure 2. The total binding energy of the IBW2 species is indeed larger than IBW1.

## 3 Conclusions

In conclusion we note that the existence of identifiable bound and free water molecules on the surface can indeed help in developing a phenomenological description of dynamics of water at complex interfaces. The 9:1 ratio obtained (for IBW and IFW) is expected to be typical for ionic micelles. However, this ratio is bound to decrease substantially for proteins due to the existence of hydrophobic and less polar amino acid groups in its surface. The water on the protein/membrane surface is expected to play a critical role in the molecular recognition of hydrophobic patches by incoming ligands or drug molecules. Work in this direction is under progress.

This work is supported by grants from the Department of Science and Technology and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, to both SB (JNC) and BB (IISC.).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1: Schematic description of the environment around bound interfacial waters, (a) IBW1, and (b) IBW2. Numerical values of the geometrical parameters are average values obtained from the MD run. Water molecules and surfactant headgroups are rigid entities in the interaction model. PHGO denotes the oxygen atom of the polar head group of the surfactant, and PHGC denotes the carbon atom in the head group. WO and WH denote the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of the interfacial water, respectively. The broken lines between PHGO and WH denote the hydrogen bond.

Fig. 2: Distribution of monomer energies of interfacial water molecules (solid lines) compared to that of bulk water (dashed line). Solid lines from right to left represent the data for IFW, IBW1, and IBW2 species, respectively.

Fig. 3: Schematic description of the free energy (solid line) and internal energy (dashed line) profiles of the interfacial water species. The species are in dynamical equilibrium with themselves and with water present in the bulk region of the micellar solution. The reaction coordinate is arbitrary and does not imply any distance. Barrier heights too are arbitrary.


text:
# Quantum locking of mirrors in interferometers

thanks: Unité mixte de recherche du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure et de l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie (January 6, 2003)

## Abstract

We show that quantum noise in very sensitive interferometric measurements such as gravitational-waves detectors can be drastically modified by quantum feedback. We present a new scheme based on active control to lock the motion of a mirror to a reference mirror at the quantum level. This simple technique allows one to reduce quantum effects of radiation pressure and to greatly enhance the sensitivity of the detection.

Quantum noise of light plays an important role in the sensitivity limits of optical measurements such as gravitational-wave interferometers. A gravitational wave is detected as a phase difference between the two optical arms of a Michelson interferometerBradaschia90 ; Abramovici92 . The detection is limited by two fundamental noises, the phase noise of the laser beam which leads to an error in the measurement of the arm’s length, and the intensity noise which induces displacements of the mirrors via radiation pressure. Both noises are conjugate and the sensitivity at a given frequency can be optimized by choosing the light intensity so that phase and radiation-pressure noises are equalCaves81 ; Braginsky92 .

Since the mechanical response of a mirror depends on frequency, its sensitivity to radiation pressure is also frequency dependent. For a suspended mirror the mechanical response decreases with frequency and radiation-pressure noise is dominant at low frequency, whereas phase noise is dominant at high frequency. Optimization of both noises is then obtained at only one frequency. This behavior can be changed by using non classical states of lightBraginsky92 ; Jaekel90 ; McKenzie02  at the expense of a larger complexity of the system in order to generate and to adapt squeezed states to the interferometerKimble02 .

We present in this paper a new technique to increase the sensitivity in interferometers, based on a reduction of radiation-pressure noise by active control of the mirror motion. This alternative approach does not rely on the use of non classical state of light and has little impact on the system complexity.

Active control can indeed efficiently reduce classical noise, as, for example, thermal fluctuations in cold-damped mechanical systems Milatz53 ; Grassia00 , but also the quantum back-action noise of a measurementWiseman95 . A cold-damping technique has been implemented in optomechanical systems to reduce the thermal motion of a mirrorMancini98 ; Cohadon99 ; Pinard00 , and it can in principle be used in a quantum regime to cool the mirror temperature down to zeroCourty01 .

We show that a feedback control can lock a mirror with respect to the position of a less noisy reference mirror, thus reducing the radiation-pressure noise in the interferometer. This quantum locking increases the sensitivity bandwidth at low frequency without degrading performances at high frequency where phase noise is dominant.

The basic setup is shown in Fig. 1. The interferometric measurement is made by a single Fabry-Perot cavity which can be considered as one arm of a gravitational-wave detector. The signal induces a variation $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ of the cavity length which is detected by sending a light field $`a`$ in the cavity. We focus on the active control of a single mirror of the cavity, namely, the end mirror $`m`$ in Fig. 1. The mirror motion is measured by a second light beam $`b`$ interacting with a short cavity made of the mirror $`m`$ and a reference mirror $`r.`$ The result of the measurement is used to apply a correcting force on the mirror.

The ultimate sensitivity of a gravitational-wave interferometer is determined only by quantum noise of light. Classical noises such as seismic or thermal noises can in principle be eliminated and will not be considered in the following. Quantum fluctuations of field $`a`$ at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are described by the quantum annihilation operator $`a\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$, whereas the mean field is given by a complex amplitude $`\alpha `$ normalized in such a way that $`\left|\alpha \right|^2`$ corresponds to a photon flux Reynaud92 . For a lossless single-ended cavity resonant with the laser field, the incident, intracavity, and output mean field amplitudes can be taken as real. It is then convenient to describe quantum fluctuations by the amplitude and phase quadratures $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ corresponding to the real and imaginary parts of the operator $`a`$,

$`a_1\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$ $`=`$ $`a\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+a^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$ (1)
$`a_2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(a\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]a^{}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\right).`$ (2)
Noise spectra of incident quadratures $`a_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`a_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$ for an incident coherent state are

$$\sigma _{a_1a_1}^{\mathrm{in}}=\sigma _{a_2a_2}^{\mathrm{in}}=1,\sigma _{a_1a_2}^{\mathrm{in}}=0,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma _{a_ia_j}^{\mathrm{in}}`$ is defined as the quantum average of the symmetrized product of operators $`a_i^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`a_j^{\mathrm{in}}`$,

$$a_i^{\mathrm{in}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]a_j^{\mathrm{in}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\right]=2\pi \delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\right)\sigma _{a_ia_j}^{\mathrm{in}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right].$$
(4)
For frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ smaller than the cavity bandwidth, the amplitude quadrature is left unchanged by the cavity ($`a_1^{\mathrm{out}}=a_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$), whereas the input-output phase shift is proportional to the variation $`X_\mathrm{m}+X_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ of the cavity length ($`X_\mathrm{m}`$ is the displacement of mirror $`m`$)Courty01 ,

$$a_2^{\mathrm{out}}=a_2^{\mathrm{in}}+2\xi _\mathrm{a}\left(X_\mathrm{m}+X_{\mathrm{sig}}\right).$$
(5)
The optomechanical coupling parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ is related to the intracavity mean field amplitude $`\alpha `$, to the cavity finesse $`_\mathrm{a}`$ and to the wavevector $`k_0`$ of the light,

$$\xi _\mathrm{a}=2k_0\alpha \sqrt{2_\mathrm{a}/\pi }.$$
(6)
The interferometric measurement provides an estimator $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ of the signal obtained by a normalization of the output phase $`a_2^{\mathrm{out}}`$ as a displacement \[eq. (5)\]. $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ is the sum of the signal $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ and extra noise terms,

$$\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_2^{\mathrm{out}}=X_{\mathrm{sig}}+\frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}a_2^{\mathrm{in}}+X_\mathrm{m}.$$
(7)
The first noise term is related to the incident phase noise $`a_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$, and the second corresponds to unwanted variations of the cavity length through the motion of mirror $`m`$.

The determination of the interferometer sensitivity thus requires one to know the motion of mirror $`m`$. For a free interferometer (no control cavity and no feedback) the evolution of the velocity $`V_\mathrm{m}=i\mathrm{\Omega }X_\mathrm{m}`$ is governed by the radiation pressure of the intracavity field $`a`$ whose fluctuations can be expressed in terms of the incident amplitude quadrature $`a_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$,

$$Z_\mathrm{m}V_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_1^{\mathrm{in}},$$
(8)
where $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ is the mechanical impedance of mirror $`m`$. In the frequency band relevant for a gravitational-wave interferometer, the suspended mirror can be considered as a free mass with a mechanical impedance $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ related to the mirror mass $`M_\mathrm{m}`$ by

$$Z_\mathrm{m}i\mathrm{\Omega }M_\mathrm{m}.$$
(9)
The sensitivity of the measurement is described as an equivalent input noise $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ equal to the spectrum of noises added in the estimator $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ \[eq. (7)\]. For a coherent input light one gets

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}{\left|\mathrm{\Omega }\right|^2\left|Z_\mathrm{m}\right|^2}.$$
(10)
The first term is a measurement error due to phase noise, and the second term corresponds to the mirror motion induced by radiation pressure. As shown in curve a of Fig. 2, phase noise is dominant at high frequency with a flat frequency dependence, whereas radiation pressure is dominant at low frequency with a $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }^4`$ dependence. To reach a good sensitivity at high frequency one has to choose a large optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$, but the analysis bandwidth is reduced at low frequency by the increase of radiation pressure.

For a given optomechanical coupling $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ the sensitivity is optimized only at a frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{sql}}`$ where contributions of both noises are equal. This optimization leads to the so-called standard quantum limit (sql) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{sql}}`$ given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{sql}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}{M_\mathrm{m}}},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{sql}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{sql}}^2}}.`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{sql}}`$ corresponds to the minimum noise reachable at a given frequency by a proper choice of the optomechanical coupling (curve d of Fig. 2).

The addition of a feedback loop allows one to suppress radiation-pressure effects by freezing the motion of mirror $`m`$. The measurement with the control cavity, of course, has its own quantum limit which has to be taken into account in a quantum analysis of the controlled interferometer, as well as the motion of the reference mirror $`r`$ induced by the radiation pressure of beam $`b`$. The control cavity indeed measures the position $`X_\mathrm{m}`$ of mirror $`m`$ with respect to the position $`X_\mathrm{r}`$ of the reference mirror $`r`$. The phase shift $`b_2^{\mathrm{out}}`$ at the output of cavity $`b`$ is given by

$$b_2^{\mathrm{out}}=b_2^{\mathrm{in}}+2\xi _\mathrm{b}\left(X_\mathrm{r}X_\mathrm{m}\right),$$
(13)
with an optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ for cavity $`b`$ defined in the same way as $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ \[eq. (6)\].

The measurement of the output phase provides an estimator $`\widehat{V}_\mathrm{m}`$ for the motion of mirror $`m`$, proportional to the output quadrature $`b_2^{\mathrm{out}}`$ and normalized as a velocity. We choose a feedback force applied on mirror $`m`$ proportional to this estimatorCourty01 ,

$$F_{\mathrm{fb}}=Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\widehat{V}_\mathrm{m}=Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}b_2^{\mathrm{out}},$$
(14)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ is the transfer function of the feedback loop.

The motion of mirror $`m`$ now depends on radiation pressures from both cavities and on the feedback force, whereas the motion of mirror $`r`$ depends only on the radiation pressure of field $`b`$,

$`Z_\mathrm{m}V_\mathrm{m}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_1^{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_1^{\mathrm{in}}+F_{\mathrm{fb}},`$ (15)
$`Z_\mathrm{r}V_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_1^{\mathrm{in}},`$ (16)
where $`Z_\mathrm{r}`$ is the mechanical impedance of mirror $`r`$. The resulting motion of mirror $`m`$ is obtained from Eqs. (13) to (15),

$`\left(Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\right)V_\mathrm{m}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{a}a_1^{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$ (17)
$`+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\left(V_\mathrm{r}{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}}b_2^{\mathrm{in}}\right).`$
Combined with Eqs. (7) and (16) one gets the estimator $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ for the interferometric measurement with feedback,

$`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{sig}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{a}}}a_2^{\mathrm{in}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}{Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}}b_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }\left(Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\right)}}\left(\xi _\mathrm{a}a_1^{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_\mathrm{r}Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}{Z_\mathrm{r}}}\xi _\mathrm{b}b_1^{\mathrm{in}}\right)`$
The first effect of the control is to change the dynamics of mirror $`m`$ by adding a feedback-induced impedance $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ to the free mechanical impedance $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ \[compare left parts of eqs. (8) and (17)\]. The influence of radiation-pressure effects due to the interferometer is modified both for the mirror velocity and the signal estimator. The associated noise \[term proportional to quadrature $`a_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$ in eq. (18)\] is reduced for a large feedback gain, without changing the phase noise (term proportional to quadrature $`a_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$).

The second effect of the control is to add fluctuating forces to mirror $`m`$. The second term in Eq. (17) corresponds to the radiation pressure of beam $`b`$ acting on mirror $`m`$. The last terms are associated with the presence of the feedback loop and correspond to noises in the control measurement, due to either the phase noise of beam $`b`$ (term proportional to $`b_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$) or the motion of the reference mirror $`r`$. As a consequence, the estimator $`\widehat{X}_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ exhibits additional fluctuations related to the incident quadratures $`b_1^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`b_2^{\mathrm{in}}`$ of beam $`b`$.

We show now that it is possible to adapt both the optomechanical coupling $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ of the control cavity and the feedback gain $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ in order to obtain a large increase of the interferometer sensitivity. The optimization relies on a complete elimination of the radiation-pressure noise due to the interferometer.

The underlying mechanism can be understood in the limit of a very large feedback gain ($`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\mathrm{}`$) in which case the error signal $`b_2^{\mathrm{out}}`$ of the feedback loop is reduced to zero. Apart from the phase noise of beam $`b`$, the mirror $`m`$ is then locked on the reference mirror $`r`$ \[see eq. (13)\] and its residual motion no longer depends on radiation pressure in the interferometer. It is related only to error noises in the measurement by the control cavity.

The equivalent input noise of the interferometric measurement is obtained from Eq. (18),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}+\frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}{\left|\mathrm{\Omega }\right|^2\left|Z_\mathrm{r}\right|^2}.$$
(19)
It only exhibits the phase noises of both beams and radiation-pressure effects on the reference mirror $`r`$. The locking of mirror $`m`$ leads to a transfer of quantum noise from the control measurement to the interferometric one. The two last terms in Eq. (19) indeed correspond to the equivalent input noise for the measurement by the control cavity \[compare to eq. (10) with $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ replaced by $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`Z_\mathrm{m}`$ by $`Z_\mathrm{r}`$\].

This quantum transfer is shown in curve b of Fig. 2, obtained with a reference mirror of same mass as the mirror $`m`$ ($`Z_\mathrm{r}=Z_\mathrm{m}`$) and with an optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ equal to $`\xi _\mathrm{a}/5`$. At low frequency where radiation-pressure noise is dominant, the mirror $`m`$ reproduces the motion of the reference mirror induced by radiation pressure of beam $`b`$. Since the control measurement is less sensitive ($`\xi _\mathrm{b}<\xi _\mathrm{a}`$), radiation-pressure effects of beam $`b`$ are smaller than the ones of beam $`a`$ and the transfer of quantum noise leads to a clear reduction of noise. As compared to the free interferometer case (curve a), the equivalent input noise $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ is reduced at low frequency by a factor $`\left(\xi _\mathrm{b}/\xi _\mathrm{a}\right)^2`$ equal to $`1/25`$ in Fig. 2 and which can be freely adjusted by changing the intensity of beam $`b`$.

For an infinite feedback gain this behavior is offset by the phase noise at high frequency which is increased by the reverse factor. The frequency dependence of the noise is thus similar to the free interferometer case except that it is displaced along the standard quantum limit.

The loss of sensitivity at high frequency can easily be avoided by using a frequency dependent feedback gain. For a finite gain the equivalent input noise is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}}+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}{Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}}`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left|Z_\mathrm{m}+Z_{\mathrm{fb}}\right|^2}}\left(\xi _\mathrm{a}^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{Z_\mathrm{r}Z_{\mathrm{fb}}}{Z_\mathrm{r}}}\right|^2\xi _\mathrm{b}^2\right)`$
The feedback gain $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}`$ can be adapted in such a way that the control is active at low frequency, whereas it plays no significant role at high frequency. It is then possible to have an important reduction of radiation-pressure effects by quantum transfer without losing the high sensitivity of the interferometric measurement at frequencies where it is limited by phase noise. Focusing on the case of two mirrors of equal masses ($`Z_\mathrm{r}=Z_\mathrm{m}`$), one can derive the optimum feedback gain $`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}^{opt}`$ which gives the minimum noise at every frequency,

$`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}^{opt}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mathrm{m}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _\mathrm{a}^2}{2\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{fb}}\right)^4}},`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{fb}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}\xi _\mathrm{b}^2}{M_\mathrm{m}}}.`$ (22)
$`Z_{\mathrm{fb}}^{opt}`$ is large at low frequency and quickly decreases for frequencies larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{fb}}`$. Apart from a factor $`\sqrt[4]{2}`$, this cutoff frequency corresponds to the sql frequency of the control cavity \[eq. (11) with $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ replaced by $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$\].

The resulting noise $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{sig}}`$ is shown in curve c of Fig. 2. It exhibits a very clear reduction of radiation pressure effects while the limitation by phase noise is identical to the case of a free interferometer. The controlled interferometer is actually equivalent to a free interferometer with a frequency dependent optomechanical coupling equal to $`\xi _\mathrm{a}`$ at high frequency and to the much smaller value $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ at low frequency. It also compares with a free interferometer whose mirror mass is increased by a factor $`\left(\xi _\mathrm{a}/\xi _\mathrm{b}\right)^2`$ that is $`25`$ times the weight in the case of Fig. 2.

In the intermediate frequency range between the sql frequencies of the control cavity and of the interferometer, the noise stays near the standard quantum limit and even goes down below. In contrast with the free interferometer for which the standard quantum limit is reached at only one frequency, the sensitivity of the controlled interferometer is very close to the optimum in a large frequency domain between the two sql frequencies.

Finally, note that for a complete interferometer this local control has to be applied to each sensitive mirror of the interferometer, namely, the four mirrors of the Fabry-Perot cavities. The control, however, requires a less sensitive measurement than the interferometer itself, and its implementation seems easy to achieve with currently available technologyRempe92 ; Cohadon99 . Taking, for example, the parameters of the Virgo interferometer ($`15`$ $`kW`$ light power in each Fabry-Perot arms with a global finesse of $`600`$)Bradaschia90 , the optomechanical parameter $`\xi _\mathrm{b}`$ of Fig. 2 would correspond to a control cavity of finesse $`10^4`$ with an incident light power of $`5`$ $`mW`$ only.

In a practical implementation the optimum feedback gain has also to be approximated by an electronic transfer function. Although one can use the powerful methods already developed for servo controls in gravitational-wave interferometers, this approximation is not to be stringent since a simple first-order low-pass filter is sufficient to observe the reduction of radiation-pressure noise.

In conclusion, a local control of mirror motion by an optomechanical sensor and a feedback loop allows one to efficiently reduce the radiation-pressure effects in an interferometric measurement. The low frequency sensitivity is improved without alteration in the high frequency domain, thus increasing the interferometer bandwidth. This result shows that active control is a powerful technique to reduce quantum noise. As compared to other methods, an essential characteristic of this control is to be decoupled from other optimizations of the interferometer. Its local implementation does not induce any additional constraint on the interferometer parameters.


text:
# A BeppoSAX Observation of the IC1262 Galaxy Cluster

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of nonthermal emission in galaxy clusters, in the form of a radio halo in Coma (Willson, 1970), there has been a debate about the nature of its origin. Jaffe (1977) demonstrated that although Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) in clusters could explain the numbers of relativistic electrons observed, this model could not explain their ability to diffuse through the entire cluster within their short ($``$108 yr) radiative lifetime. Holman, Ionson, & Scott (1979) proposed that primary electrons are able to diffuse at velocities greater than the Alfvén velocity and therefore could diffuse from point sources throughout the ICM within their radiative lifetime. There has also been some discussion that secondary electrons could explain the diffuse relativistic electron population. Secondary electrons are produced in proton-proton interactions from a population of relativistic protons (Dennison, 1980), which have a relatively long radiative lifetime ($``$1010 yr) (Blasi, 2001). The majority of authors, however, have looked to in-situ re-acceleration models from MHD turbulence or shocks (Eilek & Henriksen, 1984, for example) to explain diffuse nonthermal emission from clusters. Mergers are the most popular theory for the origin of these shocks, since they provide the energy needed to produce a radio halo (Tribble, 1993; Burns et al., 1994; Burns, 1998), and are able to transport electrons via bulk flows (Roettiger, Burns, & Stone, 1999).

Rephaeli (1979) correlated synchrotron emission to X-ray emission by demonstrating that cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons will inverse Compton scatter (ICS) off relativistic electrons, and emerge in the X-ray regime. The relationship between the X-ray and radio flux is determined by the strength of the cluster magnetic field. With only $``$30 clusters known to have radio halos (Giovannini & Feretti, 2000, and references therein), and three hot, rich clusters: Coma (Fusco-Femiano et al., 1999), A2256 (Fusco-Femiano et al., 2000), and A2199 (Kaastra et al, 1999), and one group: HCG 62 (Fukazawa et al., 2001), with detected nonthermal X-ray emission, it is difficult to constrain the current models. Detection of nonthermal emission in hot clusters is complicated because the X-ray emission is dominated by thermal emission in the 0.5 to 25 keV energy band, which is why the Phoswich Detection System (PDS) has been required to make nonthermal X-ray detections in hot clusters. In cool clusters, such as IC1262 ( kT $``$2keV), any nonthermal emission should be detectable in the 1.5 - 10.5 keV range and observable in the Middle Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS), which unlike the PDS, has spatial capabilities. Therefore, cool clusters provide an opportunity to add additional constraints, because the spatial information from the MECS can be used to constrain the regions of nonthermal emission, and reduce the chances of contamination by AGNs.

The IC1262 galaxy cluster (also Zwicky Cluster 1728.5+4353) is a poor cluster of galaxies at a red-shift of z = 0.0343 (Colless et al., 1999), so that an angular distance of 1$`\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to 60 h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ kpc. The cluster is so-named because it is dominated by the X-ray bright cD galaxy, IC1262 (z = .0328 (Wegner et al., 1999)). The cluster was observed by the HRI in March 1997 for $``$26 ksec, and BeppoSAX in February 1999 for $``$100 ksec. Trinchieri & Pietsch (2000) analyzed the HRI data, mainly focusing on the cD galaxy.

Throughout this letter, we assume a Hubble Constant of H0 = 50 h50 km s-1 Mpc-1 and q0 = $`\frac{1}{2}`$. Quoted confidence intervals are at a 90% level, unless otherwise specified.

## 2 Observations and Methods

In order to produce a smoothed image from the MECS data, we first needed to create an exposure map. The SAXDAS program, effarea, uses a point-source Ancillary Response File (ARF) and a surface brightness profile (SBP) to produce a MECS ARF for a concentric, on-axis region of radially symmetric, extended emission. See Fiore, Guainazzi, & Grandi (1999) for details about this procedure. We obtained an on-axis, point-source ARF from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) web-site and used the HRI data to create a SBP. Using effarea, we created 12 ARFs for concentric regions with a width (inner to outer radius) of 0$`\mathrm{}`$.5 ($`\frac{1}{2}`$ of the 50% power radius \[PR50\] of the MECS \[1$`\mathrm{}`$.2 at 6.4 keV) (Fiore, Guainazzi, & Grandi, 1999)\]. We assumed a linear response between channel number and energy bin and used the 12 concentric ARFs to create an exposure map for a circular region with a 6$`\mathrm{}`$ radius. We wrote an algorithm based on the detector and sky pixels of the MECS2 source data to transform the MECS2 background events data from detector pixels to sky pixels. This algorithm produced an error of no more 3 pixel sky coordinates for the MECS2 source data, corresponding to an error of $``$0$`\mathrm{}`$.4, which is much smaller than the MECS PR50 of 1$`\mathrm{}`$.2 at 6.4 keV (Fiore, Guainazzi, & Grandi, 1999). We created a smoothed X-ray flux map (Figure 1) from the MECS2 events data (limited to the 1.5 - 10.5 keV range), using the corrected MECS2 background file (blank sky, taken at high galactic latitude) and ARF created exposure map. The 6$`\mathrm{}`$ circular region contains the majority of cluster X-ray emission, while avoiding problems associated with the Beryllium window support structure (Boella et al., 1997), and also limits the number of Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty cm (FIRST) survey (White et al., 1997) in our extraction region to seven. Figure 1 also includes contours from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey NVSS data (Condon et al., 1998) which was smoothed with a Gaussian equal to its beam width of 45$`\mathrm{}`$, giving a resolution of $``$64$`\mathrm{}`$, and the Digital Sky Survey (DSS) image of the cluster.

We obtained BeppoSAX Low Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS), MECS2, and MECS3 cleaned event files, from the ASI web-site, and extracted spectral files from these source event files. We used the 6$`\mathrm{}`$ on-axis spectral background files provided at the ASI web-site. Using the procedure described above, we created a MECS ARF for a 6$`\mathrm{}`$ region of extended emission using effarea. We used the on-axis Redistribution Matrix File (RMF), available for the MECS at the ASI web-site.

In the case of the LECS, we created an ARF and RMF by considering our extended region to be numerous point sources, and using a procedure similar to Ettori et al. (2000). The program, lemat, creates an ARF and a RMF for off-axis point-source observations of the LECS. We used lemat to create ARFs and RMFs for $``$45 regions with 18 or more counts, and then created a count weighted ARF and RMF for the entire region.

Since the MECS2 and MECS3 extraction regions are identical, we fit them with all components tied. However, since they have different responses, we fit them as separate files, rather than merging them. Normalization cross calibration between the MECS2 and MECS3 is generally good ($``$3%) according to the ASI web-site, but varies between the LECS and MECS depending on the position of the centroid (Fiore, Guainazzi, & Grandi, 1999). We, therefore, kept the normalizations between the LECS and MECS untied, even though the extraction regions were identical.

We used the HRI to determine the X-ray flux from the seven FIRST sources with in our 6$`\mathrm{}`$ extraction region. Since we were looking for point sources in a region with extended X-ray emission, it was important to subtract both X-ray background and local, diffuse emission. For our seven FIRST sources, we used 8$`\mathrm{}`$ regions to determine the source count rate. In order to determine the proper background plus diffuse emission we extracted seven 8$`\mathrm{}`$ regions that were the same distance from the center of the diffuse emission as the source region. The one exception to this was the cD galaxy, which is very close to the center of the emission($``$2$`\mathrm{}`$) (see Figure 1, FIRST source 1). In order to determine the background and diffuse emission in the vicinity of this source we used six 8$`\mathrm{}`$ regions adjacent to the 8$`\mathrm{}`$ source region. Unfortunately, there are no detections above the 3$`\sigma `$ level in the HRI for any of the FIRST sources, so that the HRI cannot provide constraints on their X-ray flux.

We also used the HRI to identify possible X-ray sources that had not been detected in the current radio observations (i.e. radio quiet AGN). Using algorithms to determine point sources in diffuse regions can be dangerous, because it is difficult to account for the diffuse emission. Since we are looking for significant fluctuations in a field that is $``$106 square pixels, significance means $`>`$1 in 106 which is $``$5$`\sigma `$. Therefore, we argue any identifiable X-ray source should be visible above the X-ray background and diffuse emission. In fact, we identified the same three sources identified by Trinchieri & Pietsch (2000), only one of which (identified by Trinchieri & Pietsch (2000) as USNO-A1.0 source U1275\_09534024) is in our 6$`\mathrm{}`$ extraction region. Since this source is close to the center of the diffuse emission ($``$0.9$`\mathrm{}`$), we used six regions adjacent to our extraction region to determine the X-ray background plus local diffuse emission behind this source.

## 3 Results and Analysis

We fit the spectra with multiple component models (Table 1). Figure 2 shows the plot of the single mekal (Mewe, Groenschild, & van den Oord, 1985; Mewe, Lemen, & van den Oord, 1986; Kaastra, 1992; Liedahl, Osterheld, & Goldstein, 1995) fit. Residuals are visible in the high end of the MECS data. Although a two component mekal model gives the best fit to the data, the high temperature component is unconstrained, and the two temperatures overlap within the 90% confidence range, meaning that at the 90% confidence level, this model is consistent with a single temperature. In addition, by examining the temperature-luminosity relationship found by Horner et al (2000), we find that the high temperature component produces a luminosity not consistent with its best fit temperature. Our two component mekal model gives a luminosity of (1.1 - 31.9) $`\times `$ 1042 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ ergs s-1 for the best fit temperature of 2.88 keV, which is well below the luminosity $``$(1.6 - 2.0) $`\times `$ 1044 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ ergs s-1 predicted by Horner et al (2000) for this temperature. Only the best fit temperature is considered, rather than the 90% confidence range, because the 90% upper limit is unconstrained and the 90% confidence lower limit overlaps the low temperature component.

The addition of a power law component to the data gives a similar improvement to the fit (ftest probability = 90% that power-law is needed)(Figure 3), and gives a thermal luminosity of (2.2 - 51.6)$`\times `$ 1042 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ ergs s-1 for the best fit temperature of 1.95 keV, which is consistent with the results of Horner et al (2000) (($``$46 - 52) $`\times `$ 1042 h$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ ergs s-1). The best fit temperature is used in comparing the two models (considering a temperature range will only extend the error bars so that the two luminosities will still overlap). Our nonthermal detection in the MECS is at the 2.78$`\sigma `$ level, and gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ = 0.4 - 2.8 with a flux of (3.4 - 25.7) $`\times `$ 10-13 ergs cm-2 s-1 over 1.5 - 10.5 keV. The large range of flux is because of the large uncertainty in both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ and the normalization.

In order to confirm that the nonthermal emission is diffuse, we used the HRI observation to try to determine the X-ray flux from point sources in our 6$`\mathrm{}`$ extraction region. As discussed earlier, the seven FIRST sources were not detected in the HRI, so that we have no constraint on their X-ray emission. U1275\_09534024, however, was detected at the $``$5$`\sigma `$ level in the HRI, but the lack of spectral information in the HRI data precludes the analysis of U1275\_09534024’s spectrum. We assumed a power law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ equal to our best-fit value of 1.7, in order to see if it is a possible source of our nonthermal detection. Without an identification the possibility exists that this source is variable in the X-ray. Since it is impossible to resolve it with the LECS or the MECS to determine its X-ray emission during the BeppoSAX observation, we can only assume that its X-ray flux does not vary above the 3$`\sigma `$ level. We subtracted the X-ray background and diffuse emission from the HRI observation and determined that the flux from U1275\_09534024 is (0.1 - 10.2) $`\times `$ 10-13 ergs cm-2 s-1 over 1.5 - 10.5 keV. Although this result falls within the 90% confidence range of the measured nonthermal emission, we point out that Trinchieri & Pietsch (2000) noted that U1275\_09534024’s X-ray-to-optical flux ratio is only marginally consistent with an AGN, and is more consistent with a star. Therefore, it may not be producing any nonthermal emission at all.

## 4 Diffuse Nonthermal Emission

Using the ROSAT HRI observation of IC1262, and assuming our best fit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ of 1.7, we determine that U1275\_09534024 can account for the nonthermal emission we detected. However, there is additional evidence that there is diffuse nonthermal emission. By subtracting the point sources in NVSS and WENSS radio observations of our region, we find a radio excess of 154 mJy $`\pm `$7 at 1.4 GHz and 2301 mJy $`\pm `$41 at 0.33 GHz.

We note that the number of point sources detected in the Westerbork Northern Sky Survey (WENSS; 0.33 GHz) is different than the number in the NVSS(1.4 GHz), however this maybe due to AGN self-absorption at low frequencies. Considering a simple power-law fit to the radio excess, we find a energy index, $`\alpha _r`$1.8, which is consistent within 90% confidence to the result found with the X-ray observation ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ = 2.8). Examining the contour plot of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ versus normalization (Figure 4), we note that the normalization is much larger for steeper photon indices. In fact, if the photon index is frozen at 2.8, the best fit model predicts a flux of (6.2 - 29.2) $`\times `$ 10-13 ergs cm-2 s-1 over 1.5 - 10.5 keV. For this photon index, U1275\_09534024 cannot account for the flux we see.

Examining each of the nonthermal models more closely, we note that the temperature decreases for the addition of a free power law (see Table 1), and remains constant for the power law with a photon index constrained to the implied radio value ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ = 2.8). For a power law with a free spectral index, the high energy photons are fitted with the power law, which causes a reduction in the temperature. When the photon index is frozen at the radio implied value ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ = 2.8), the power-law provides a significant number of photons at low energies (in the MECS), preventing a decrease in the temperature. By freezing the power law at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 2.8, and its normalization to the 90% confidence lower-limit, the best fit temperature remains 2.23 keV. In this case, the power-law fit simply provides photons for the high energy band of the spectrum. If instead, the power-law normalization is frozen at its 90% confidence upper-limit, the steep power law dominates at low energies, forcing the best-fit temperature up to 2.27 keV. As with the other power-law models, the thermal model falls off at the high energy, where the power law begins to dominate again. The 90% confidence upper-limit for the normalization, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 2.8 seems physically implausible for several reasons: the implied B field is $`<`$0.1 $`\mu `$G (see Section 5 below), the MECS spectrum is dominated by the power law and not the thermal component, the best-fit abundance is very high ($``$0.95), and a steep power law with a relatively high flux should also be visible in the LECS. This implies that as with hot, rich clusters (such as Coma), a simple power law is probably not the best model for the nonthermal spectrum, but without more data, it is the only model we can construct.

## 5 IC1262’s Radio Halo

The strongest evidence of diffuse, nonthermal, radio emission comes from the excess radio emission found after subtracting point sources from the NVSS and WENSS observations. The 3$`\sigma `$ radio contour for the NVSS data in Figure 1, implies that the halo extends a distance of $``$6$`\mathrm{}`$ which corresponds to a distance of about 360 h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ kpc (radius $``$180 h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ kpc). Although relativistic electrons from the cD galaxy (FIRST source 1 in Figure 1) could be leaking out, traveling at their Alfvén velocity, they could only reach a distance of $`<`$8.0 h$`{}_{}{}^{1/4}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ kpc within their radiative lifetime ($``$108 years), implying that cosmic ray acceleration must occur in the intra-cluster medium.

Radio halos are usually on the order of 0.8 - 1.2 h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ Mpc (Feretti & Giovannini, 1996). The so-called mini-halos, which are similar in size to IC1262’s radio-halo ($``$200 kpc (Gitti et al, 2003)), are observed in cooling flow clusters dominated by cD galaxies (Gitti et al, 2003). Since cooling flows can be seen as an increase in surface brightness over the diffuse emission in the center of a cluster, we fit the radial profile (from the HRI data) of IC1262 to a $`\beta `$ model. Although a central peak was not explicitly visible in our fit to the surface brightness profile, a single $`\beta `$ model did not adequately fit the data. Adding a second component to the $`\beta `$ model reduces $`\chi ^2`$ by 30 for a reduction of two degrees of freedom. This model (see Figure 5) gives an inner core radius of 31$`\mathrm{}`$ \- 35$`\mathrm{}`$ (31 - 35 h$`{}_{50}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ kpc) with a $`\beta `$ = 0.48 - 0.52, and an outer core radius of 213$`\mathrm{}`$ \- 252$`\mathrm{}`$ (213 - 252 h$`{}_{50}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ kpc) with a $`\beta `$ = 0.30 - 0.76. Examining figure 5, we see that the central region dominates out to $`100`$ h50 kpc, which is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ the size of the radio halo. From this we conclude that the radio halo associated with IC1262 is not a mini-halo since it is much larger than the cooling flow.

In passing, we note that although the best fit $`\beta `$ for the outer core radius is 0.31, which is much flatter than expected for a cluster of galaxies, and is consistent with results found by Helsdon & Ponman (2000) for loose groups of galaxies, within our 90% confidence range, $`\beta `$ is consistent with the value of $``$0.66 associated with clusters of galaxies (Jones & Forman, 1984). We also point out that IC1262’s diffuse gas has a temperature of $``$2 keV, which is hotter than for for any known group ($``$0.3 - 1.8 keV (Mulchaey, 2000)), and that the outer core radius of $``$250 h50 kpc is typical for a cluster (Jones & Forman, 1984).

Following the method outlined in Henriksen (1998), and assuming a simple ICS power-law model ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ = 1.7), we determined the magnetic field for the 6$`\mathrm{}`$ extraction region. Using the nonthermal, X-ray flux, radio excess, and best-fit photon index, we find an average cluster magnetic field of 0.01 - 0.87 $`\mu `$G for the NVSS, and 0.04 - 1.0 $`\mu `$G for the WENSS. These magnetic fields are consistent with the typical range for an average cluster magnetic field (0.1 - 1.0 $`\mu `$G (Dolag et al., 2001)), providing more evidence to the existence of diffuse emission. The fact that the lower limits are $`<`$0.1$`\mu `$G implies that the nonthermal flux is probably less than the 90% confidence upper limit. Petrosian (2001), however has demonstrated that using models other than simple power laws for the radio emission, higher magnetic fields are possible in clusters such as Coma, even if the measured nonthermal X-ray flux is considered to be created via the ICS process.

## 6 Discussion

IC1262 is a poor, cool cluster that shows some evidence of nonthermal X-ray emission. While, a similar claim can be made for another low mass system, the compact group HCG 62, IC1262 is distinguished in that it shows evidence for a radio halo, where HCG 62 does not (Fukazawa et al., 2001). Currently, cluster mergers are the most popular model for the cosmic ray acceleration that leads to the production of diffuse nonthermal emission. IC1262 shows no direct X-ray evidence of a merger, such as elongated X-ray emission (as in the case of A754), or bi-modal X-ray morphology (as in the case of A1750). There is, however, optical evidence that the cluster may have undergone a merger. The cD galaxy has a red-shift of z = 0.0328 (9858 km s-1)(Wegner et al., 1999) compared to a red-shift of z = 0.0343 (10311 km s-1) (Wegner et al., 1999) for the cluster. This gives a peculiar velocity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$v, of 453 km s-1, which is $`>`$3$`\sigma `$ above the dispersion of peculiar velocities (168$`{}_{34}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+41}`$ km s-1) of cD galaxies found by Oegerle & Hill (2001). A line of sight merger could be the explanation for this unusually high peculiar velocity. In addition, Trinchieri & Pietsch (2000) analyzed the ROSAT HRI observation of IC1262 and found bright arc near the cD galaxy, which may indicate dynamic evolution of the cD galaxy due to a merger.

Our analysis has suggested that diffuse, nonthermal emission is associated with IC1262. We find a 2.78$`\sigma `$ detection in the MECS, but no detection in the LECS within 90% confidence. This lack of detection in the LECS is probably because it is not as sensitive to hard photons as the MECS. Although our 90% confidence in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ and normalization indicate that U1275\_09534024 could be the reason for our nonthermal detection, the radio implies the existence of diffuse nonthermal emission. When the diffuse radio excess is fit to a simple power law, it gives a spectral index, $`\alpha _r`$ $``$1.8. When we use the radio to confine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ to 2.8, then the nonthermal, X-ray emission can not be accounted for with point sources. We also reiterate that U1275\_09534024 may not even be emitting nonthermal, X-ray emission. A deeper radio observation will be able to confirm the existence of a radio halo and provide a spectral index that can be used to constrain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$. With a sensitivity up to $``$30 keV, the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer Proportional Counter Array(PCA) should be able to detect any diffuse, nonthermal, X-ray emission associated with IC1262, and also would be able to determine the variability, if any, of U1275\_09534024.

We would like to acknowledge and thank the National Science Foundation for its support and Dr. Tracy Clarke for her help with analysis of the radio data.