format: text

text:
# Photospheric radius expansion X-ray bursts as standard candles

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Type I X-ray bursts

Type I X-ray bursts (hereafter X-ray bursts, except when needed) in low-mass X-ray binaries are thermonuclear runaways in freshly accreted material on the surface of a neutron star (for a review see Lewin et al. 1993). The freshly accreted matter is compressed and heated, on a time scale of hours to days, to densities and temperatures adequate for thermonuclear ignition. Due to the strong temperature sensitivity of the nuclear reactions, the ignition nearly always results in a runaway process that leads to a sudden, rapid (between about 1 to 10 sec) increase in the X-ray flux. These X-ray bursts last generally for tens to hundreds of seconds, and recur with a frequency (partly) set by the supply rate of fresh fuel. The spectral hardening during the X-ray burst rise and subsequent softening during the decay reflect the heating and subsequent cooling of the neutron star surface. The X-ray spectra during the X-ray bursts are consistent with black-body emission from a compact object with a radius of approximately 10 km and temperature between 1 and 2.5 keV.

Spikes with similar duration in X-ray light curves have been seen in MXB 1730$``$335, also known as ‘The Rapid Burster’ (e.g. Lewin et al. 1993, and references therein; this source also shows type I X-ray bursts), and GRO J1744$``$28, or ‘The Bursting Pulsar’ (Lewin et al. 1996; Kommers et al. 1997), but these do not show the characteristics of type I X-ray bursts (in particular, the cooling during the decay). They are thought to be due to sudden accretion events and are referred to as type II X-ray bursts (Hoffman et al. 1978).

During some type I X-ray bursts the energy release is high enough that the luminosity at the surface of the neutron star reaches the Eddington limit. At that point the neutron star atmosphere expands due to radiation pressure. During expansion and subsequent contraction the luminosity is expected to remain almost constant near the Eddington limit. Since the luminosity scales as $`L_\mathrm{b}R^2T^4`$ for pure black-body radiation, the effective temperature, $`T`$, drops when the radius of the photosphere, $`R`$, expands. X-ray bursts with a photospheric radius expansion/contraction phase are therefore recognized by an increase in the inferred radius with a simultaneous decrease in the effective temperature near the peak of an X-ray burst, at approximately constant observed flux. The point at which the neutron star atmosphere reaches the surface again (i.e. at the highest effective temperatures) is called ‘touch-down’. When the expansion is large the temperature may become so low that the peak of the radiation shifts to the UV wavelengths, and no or little X-rays are emitted. Such photospheric radius expansion events (hereafter radius expansion bursts, except when needed) are recognizable by so-called ‘precursors’ in the X-ray light curves followed by a ‘main’ burst (Tawara et al. 1984; Lewin et al. 1984).

We note that, although the X-ray burst spectra seem to be adequately described by black-body emission, the ‘true’ emission from the neutron star and its close environment is expected to be more complex. Electron scattering dominates the opacity in the neutron star atmosphere, leading to deviations from the original Planckian spectrum (van Paradijs 1982; London et al. 1984, 1986; see also Titarchuk 1994; Madej 1997, and references therein). Similarly, electron scattering in a disk corona (e.g. Melia 1987) and/or winds or outflows from the neutron star surface interacting with the accretion disk (e.g. Melia & Joss 1985; Stollman & van Paradijs 1985) can affect the original X-ray spectrum.

### 1.2 A standard candle?

Shortly after the discovery of X-ray bursts, van Paradijs (1978) introduced the idea that the average peak luminosity of type I X-ray bursts is a standard candle, presumably the Eddington luminosity limit for the neutron star photosphere. With that assumption, approximate neutron star radii and distances could be derived for a sample of X-ray bursters. Scaling the derived distances so that they are symmetrically distributed around the Galactic center at $``$9 kpc, van Paradijs (1981) found the average peak (bolometric) luminosity to be 3$`\times `$1038 erg s-1. Van Paradijs (1981) realized that X-ray bursters residing in globular clusters are important calibrators, since their distances can be determined independently. Their peak luminosity agreed with the above quoted value of the average peak luminosity of Galactic center X-ray bursters. Verbunt et al. (1984) redid this work, based upon a more extensive sample of X-ray bursters. They found the average peak luminosity of X-ray bursters not located in globular clusters to be 3.5$`\pm `$1.0$`\times `$1038 erg s-1, when taking for the distance to the Galactic center a value of 8.5 kpc. For the X-ray bursters in globular clusters a luminosity value of 4.0$`\pm `$0.9$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 was derived, i.e. consistent with the above value. A ‘standard candle’ value of 3.7$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 was adopted. Cominsky (1981), on the other hand, assumed that the black-body radius is the same for all X-ray bursts and subsequently derived source distances and X-ray burst peak luminosities. Again scaling the average source distance to 9 kpc, peak luminosities between $``$1038 and $``$5$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 were found.

Van Paradijs (1978, 1981) cautioned, however, that in a few individual sources the scatter in the X-ray burst peak luminosity was appreciable. It was therefore suggested by Lewin (1982) to use instead only the brightest X-ray bursts. In this way the standard candle became $``$5.5$`\times `$1038 erg s-1. Of course, the problem arises that one does not know whether the strongest X-ray bursts observed are also the strongest ones possible. It seemed, however, that those X-ray bursts which showed clear photospheric radius expansion do reach a ‘true’ critical luminosity. But whether this critical luminosity is also a standard candle was still questioned (Basinska et al. 1984). If that would turn out to be the case one can in principle determine the distances to sources which show clear radius expansion bursts; for those sources whose X-ray bursts do not show a radius expansion phase we can still determine an upper limit to the distance using the maximum observed peak flux.

The thirteen persistent or transient luminous ($``$1036 erg s-1) X-ray sources in twelve globular clusters are all low-mass X-ray binaries (e.g. Verbunt et al. 1984; Hut et al. 1992; White & Angelini 2001; in ’t Zand et al. 2001b). All but one (AC 211 in NGC 7078) have shown type I X-ray bursts111During a recent outburst GRS 1747$``$312 in Terzan 6 showed type I X-ray bursts (in ’t Zand et al. 2002, in preparation)., proving they harbour neutron stars. Several of these X-ray bursts exhibited a photospheric radius expansion phase (see, e.g., Lewin et al. 1993, and references therein). We here show that the peak luminosity of radius expansion bursts from about two third of the X-ray bursters in globular clusters do indeed reach an empirical critical luminosity, and may be used as approximate standard candles for other sources.

## 2 Distances to 12 globular clusters

The distances to the twelve globular clusters have been re-evaluated for the purposes of this paper, to ensure that they are on an internally homogeneous system. We adopt the luminosity level of the horizontal branch (or equivalently the RR Lyrae stars) in the cluster as the fiducial distance indicator, following Harris (1996).

The three key observational quantities needed to deduce the distance are then the apparent magnitude of the horizontal branch, $`V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$, the foreground reddening, $`E_{BV}`$, and the metallicity, \[Fe/H\]. The best recent estimates for these are listed in Table 1, either from the catalog of Harris (1996)222The online catalogue of Milky Way globular cluster parameters was last revised on 1999, June 22 (see http://physun.physics.mcmaster.ca/Globular.html). or from the more recent literature as listed individually in the table.

The absolute calibration of distance follow the prescription adopted by Harris (1996), namely

$$(mM)_0=V_{\mathrm{HB}}M_V(\mathrm{HB})3.1E(BV)$$
(1)
where the absolute magnitude is a function of metallicity,

$$M_V(\mathrm{HB})=0.15[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+0.80.$$
(2)
We note that $`V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ and $`M_V(\mathrm{HB})`$ refer to the observed mean level of the horizontal branch stars, and not the (slightly fainter) level of the zero-age horizontal branch, $`M_V(\mathrm{ZAHB})`$. The uncertainties in $`V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$, $`M_V`$, and $`E(BV)`$ have been added in quadrature to get the final uncertainty in the distance modulus, $`(mM)_0`$. The dominant source of uncertainty is either the $`V_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ estimate or, for highly-reddened globular clusters, the uncertainty in the reddening. In some cases the errors are rather large; the last five clusters in Table 1 have formal distance uncertainties that are on the order of 30%.

In some other recent papers, a slightly steeper slope for the relation between $`M_V(\mathrm{HB})`$ and metallicity \[Fe/H\] is used (see, e.g., Chaboyer et al. 1998, where $`M_V(\mathrm{HB})=0.23`$ \[Fe/H\] + 0.83 is used). These relations are negligibly different from Eq. (2) for the range \[Fe/H\] $`>1`$ which covers most of our clusters, and at worst gives a difference of $``$0.1 magnitude in the distance modulus for the most metal-poor cluster in the list, a level which is within the current uncertainties in the absolute distance scale for globular clusters.

It is worth noting that the results for the distances in Table 1 ($`d`$-values in the last column) are consistent with the view that all these clusters, except for NGC 1851, NGC 6441 and NGC 7078, are within the Galactic bulge: they lie roughly in the direction of the Galactic center, and have distances in the approximate range 8$`\pm `$2 kpc which place them in the extended bulge region. Thus the very rough assumption that $`d8`$ kpc for all the clusters in our list, independent of other observational information about their individual distances, would not give a calibration of their X-ray burst luminosities that was grossly in error.

A strong correlation exists between the visual extinction, $`A_V`$, and the dust (and hydrogen) column densities, if there is no additional absorption within the binary itself: $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ \[cm-2\]/$`A_V`$=1.79$`\times `$1021 (Predehl & Schmitt 1995). In Fig. 1 we show $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ as derived from the optical extinction towards the globular clusters in Table 1 ($`A_V=3.1E(BV)`$) using the above relation, versus $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ as derived from the X-ray spectral fits to the globular cluster source spectra, see Table 2 (see also Sidoli et al. 2001). Most lie close to the correlation, except A1850$``$08/NGC 6712, XB 1733$``$30/Terzan 1, and XB 1745$``$25/Terzan 5. For these latter sources the discrepancy may be partly due to the X-ray continuum model used (XB 1733$``$30; see also Sidoli et al. 2001, Table 4), energy range used in the X-ray spectral fitting (XB 1745$``$25), or to intrinsic absorption near or in the binaries themselves.

## 3 Observations and analysis

For our investigation we analysed data obtained by the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) onboard Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) and the Wide Field Cameras (WFCs) onboard the ‘Satellite per Astronomia X’ (BeppoSAX). RXTE and BeppoSAX have been operational for more than five years, and have observed most of the bright globular cluster X-ray sources. We complement these with results reported in the literature.

### 3.1 RXTE/PCA

The PCA (2–60 keV; Bradt et al. 1993) combines a large collecting area (maximum of $``$6500 cm2) with high time resolution (down to $`\mu `$s). This is ideal to study spectral variations on short time scales, such as which occur during X-ray bursts. We inspected light curves from the publicly available RXTE database of globular cluster X-ray bursters (up to January 2002, using the RXTE Master Catalog) at 1 s time resolution using the data collected in the Standard 1 mode. If more than one X-ray burst from an individual source was found, we analysed the bright X-ray bursts (which presumably reach the highest luminosity and may exhibit photospheric radius expansion).

We (re)analysed the X-ray bursts seen by the RXTE/PCA, all in a similar way, using the latest information available on the response of the instrument at the relevant times. Data were recorded in various modes (apart from the two standard modes) at high time resolution. We used the data from the Burst Catcher (2 ms resolution; 4U 1722$``$30), Event (either 16, 125 or 500 $`\mu `$s; MX 0513$``$40, MXB 1730$``$335, 4U 1820$``$30, 4U 2129+12), or GoodXenon (4U 1746$``$37, H1825$``$331) modes. The two former modes provide data in 64 channels covering the whole PCA energy range, while the latter provide data in all 256 channels available. The GoodXenon modes data were stored for every 2 s; the high count rates reached during maximum of the X-ray bursts from 4U 1746$``$37 and H1825$``$331 therefore resulted in data losses near the end of the 2 s buffers. Spectra accumulated during these data losses were not taken into account. During the X-ray bursts reported here all Proportional Counter Units (PCUs) were on, except for MX 0513$``$40 (only PCUs 0,1,2,3 on) and 4U 2129+12 (only PCUs 0,2,3 on). We created time resolved spectra at 0.25 s resolution throughout the whole X-ray burst. For a uniform analysis and in order to have as many photons as possible we used information from all PCU layers and as many PCUs as possible. The count rate spectra were dead-time corrected and a 1% systematic uncertainty was included. The X-ray bursts seen from GRS 1747$``$312 (in ’t Zand et al. 2002, in preparation) were analysed in a similar way as the other X-ray bursts seen with the RXTE/PCA described here. During the observation of one of these X-ray bursts, used in our sample, only PCUs 0,2,3 were on.

### 3.2 BeppoSAX/WFCs

The WFCs onboard BeppoSAX are two coded aperture cameras (Jager et al. 1997). They point in opposite directions of one another and perpendicular to the Narrow-Field Instruments on the same satellite. The field of view of each WFC is 40 by 40 square degrees full-width to zero response with an angular resolution of about 5 arcmin in each direction. It is ideal to catch fast (seconds to minutes) phenomena at (un)expected places in the X-ray sky, such as X-ray bursts. Although it has a much lower collecting area (factor of $``$50 less than the RXTE/PCA), it has a much larger field of view (factor of $``$40 larger than the RXTE/PCA). Moreover, a large amount of time is devoted to the Galactic Center region (see, e.g., in ’t Zand 2001), so that a considerable part of the X-ray burster population is being monitored. In this paper we use those type I X-ray bursts from globular clusters which showed either long enough expansion/contraction phases (typically $`>`$10 s, see e.g., Cocchi et al. 2001), or X-ray bursts which had a short ($``$sec) expansion/contraction phase but which were bright, such as those from 4U 1820$``$30, so that we have enough signal to noise for a meaningful X-ray spectral analysis during that phase.

From the WFC data time resolved dead-time corrected spectra were determined for each X-ray burst. Different integration times were used, so that each spectrum had a similar signal to noise. This was 10 in most cases. For a few X-ray bursts from 4U 1722$``$30 and the only X-ray burst from 4U 2129+12, however, this resulted in only a few time resolved spectra in which case we could not determine whether it exhibited photospheric radius expansion or not. For these we lowered the signal to noise down to 5. The X-ray bursts from 4U 1820$``$30 typically last less than 25 s with rather short photospheric radius expansion phases (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Fig. 5); for the X-ray burst spectra from this source, therefore, we also used a signal to noise of 5.

We performed our spectral analysis (black-body radiation subjected to interstellar absorption) in the 3–20 keV energy band for the RXTE/PCA and 2–20 keV energy band for the BeppoSAX/WFC. For all the X-ray bursts seen with the RXTE/PCA and BeppoSAX/WFC, we subtracted the pre-burst persistent emission from the X-ray burst spectra (see e.g. Kuulkers et al. 2002, and references therein). The interstellar absorption, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, was fixed to the values given in Table 2. These values are mostly from the best fitting models (disk black-body plus a Comptonized component \[see Titarchuk 1994\]) to wide-band X-ray spectral data from the BeppoSAX/NFI of the persistent emission by Sidoli et al. (2001) and Parmar et al. (2001). However, MXB 1730$``$335 and XB 1733$``$30 were too faint in their observations used, whereas no BeppoSAX/NFI observations have been done for XB 1745$``$25. For MXB 1730$``$335 we, therefore, used the value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ from BeppoSAX/NFI results by Masetti et al. (2000), when the source was on, whereas for XB 1733$``$30 we used the value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ from power-law fit results to EXOSAT/ME spectra reported by Parmar et al. (1989); the latter value of NH is consistent with that reported from ROSAT/PSPC observations by Verbunt et al. (1995): 1.8$`\times `$1022 cm-2. For XB 1745$``$25 we used the persistent source spectrum in outburst as observed by the BeppoSAX/WFCs to constrain $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, see Appendix A; this value is also more or less consistent with that derived from ROSAT/PSPC observations by Verbunt et al. (1995): 2$`\times `$1022 cm-2. Finally, the uncertainties quoted from the X-ray spectral fits are 1 $`\sigma `$ errors, using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1`$.

### 3.3 X-ray spectral analysis

As noted in Sect. 1.1 the X-ray burst emission may not be entirely Planckian. Also, a different spectral model has an impact on the inferred bolometric luminosity. When determining the observed bolometric X-ray flux from our X-ray spectral fits we do not take this into account, even when the X-ray spectral fits are satisfactory. In principle an assessment of the observed bolometric X-ray flux using various spectral models is warranted (see e.g. Damen et al. 1990). However, since the ‘true’ X-ray burst emission is still rather uncertain, such an assessment will be somewhat elusive, and outside the scope of this paper. We, therefore, assume that the X-ray spectra at maximum flux are Planckian and that the unabsorbed bolometric X-ray flux may be determined using

$$F=\sigma T(R/d)^2,$$
(3)
where $`T`$ is the black-body temperature (or ‘color’ temperature), $`R`$ the neutron star photospheric radius, and $`d`$ the distance to the source.

### 3.4 Literature values

In Appendix B we give an account, focused on the bolometric X-ray burst peak fluxes, of all the X-ray bursts seen from globular cluster X-ray sources presented in the literature. These fluxes are also tabulated in Table 5. The fluxes per source are ordered per instrument. If an instrument did not see a radius expansion burst we give the maximum bolometric flux reached during a single X-ray burst, or a range in bolometric peak fluxes if there is more than one X-ray burst observed with an instrument. In the latter case sometimes also a value is quoted for individual (set of) X-ray bursts, i.e. either the maximum observed peak flux or the average bolometric peak flux of a subset. We note that errors are not always given in the literature.

### 3.5 Cross calibration of different instruments

It has been noted before that the spectral analysis of RXTE/PCA data of the Crab (pulsar plus nebula) results in observed fluxes which are about 20% higher than those derived from Crab data taken with other instruments (see e.g. Tomsick et al. 1999; Wilms et al. 1999; Kuiper et al. 1999; Barret et al. 2000). Although the calibration of the RXTE/PCA instrument has been improved, the absolute calibration has still not been optimized (see e.g. Jahoda 2000). We, therefore, analysed data sets of the Crab, in order to quantify the effect on our analysis. We created spectra using data recored by the Standard 2 mode, with either all PCUs, PCUs 0,1,2,3, or PCUs 0,2,3 summed. The analysis was done in the same way as described above for our globular cluster X-ray sources. Background was subtracted from the Crab spectra, which was estimated using the 2002, February 26 background models. For the spectral model of the Crab (pulsar plus nebula) we used a power law subjected to interstellar absorption:

$$N_{ph}=AE^\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{N_\mathrm{H}\sigma (E)},$$
(4)
where $`N_{ph}`$ is the flux in photons s-1 cm-2 keV-1, $`A`$ the normalization in photons s-1 cm-2 keV-1 at 1 keV, $`E`$ the photon energy, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the power-law photon index, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ the interstellar hydrogen column density, and $`\sigma `$ the photo-electric absorption cross section from Morrison & McCammon (1983). $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was fixed to 3$`\times `$1021 cm-1. Our spectral fit results to Crab data obtained on 2000, November 21 are shown in Table 3, together with the ‘canonical’ Crab X-ray spectrum, and the results from other X-ray instruments. For the instruments onboard SAS-3, Hakucho and Granat (with which X-ray bursts were seen and which were used in our investigation) we do not have X-ray spectral information regarding the Crab. The instruments onboard SAS-3 and Hakucho provided count rates in only a few energy channels. In those cases it seems likely that they were calibrated by using the ‘canonical’ Crab spectrum.

It is clear from Table 3 that the power-law normalization, $`A`$ (as well as the observed unabsorbed 3–20 keV flux, $`F_X`$), derived for the RXTE/PCA differs very significantly from those derived by other instruments. In order to account for this discrepancy we introduce a scale factor when modeling the observed count rate spectra (note that this results in a correction to the black-body flux and black-body radius, which we use in this paper). These scale factors were determined by comparing the absorbed Crab flux observed with the RXTE/PCA with the absorbed Crab flux estimated from the ‘canonical’ Crab spectrum, in the 3–20 keV band (i.e., the energy range used in this paper). This is, of course, a crude correction, since the Crab spectral shape (power law) differs from that of X-ray burst spectra (black body). The scale factors333These scale factors have not been taken into account when quoting previous RXTE/PCA results in Appendix B. are 1.242, 1.211 and 1.227, respectively, when all PCUs are used, only PCUs 0,1,2,3, or only PCUs 0,2,3. After taking into account the correction factors in our RXTE/PCA spectral analyses, the final bolometric X-ray burst peak fluxes are more comparable to those obtained with other instruments (see Table 5).

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Maximum bolometric X-ray burst peak fluxes

The spectral fit results for the (brightest) X-ray bursts of 8 globular cluster sources seen by the RXTE/PCA are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, for the short and long X-ray bursts, respectively. In Figs. 4 and 5 we show the light curves and spectral fit results for X-ray bursts from four globular cluster sources seen by the BeppoSAX/WFCs. In Appendix B we describe these results in more detail.

During all strong radius expansion bursts seen with the RXTE/PCA (4U 1722$``$30, 4U 1820$``$30 and 4U 2129+12) the spectral fits were rather poor during the photospheric radius expansion phase. Our goodness of fit, expressed in $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ reached values of up to 25 for 13 degrees of freedom (dof) for 4U 1722$``$30 (Fig. 3), up to 14 for 20 dof for 4U 2129+12 (Fig. 3), and up to 7 for 23 dof for 4U 1820$``$30 (Fig. 2). Also in the case of XB 1745$``$25 the spectral fits are somewhat poor during the photospheric radius expansion phase ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ of up to 2 for 18 dof; see Fig. 2). The high values of $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ were not reported by Molkov et al. (2000) and Smale (2001) in the former two sources, whereas it was reported for 4U 1820$``$30 (Franco & Strohmayer 1999). The values of $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ reduce somewhat if one uses smaller energy range in the spectral fits (as was done by Smale : 2.5–15 keV). In this respect it is interesting to note that in the early part of the X-ray burst (which contains the photospheric radius expansion/contraction phase) from A1850$``$08 black-body models did not provide acceptable fits, whereas they were acceptable during the cooling stage (Hoffman et al. 1980). In most of the cases the RXTE/PCA spectra exhibited residuals which were similar to that reported during the photospheric radius expansion phases of the strong X-ray burst from 4U 2129+12 seen by the Ginga/LAC (van Paradijs et al. 1990), the long X-ray bursts seen from GX 17+2 (Kuulkers et al. 2002), and the superburst from 4U 1820$``$30 (Strohmayer & Brown 2002). Additional components are necessary to improve the fits, such as a line and an edge feature (see Strohmayer & Brown 2002). Moreover, the emission during the X-ray burst may be non-Planckian (see Sect. 1.1). However, we are only interested in the maximum observed flux, which is most of the time reached near the end of the photospheric radius expansion phase where the spectral fits are good ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$$``$1). We note that some of the BeppoSAX/WFC spectral fits reached rather low values of $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ (down to about 0.5 for 23 dof). We ascribe this to a possible overestimate of the systematic uncertainties involved in the BeppoSAX/WFC analysis.

We recorded the peak bolometric black-body fluxes reached during the X-ray bursts in our sample, from the various spectral fits. The result can be found in Table 5, together with the results from the literature. Note that one expects the maximum flux to be approximately constant when radiating near the Eddington limit during the photospheric radius expansion stage. As shown above, in most cases this is not observed, and the maximum flux is often seen when the photospheric radius has shrunk back to its pre-burst value. This is only partly due to the fact that at large photospheric radii the temperature is low (typically $``$1 keV, see also Sect. 1.1). Most of the X-ray emission is then outside the observed energy range, making the bolometric correction uncertain (see e.g. Lewin et al. 1984; van Paradijs et al. 1990). Our observed peak values may therefore not represent the actual peak fluxes of the X-ray bursts, and some caution must be taken. Also, because of the different statistical quality of the data from different instruments, the accumulated spectra from which the peak fluxes are determined, may have different integration times. The averaged peak fluxes derived from the spectra with longer time bins may, therefore, be underestimated, when the photospheric radius expansion phase lasts shorter than the timebin or if there is appreciable variability during the photospheric radius expansion phase. However, we consider this effect to be small or even negligible for most of the X-ray bursts in our final sample.

### 4.2 Do X-ray bursts of one system reach the same peak flux?

The X-ray burst bolometric peak fluxes of the 24 radius expansion bursts from 4U 1722$``$30 seen by the BeppoSAX/WFC are shown in Fig. 6. They are consistent with one value ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$=0.64 for 23 degrees of freedom): the weighted average bolometric peak flux is 6.23$`\pm `$0.15$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. A similar analysis of 21 X-ray bursts seen by the BeppoSAX/WFCs from 4U 1820$``$30 showed 15 radius expansion bursts (see e.g. Fig. 5). Their bolometric peak fluxes are consistent with one value of 5.9$`\pm `$0.3$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$=0.82 for 14 degrees of freedom). This shows that the peak fluxes of the X-ray bursts from 4U 1722$``$30 and 4U 1820$``$30 are each compatible with a single value.

If one compares the results from different reports of the same X-ray burst(s), one sees that the reported bolometric peak fluxes are somewhat different (4U 1722$``$30, 4U 1820$``$30, A1850$``$08 and 4U 2129+12). When comparing bolometric peak fluxes in radius expansion bursts from different instruments, the differences are also apparent (4U 1722$``$30, 4U 1820$``$30 and 4U 2129+12). Since for multiple radius expansion bursts seen with the same instrument the bolometric peak fluxes were found to be more or less consistent with each other, we attribute it to the differences in the response matrices used (usually the calibration of an instrument improves with time), in the case of the same instrument, and to the differences in the absolute calibration, when comparing different instruments. This was shown to be the case for the RXTE/PCA where the calibration information is readily available (see Sect. 3.5).

### 4.3 Do X-ray bursts from different systems reach the same peak flux?

We derived the weighted average X-ray burst bolometric peak flux per source using the peak fluxes from individual or a subset of radius expansion bursts. The corresponding uncertainties are either the uncertainty in a single value or in the mean of two bolometric flux values from the same instruments, or the spread in the bolometric flux values from various instruments. This partly alleviates the calibration problems discussed above. The bolometric peak flux values used are indicated with a $``$ in Table 5. For those sources with multiple X-ray bursts for which no radius expansion burst has been observed (MXB 1730$``$335, XB 1733$``$30 and H1825$``$331), we used the highest observed bolometric peak fluxes; they are also indicated with a $``$ in Table 5.

The resulting bolometric peak fluxes are given in Table 2. Using the distances as given in the Table 1, we determine the corresponding bolometric peak luminosities (assuming isotropic emission). We propagate the errors in the distances and bolometric fluxes, assuming they are independent. In Fig. 7 we plot these peak luminosities. Two third of our sample show radius expansion bursts which reach a bolometric peak luminosity roughly between 1.5 and 7$`\times `$1038 erg s-1, with a weighted mean of 3.01$`\pm `$0.12$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 ($`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$=14.6 for 7 dof; assuming symmetric errors). Excluding 4U 1746$``$37 (whose radius expansion bursts reach a significantly lower peak value than most of the radius expansion bursts from the other sources; see also Sect. 5) we obtain a weighted mean value of 3.79$`\pm `$0.15$`\times `$1038 erg s-1, with $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$=2.9 for 6 dof (assuming symmetric errors). Thus, when taking the peak luminosities at face value, the hypothesis that the peak luminosities of X-ray bursts with photospheric radius expansion is the same for all sources must be rejected. Indeed, Fig. 7 shows that the peak luminosities of mainly MX 0513$``$40 and 4U 2129+12 are significantly different (excluding 4U 1746$``$37). Note that the peak luminosity reached during the X-ray burst of H1825$``$331 is close to the mean peak luminosity (Fig. 7); this confirms our suggestion from the spectral fit parameters that it was on the verge of showing photospheric radius expansion (see Appendix B.10).

## 5 Discussion

We find that the photospheric radius expansion type I X-ray bursts from bright X-ray sources in globular clusters reach an empirical bolometric peak luminosity (assuming the total X-ray burst emission is entirely due to black-body radiation and the recorded maximum luminosity is the actual peak luminosity) of roughly 3.8$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 (excluding 4U 1746$``$37, see also below). Because significant deviations from this value occur (e.g., 4U 2129+12) this only approximately confirms an earlier suggestion by Basinska et al. (1984) that radius expansion bursts reach a ‘true’ critical luminosity. Our value for the average bolometric peak luminosity is very close to the ‘adopted standard candle’ value of 3.7$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 by Verbunt et al. (1984) and comparable to the mean bolometric peak luminosity of 3.0$`\pm `$0.5$`\times `$1038 erg s-1 by Lewin et al. (1993) of X-ray bursts with photospheric radius expansion from only four globular cluster bursters (i.e., 4U 1722$``$30, 4U 1820$``$30, A1850$``$08 and 4U 2129+12).

To establish whether radius expansion bursts can be used as standard candles, one first has to verify whether the X-ray burst fluxes during every radius expansion burst in an individual source reach a single maximum value. Observations prior to RXTE and BeppoSAX revealed many (i.e., typically more than ten) radius expansion bursts in one globular cluster source, 4U 1820$``$30 (Vacca et al. 1986; Haberl et al. 1987; Damen et al. 1990; see Appendix B), and two sources outside globular cluster sources, MXB 1636$``$53 (Inoue et al. 1984; Damen et al. 1990) and MXB 1728$``$34 (Basinska et al. 1984). The bolometric peak fluxes were found to be the same within the errors in all three cases.

The BeppoSAX/WFCs observed many radius expansion bursts from the globular cluster sources 4U 1820$``$30 and 4U 1722$``$30. We find that the bolometric peak fluxes are also the same within the errors in both cases. A similar conclusion was reached from eight radius expansion bursts seen by the BeppoSAX/WFCs from one source outside a globular cluster, XB 1812$``$12 (Cocchi et al. 2000a). The more sensitive RXTE/PCA observations of especially MXB 1728$``$34 (e.g. van Straaten et al. 2001; Franco 2001) and MXB 1636$``$53 show, however, that the bolometric peak fluxes are not exactly constant, with standard deviations of $``$9.5% and $``$7%, respectively (Galloway et al. 2002a; 2002b). Similar studies in other sources but with less radius expansion bursts (between four to eight per source) indicate standard deviations between 7% and 15% (Muno et al. 2000; Kuulkers et al. 2002; Galloway et al. 2002a; 2002b). In the case of MXB 1728$``$34 it was found that the peak fluxes vary systematically on a monthly timescale; taking this secular variation into account the residual scatter is only $``$3% (Galloway et al. 2002a; 2002b).

For the globular cluster bursters MX 0513$``$40, XB 1745$``$25 and 4U 1746$``$37 only two radius expansion bursts were seen from one instrument. In all three cases similar peak fluxes within the errors were reached for both X-ray bursts (see Appendix B).

We note that two sources outside globular clusters, MXB 1659$``$29 (Wijnands et al. 2002) and EXO 0748$``$676 (Gottwald et al. 1986), showed very different peak fluxes during different radius expansion bursts. They both are viewed at a high inclination (e.g. Cominsky & Wood 1984; Parmar et al. 1986), so that, although the true critical luminosity probably is reached, the X-ray burst emission may be partly obscured by the accretion disk and/or donor star (i.e. the X-ray burst emission is anisotropic). This may lead to different observed maximum peak luminosities at different times. Note that this may also affect the peak luminosities during the radius expansion bursts from the globular cluster bursters 4U 1746$``$37 and GRS 1747$``$312, since they are also relatively high inclination systems (e.g. Sansom et al. 1993; in ’t Zand et al. 2000; see also Sztajno et al. 1987, who concluded from other grounds that the X-ray burst emission from 4U 1746$``$37 is probably anisotropic).

Excluding the high-inclination systems, we conclude that, since multiple radius expansion bursts in a single source reach the same maximum luminosity to within $``$10% and since the maximum luminosity is the same within $``$15% for different globular cluster sources, the ‘true’ critical luminosity can only be regarded as an approximate empirical standard candle.

In Fig. 7 we show in grey bands the range in the Eddington luminosity limit for matter with cosmic composition (X=0.73; lower band) and hydrogen-poor matter (X=0; upper band) for a (canonical) 1.4 M neutron star with a radius of 10 km. The upper and lower boundaries of each band is determined by the Eddington limit observed by an observer far away from the neutron star with very strong photospheric radius expansion and very weak photospheric radius expansion, respectively (van Paradijs 1979; Goldman 1979; see Lewin et al. 1993). Note that an increase in the neutron star mass shifts the band slightly upwards as well as substantially broadens it. A higher than canonical neutron star mass seems to be required in some models explaining the kHz QPO in neutron star low-mass X-ray binaries (see e.g. Stella et al. 1999; Stella 2001; Lamb & Miller 2001), and is derived dynamically for the low-mass X-ray binary and X-ray burster Cyg X-2 (Orosz & Kuulkers 1999). Our critical luminosity is close to the Eddington luminosity limit for hydrogen-poor matter. Therefore, our critical luminosity is most likely this Eddington limit (see also e.g. van Paradijs 1978).

Previously, ‘super-Eddington luminosities’ were reported for several sources in our sample (e.g. Grindlay et al. 1980; van Paradijs 1981; Inoue et al. 1981; see also Verbunt et al. 1984) and it was referred to as the ‘super Eddington limit problem’ (e.g. Lewin 1985). Winds or outflows from the neutron-star surface set-up by the high radiation pressure were introduced to resolve (part of) this problem (e.g. Melia & Joss 1985; Stollman & van Paradijs 1985). Our findings do not support super-Eddington luminosities, except possibly for 4U 2129+12 (note that 4U 2129+12 is consistent with the Eddington limit for hydrogen-poor matter if we assume e.g. a somewhat higher neutron star mass, see above). We attribute this mainly to a better knowledge of the distance and their uncertainties.

Five bursters (including GRS 1747$``$312) in our sample show bolometric peak X-ray burst luminosities near 1.5$`\times `$1038 erg s-1, which is comparable to the Eddington limit of matter with solar composition. Of these, only the sources 4U 1746$``$37 and GRS 1747$``$312 showed X-ray bursts with evidence for photospheric radius expansion; the maximum peak X-ray burst luminosity for the other sources could have been higher if radius expansion bursts were seen.

If there is a bimodal distribution of the bolometric X-ray burst peak fluxes it is consistent with the thought that the donors in systems with an ultra-short orbital period ($``$1 hr: MX 0513$``$40, H1825$``$331, 4U 1820$``$30, A1850$``$08; see Table 2) do not provide hydrogen, whereas the donors in systems with a longer orbital period (4U 1746$``$37, GRS 1747$``$312; see Table 2444The 17.1 hr orbital period found previously for 4U 2129+12 (Ilovaisky et al. 1993) is not attributed to the burster but to AC 211 (White & Angelini 2001).) do provide hydrogen-rich material (e.g. Nelson et al. 1986; Verbunt 1987; see also Juett et al. 2001). The short duration of the X-ray bursts from XB 1745$``$25 and 4U 1820$``$30 ($``$25 s) is consistent with the fuel being only helium (Bildsten 1995). However, the X-ray bursts with longer duration ($``$mins) from the other systems can not be accomodated this way (e.g. Fujimoto et al. 1981; Bildsten 1998, and references therein), unless the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star is rather low (see Bildsten 1995). On the other hand, we note that the Eddington limit of hydrogen poor matter may still be reached during long X-ray bursts if a hydrogen rich envelope is ejected during the photospheric radius expansion stage of a helium flash (Sugimoto et al. 1984).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Serge Molkov and Alan Smale for sending their X-ray burst spectral parameter fit results of 4U 1722$``$30 and 4U 2129+12, respectively, in numerical form, Giancarlo Cusumano for providing the X-ray spectral fit results on Crab observations with the BeppoSAX/MECS, Duncan Galloway for sharing some of the RXTE/PCA results on radius expansion bursts from non-globular cluster bursters, and Marten van Kerkwijk for providing comments on an earlier draft. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. The BeppoSAX satellite is a joint Italian and Dutch programme.

## Appendix A Interstellar absorption towards XB 1745$``$25

A value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ was reported for XB 1745$``$25 in Terzan 5 on the basis of ROSAT/PSPC observations (Verbunt et al. 1995): 2$`\times `$1022 cm-2. The BeppoSAX/WFCs observed XB 1745$``$25 through the various stages of its 2000 outburst for a net exposure of 761 ksec. The source was quite bright (about 0.5 Crab), allowing a good measure of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, since the absorption is already visible at $``$4 keV. We accumulated a dead-time corrected spectrum using data from WFC unit 2 obtained between UT 2000 August 8 20:44:38 to August 9 20:53:48, giving an effective exposure time of 31.4 ksec.

We fitted the WFC spectrum with similar models as used by Sidoli et al. (2001), as well as a black body plus a power-law. The fit results are displayed in Table 4. The disk black body plus Comptonization model provided the best fits, similar to the results by Sidoli et al. (2001). We therefore use the value of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ from this model for our analysis, see Table 2, which is somewhat higher than that found by Verbunt et al. (1995). The mean persistent flux was $``$1.16$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s (2–20 keV).

## Appendix B An account of all X-ray bursts seen from globular cluster bursters

In this appendix we give an account of all X-ray bursts reported previously, as well as those analysed by us. It is organized as follows: the first paragraph of each subsection describes the results from the literature, whereas in the second paragraph we describe our RXTE/PCA and/or BeppoSAX/WFC results (if present). At the end we summarize in Table 5 the bolometric peak fluxes for all the X-ray bursts; the peak fluxes used in our investigation are indicated with a $``$. The RXTE/PCA peak fluxes quoted from the literature are not corrected for the absolute RXTE/PCA calibration (Sect. 3.5). The correction has been applied to our derived peak fluxes from the RXTE/PCA data; in Table 5 we give between brackets also the uncorrected peak fluxes.

### B.1 MX 0513$``$40/NGC 1851

The first X-ray burst from MX 0513$``$40 was discovered by Uhuru (Forman & Jones 1976). It had a peak flux of about 0.5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, but the start of the X-ray burst was not seen. Five X-ray bursts were seen by SAS-3/HTC (see Li & Clark 1977), four of which had bolometric peak fluxes ranging from 0.9$`\pm `$0.3 to 1.7$`\pm `$0.3$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Cominsky 1981). More recently, an X-ray burst was seen with the Chandra/HRC-S (Homer et al. 2001). So far no radius expansion bursts had been reported.

The RXTE/PCA observed one short ($``$25 s) X-ray burst from MX 0513$``$40. It did not exhibit photospheric radius expansion. The BeppoSAX/WFCs observed eleven X-ray bursts from this source. The longest one is shown in Fig. 4. This X-ray burst showed a clear strong (factor $``$10) photospheric radius expansion phase; its bolometric peak flux of about 2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 is reached near touch-down (Fig. 5). Another X-ray burst showed some evidence for (weak; factor $``$2) photospheric radius expansion. This is the first time radius expansion bursts are reported from this source.

### B.2 4U 1722$``$30/Terzan 2

A long ($``$10 min) X-ray burst was observed from the direction of 4U 1722$``$30 by OSO-8 (Swank et al. 1977). It reached a peak flux of about 6.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. During the first 20 s of the event the black-body temperature was lowest, while the inferred black-body radius was 100$`{}_{20}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+60}`$ km (at 10 kpc). During the remainder of the X-ray burst the inferred black-body radius was 15$`\pm `$4.5 km (at 10 kpc). This indicates that it was a (strong) radius expansion burst. Other strong (factor $``$10) radius expansion bursts were seen by Granat/ART-P and RXTE/PCA (Molkov et al. 2000), whereas a weak radius expansion burst (factor $``$2) was reported from the Einstein/MPC (Grindlay et al. 1980). The RXTE/PCA event reached a bolometric peak flux of about 7.29$`\pm `$0.06$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, whereas the event seen with the Einstein/MPC reached a bolometric peak flux of about 5.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, both near touch down. Another X-ray burst was reported from BeppoSAX/NFI data; no clear photospheric radius expansion was observed. The peak flux was $``$5.0$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Guainazzi et al. 1998). The BeppoSAX/WFCs observed fourteen strong radius expansion bursts in the first three years of monitoring the Galactic Center region (Cocchi et al. 2000b). Another ten were seen in later observations, see below. The peak intensities of four of the fourteen X-ray bursts were consistent with each other, with a weighted mean of 1.01$`\pm `$0.03 Crab, which was extrapolated to a bolometric flux of 3.2$`\pm `$0.1$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. One of these X-ray bursts was analysed in more detail; from their spectral fits we infer that a bolometric peak flux of about 3.5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 was reached (note that Cocchi et al. 2001 quote a peak flux of 4.1$`\pm `$0.4$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1).

Our fit parameter values for the X-ray burst from 4U 1722$``$30 seen by RXTE/PCA (Fig. 3) are in agreement with those reported by Molkov et al. (2000). It is a very strong (factor $`>`$10) radius expansion burst; the maximum bolometric flux was reached near touch-down (Fig. 3). The BeppoSAX/WFCs observed a total of 24 X-ray bursts. Most of them have a ‘precursor’ event in the lightcurves (see e.g. Fig. 4), indicating strong photospheric radius expansion (see Fig. 5). All the X-ray bursts are radius expansion bursts. We found maximum bolometric peak fluxes between 5.4$`\pm `$0.6 and 8.4$`\pm `$1.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, with a mean value of 6.23$`\pm `$0.15$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (see also Sect. 4.1). For the X-ray burst analysed in detail by Cocchi et al. (2001; see above) we found a bolometric peak flux of 6.2$`\pm `$0.6$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. We attribute the difference with the lower flux reported by Cocchi et al. (2001) to an improved response matrix (in ’t Zand 1999; see also in ’t Zand et al. 2001a). Also, our values for the peak fluxes are comparable with those derived for other instruments. We therefore do not quote the earlier results obtained by the BeppoSAX/WFCs in Table 5.

### B.3 MXB 1730$``$335/Liller 1

MXB 1730$``$335 (The Rapid Burster) is a source which receives a lot of attention. It is a transient source; in the first weeks of an outburst it shows a phase during which only type I X-ray bursts are seen. The rest of the outburst is dominated by type II X-ray bursts, with occasionally a type I X-ray burst (Guerriero et al. 1999). Most authors focus on the phenomenology of the type II X-ray bursts. No radius expansion burst has so far been reported. The average type I X-ray burst peak flux is about 1.7$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (SAS-3; Marshall et al. 1979). For a more detailed account of the properties of MXB 1730$``$335 we refer to Lewin et al. (1993), Guerriero et al. (1999), and Masetti et al. (2000), and references therein.

We selected various (mostly) bright X-ray bursts observed by RXTE/PCA from MXB 1730$``$335, as reported by Guerriero et al. (1999) and seen in later outbursts. None of them showed photospheric radius expansion. The brightest X-ray bursts show typical bolometric peak fluxes in the range $``$1–2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, consistent with values reported previously. The fit results for one of the brightest X-ray bursts are shown in Fig. 2.

### B.4 XB 1733$``$30/Terzan 1

XB 1733$``$30 has been off for some time now (see e.g. Guainazzi et al. 1999). Only three short ($``$25 s) X-ray bursts have been reported in the past. Two X-ray bursts were discovered by the Hakucho/FMC (Makishima et al. 1981). They reached an average maximum peak flux of 7.4$`\pm `$1.0$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Inoue et al. 1981). Another X-ray burst was observed by Granat/ART-P; 3–5 s into the X-ray burst a bolometric peak flux of 6.3$`\pm `$0.8$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 was found (Pavlinsky et al. 2001). No photospheric radius expansion phase was reported.

### B.5 XB 1745$``$25/Terzan 5

Fourteen X-ray bursts from the transient XB 1745$``$25 were discovered by Hakucho (Makishima et al. 1981). The maximum peak flux was 6.1$`\pm `$0.7$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Inoue et al. 1981), but peak fluxes down to about 2.0$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 were reported (Makishima et al. 1981). During a recent outburst fifteen X-ray bursts were seen by the RXTE/PCA (Markwardt et al. 2000). No photospheric radius expansion and only modest cooling were reported.

We find that two of the X-ray bursts seen by the RXTE/PCA were much brighter than the other thirteen. Our analysis shows (for the first time) that they both have a weak (factor of $``$2) photospheric radius expansion phase and clear cooling during the decay (see Fig. 2). Maximum bolometric fluxes ($``$4.75$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1) are reached near touch-down. The weaker X-ray bursts did not show evidence for photospheric radius expansion.

### B.6 MX 1746$``$20/NGC 6440

Observations with the BeppoSAX/WFC and NFI of the transient MX 1746$``$20 during its second ever recorded outburst revealed four X-ray bursts (in ’t Zand et al. 1999). The bolometric peak flux during the first 12 s interval of the $``$100 s long X-ray burst seen with the NFI was 1.77$`\pm `$0.14$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. No evidence for photospheric radius expansion was seen.

### B.7 4U 1746$``$37/NGC 6441

Various X-ray bursts have been seen from the location of 4U 1746$``$37, i.e. by SAS-3/HTC (Li & Clark 1977; Cominsky 1981), EXOSAT/ME (Sztajno et al. 1987), Ginga/LAC (Sansom et al. 1993), BeppoSAX/NFI (Parmar et al. 1999) and RXTE/PCA (Jonker et al. 2000). One of the two X-ray bursts seen with the SAS-3/HTC had a peak bolometric luminosity of 0.50$`\pm `$0.17$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Cominksy 1981). The two X-ray bursts seen with EXOSAT/ME both showed weak (factor $``$3) photospheric radius expansion. Their peak fluxes were 1.0$`\pm `$0.1 and 0.9$`\pm `$0.1$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Sztajno et al. 1987). Sztajno et al. (1987) also performed a re-analysis of the two SAS-3/HTC X-ray bursts. They found 0.75$`\pm `$0.26 and 0.46$`\pm `$0.23$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, respectively.

Eight of the twelve X-ray bursts reported by Jonker et al. (2000) were bright. Our analysis shows that none of the X-ray bursts showed photospheric radius expansion. An example of the fit parameter results of one of the eight bright X-ray bursts is given in Fig. 2. The eight bright X-ray bursts reached bolometric peak fluxes in the range $``$0.4–0.6$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1.

### B.8 GRS 1747$``$312/Terzan 6

X-ray bursts from the transient source GRS 1747$``$312 were only recently found during an outburst (in ’t Zand et al. 2002, in preparation). One of these showed photospheric radius expansion of a factor of $``$5 with a bolometric peak flux of 2.10$`\pm `$0.07$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1.

### B.9 4U 1820$``$30/NGC 6624

4U 1820$``$30 was the first source seen to exhibit X-ray bursts (Grindlay et al. 1976). One of these two X-ray bursts seen by the ANS/HXX had a peak flux of about 6.5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (1–15 keV; re-analysis by Grindlay, private communication in Vacca et al. 1986). The 22 X-ray bursts seen by SAS-3/RMC (Clark et al. 1977) had a mean peak flux of 6.0$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (re-analysis by G.W. Clark, private communication in Vacca et al. 1986). A subset (five) of these X-ray bursts (Clark et al. 1976) showed a mean peak flux of 5.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (re-analysis by G.W. Clark, private communication in Vacca et al. 1986). Another subset (six) of the SAS-3/RMC X-ray bursts were analysed in more detail by Vacca et al. (1986). They concluded that the bolometric peak fluxes, which ranged from 3.9$`\pm `$0.2 to 5.3$`\pm `$0.4$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, were the same within the errors. The weighted mean peak value was 4.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, with an estimated uncertainty of about 10%, allowing for systematic errors. All six X-ray bursts showed photospheric radius expansion. EXOSAT/ME saw seven radius expansion bursts (Haberl et al. 1987). Individual flux measurements (0.25 s or 0.5 s resolution) during the photospheric radius expansion phase ($``$3 s duration) ranged from 3 to 8$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, whereas the average peak luminosity during this first 3 s ranged from 4.1 to 5.7$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, with a mean of 5.1$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. (Note that van Paradijs & Lewin (1987) used the results presented by Haberl et al. (1987) to derive a maximum flux during the photospheric radius expansion phase of 5.28$`\pm `$0.19$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1.) A re-analysis of the EXOSAT/ME X-ray bursts showed that the bolometric flux at touch down ranges between 4.3 and 5.0$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, with a mean of 4.65$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Damen et al. 1990). More recently, the RXTE/PCA observed a short ($``$25 s) X-ray burst (Zhang et al. 1998), which was also a radius expansion burst (Franco & Strohmayer 1999; see also Strohmayer & Brown 2002). Another very long ($`>`$2.5 hr) X-ray burst (so-called superburst), also seen with RXTE/PCA, showed strong photospheric radius expansion and reached a bolometric peak flux of 6.5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Strohmayer & Brown 2002).

Our analysis of the normal radius expansion burst seen by RXTE/PCA showed indeed strong photospheric radius expansion, by a factor of $``$20, see Fig. 2. Note the strong similarity with the X-ray burst seen from XB 1745$``$25, except for the brief stronger expansion in 4U 1820$``$30 (Fig. 2). The BeppoSAX/WFCs have seen many X-ray X-ray bursts from 4U 1820$``$30 (see. e.g. Fig. 4). From our analysis of 21 X-ray X-ray bursts we identified 15 radius expansion bursts (see e.g. Fig. 5). The maximum peak fluxes of all the radius expansion bursts do reach the same value of 5.9$`\pm `$0.3$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 with a $`\chi _{\mathrm{red}}^2`$ of 0.82 for 14 dof.

### B.10 H1825$``$331/NGC 6652

Two type I X-ray bursts were first observed by the BeppoSAX/WFC from the transient H1825$``$331 (in ’t Zand et al. 1998). A bolometric peak flux of about 0.8$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 was found over the first 16 s of each X-ray burst, which had exponential decay times of about 16 s and 27 s (2–8 keV). During a serendipitous ASCA observation Mukai & Smale (2000) found another X-ray burst. It reached a peak flux of about 0.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 during the first 30 s of the X-ray burst. No photospheric radius expansion was seen in both cases.

The RXTE/PCA observed a bright and a weak X-ray burst from H1825$``$331. No clear evidence for photospheric radius expansion is found, but we note that near maximum of the bright X-ray burst the black-body temperature shows a short ($``$1 s) and small dip, while the apparent black-body radius shows a small hump (Fig. 3). This might indicate that the event reached the Eddington limit, but that it was not strong enough to cause the photosphere to expand appreciably.

### B.11 A1850$``$08/NGC 6712

An X-ray burst with a peak intensity of about 1.5 Crab was observed from the vicinity of A1850$``$08 with OSO-8 (Swank et al. 1976). We note here that the peak intensity of the long X-ray burst from 4U 1722$``$30 observed by OSO-8 (see Sect. B.2) also reached 1.5 Crab (Swank et al. 1977). Assuming the X-ray burst spectra are similar during the peak (which may not necessarily be the case since the event from 4U 1722$``$30 showed photospheric radius expansion), one may infer a peak flux of about 6$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. An X-ray flare was reported by Cominsky et al. (1977) using data from Uhuru. It increased by a factor of 40 in less than 5.5 min. The next 16.7 min the intensity decreased with an exponential decay time of 3.1$`\pm `$0.4 min. It may have persisted for up to 78 min. The observed peak flux was about 0.6$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. Three X-ray bursts were seen with SAS-3/HTC, of which one showed a weak (factor $``$2) photospheric radius expansion (Hoffman et al. 1980; see also Cominsky 1981). Hoffman et al. (1980) found a bolometric peak flux of 6.0$`\pm `$0.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, whereas Cominsky (1981) report 5.2$`\pm `$0.5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 for the same X-ray burst. The bolometric peak flux we use in our investigation, as indicated with a $``$ in Table B, is the value derived by Cominsky (1981). The fluxes quoted by the Hoffman et al. (1980) are calculated from conversions from count rates to photon rates using a Crab-like spectrum, whereas those quoted by the former derive conversions using black-body spectra (see Cominsky 1981 for a more detailed discussion).

### B.12 4U 2129+12/NGC 7078

A very strong (factor $``$100) radius expansion burst was observed by Ginga/LAC from 4U 2129+12 (Dotani et al. 1990; van Paradijs et al. 1990). The bolometric peak flux was about 4.2$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1, with a conservative error of 0.1$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1. A less strong (factor $``$10) radius expansion burst was recently seen by RXTE/PCA, which reached a bolometric peak flux of 5$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 (Smale 2001). Many more X-ray bursts were identified in the RXTE/ASM data (Charles et al. 2002). A Chandra ACIS-S/HETG observation revealed that 4U 2129+12 is in fact composed of two bright sources, separated by only 2”.7 (White & Angelini 2001). One source, NGC 7078 X-1, is associated with AC 211, the other is identified as NGC 7078 X-2. NGC 7078 X-2 is the most likely source for the X-ray bursts.

Our reanalysis of the event seen by RXTE/PCA showed similar results (Fig. 3) as those reported by Smale (2001). We found a bolometric peak flux of $``$4$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1 near touch-down. The BeppoSAX/WFC also observed one X-ray burst (Figs. 4 and 5). However, no evidence for photospheric radius expansion was found, although it reached a comparable bolometric peak flux ($``$4$`\times `$10-8 erg cm-2 s-1) as seen during the strong radius expansion burst observed by Ginga/LAC and RXTE/PCA. Note that our method of subtracting the persistent pre-burst emission automatically also removes any contribution of AC 211/NGC 7078 X-1.


text:
# Soliton-dynamical approach to a noisy Ginzburg-Landau model

## Abstract

We present a dynamical description and analysis of non-equilibrium transitions in the noisy Ginzburg-Landau equation based on a canonical phase space formulation. The transition pathways are characterized by nucleation and subsequent propagation of domain walls or solitons. We also evaluate the Arrhenius factor in terms of an associated action and find good agreement with recent numerical optimization studies.

Phenomena far from equilibrium are widespread including turbulence in fluids, interface and growth problems, chemical and biological systems, and problems in material science and nanophysics. Here the dynamics of complex systems driven by weak noise, corresponding to rare events, is of particular interest in the context of e.g., nucleation during phase transitions, chemical reactions, and conformational changes in macromolecules. The weak noise limit is associated with a long time scale corresponding to the separation in energy scales of the thermal energy and the energy barriers between metastable states; the transition takes place by sudden jumps between metastable states followed by long waiting times in the vicinity of the states. The fundamental issue is thus the determination of the transition pathways and the associated transition rates.

A particularly interesting non equilibrium problem of relevance in the nanophysics of switches is the influence of thermal noise on two-level systems with spatial degrees of freedom, see Berkov (1998); Koch et al. (2000); Garcia-Ojalvo and Sancho (1999). In a recent paper by E, Ren, and Vanden-Eijden E et al. (2002) this problem has been addressed using the Ginzburg-Landau equation driven by thermal noise. These authors implement a powerful numerical optimization technique for the determination of the space time configuration minimizing the Freidlin-Wentzell Freidlin and Wentzel (1998) action and in this way determine the orbits and their associated action yielding the switching probabilities in the long time-low temperature limit. The picture that emerges from this numerical study is that of noise-induced nucleation and subsequent propagation of domain walls across the sample yielding the switch between the two metastable states.

In recent work we have addressed a related problem in nonequilibrium physics, namely the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation or the equivalent noisy Burgers equation describing for example a growing interface in a random environment. Using a canonical phase space method derived from the weak noise limit of the Martin-Siggia-Rose functional Martin et al. (1973); Baussch et al. (1976) or directly from the Fokker-Planck equation Fogedby (1999); Fogedby and Brandenburg (2002), we have in the one dimensional case analyzed the resulting coupled field equations minimizing the action. The picture that emerges is that the transition probabilities in the weak noise limit are associated with soliton propagation and nucleation resulting from soliton collisions.

In this letter we apply a soliton approach in the canonical phase space formulation to the noisy Ginzburg-Landau equation and attempt to account for some of the numerical results of E et al. We thus give analytical arguments for the propagation of noise induced domain walls or solitons, the nucleation events associated with domain wall creation and annihilation, and the associated time dependent action. Details of our analysis will be given elsewhere.

The noisy Ginzburg-Landau equation for a field $`u(x,t)`$ driven by white noise has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta u}}+\eta ,\eta (x,t)\eta (0,0)=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta (x)\delta (t),`$ (1)
with free energy

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(\left(\frac{u}{x}\right)^2+V(u)\right)}.`$ (2)
In the switching problem considered by E et al. E et al. (2002) $`V(u)`$ is given by the “Mexican Hat”double well potential

$`V(u)=k_0^2(1u(x)^2)^2.`$ (3)
with strength parameter $`k_0`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a kinetic transport coefficient setting the time scale.

The Ginzburg-Landau equation in its deterministic form has been used both in the context of phase ordering kinetics Bray and Rutenberg (1994) and in its complex form in the study of pattern formation Cross and Hohenberg (1994). In the noisy case for a finite system the equation has been studied in Maier and Stein (2001); see also an analysis of the related $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in Habib and Lythe (2000). In the present problem the noisy equation provides a generalization of the classical Kramers problem Hänggi et al. (1990) to spatially extended systems.

The equation admits a fluctuation-dissipation theorem yielding the stationary distribution $`P_{\text{stat}}\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{\Gamma }F/\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ . The equilibrium states follow from $`\delta F/\delta u=d^2u/dx^22k_o^2u(1u^2)=0`$, giving the two degenerate uniform ground states $`u=\pm 1`$ with $`F=0`$, as well as nonuniform domain wall solutions

$`u_{\text{dw}}(x)=\pm \mathrm{tanh}k_0(xx_0),`$ (4)
centered at $`x_0`$, connecting the two ground states. The associated free energy is

$`F_{\text{dw}}=4k_0/3.`$ (5)
Since the spectrum of $`\delta ^2F/\delta u^2=d^2/dx^22k_0^2(13u^2)`$ is positive for the ground states and has zero-eigenvalue Goldstone modes (translation modes) for the domain wall solutions, see e.g. Fogedby et al. (1985), we infer that the free energy landscape possesses two global minima at $`u=\pm 1`$ and a series of local metastable saddle points of free energy $`4nk_0/3`$, corresponding to n connected domain walls at positions $`x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}n`$.

In order to address the issue of noise-driven transitions in the Ginzburg-Landau equation (1) we apply the phase space approach developed for the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation Fogedby (1999); Fogedby and Brandenburg (2002). This method is based on a weak noise WKB-like approximation, $`P(\{u(x)\},t)\mathrm{exp}[S(\{u(x)\},t)/\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, applied to the Fokker-Planck equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/t=HP`$ for the transition probability $`P(\{u(x)\},t)`$, driven by the Hamiltonian or Liouvillian $`H(\{u(x)\},\{/u(x)\})`$. To leading order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the action or weight function $`S`$ then satifies the Hamilton-Jacobi equation $`S/t+H=0`$ with conjugate momentum or noise field $`p(x)=\delta S/\delta u(x)`$. Moreover, the underlying principle of least action $`\delta S=0`$ yields Hamiltonian equations of motion $`u/t=\delta H/\delta p(x)`$ and $`p/t=\delta H/\delta u(x)`$. We note that the equations of motion are identical to the saddle point equations in the Martin-Siggia-Rose functional formulation Martin et al. (1973); Baussch et al. (1976).

For the Ginzburg-Landau equation we then obtain explicitly the coupled deterministic field equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{^2u}{x^2}}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0^2u(1u^2)+p,`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{t}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{^2p}{x^2}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0^2p(13u^2),`$ (7)
derived from the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xp\left(p+2\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{^2u}{x^2}+4\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0^2u(1u^2)\right)}.`$ (8)
In the weak noise limit the transition pathways are determined by the orbits in the $`(u,p)`$ phase space from an initial configuration $`u_1(x)`$ at time $`t=0`$ to a final configuration $`u_2(x)`$ at time $`t=T`$. The conjugate field $`p`$ is a slaved variable representing the noise driving the system. Finally, the transition rate $`P(u_1u_2,T)\mathrm{exp}[S/\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is determined by the action, $`H=𝑑x`$,

$`S(u_1u_2,T)={\displaystyle _{u_1,0}^{u_2,T}}𝑑x𝑑t\left[p{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}\right],`$ (9)
associated with the orbit.

To linear order, the effect of the noise field $`p`$ is to impart a velocity to the static domain wall (4). This is seen by expanding $`u`$ and $`p`$ on the translation mode associated with the static domain wall, $`u_{\text{tm}}=(1/m)du_{\text{dw}}/dx`$, where the mass $`m`$ is to be determined. Setting $`u=u_{\text{dw}}+u_0u_{\text{tm}}`$ and $`p=p_0u_{\text{tm}}`$ and using $`(\delta ^2F/\delta u^2)_{u_{\text{dw}}}u_{\text{tm}}=0`$ we obtain from (6) and (7) $`du_0/dt=p_0`$ and $`dp_0/dt=0`$ with solutions $`u_0=p_0t`$ and $`p_0=\text{const}`$. Consequently,

$`u(x,t)u_{\text{dw}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0t}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\text{dw}}}{dx}}u_{\text{dw}}\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{p_0}{m}}t\right),`$ (10)
describing a domain wall of mass $`m`$ propagating with velocity $`v=p_0/m`$. With the above normalization of the translation mode the noise field $`p_0`$ is a momentum contributing to the total momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }=𝑑xup/x`$ (generator of translation)and thus canonically conjugate to the position $`x`$ of the domain wall. From $`𝑑x\mathrm{cosh}^4k_0x=4/3k_0`$ we infer the mass $`m`$. For the energy and action associated with the propagation of a single domain wall in time $`T`$ we then have

$`E_0={\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{2m}},S_0=T{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^2}{2m}},m={\displaystyle \frac{4k_0}{3}}.`$ (11)
This analysis generalizes directly to a dilute gas of connected non-overlapping domain walls. The noise $`p`$ then gives rise to individual velocities imparted to each domain wall and the energies, momenta, and actions simply add up.

In addition to the translation modes, time-dependent diffusive modes are also excited, corresponding to small Gaussian fluctuations about the local minima. In the neighborhood of $`u=\pm 1`$ it follows from (6) and (7) that $`u`$ and $`p`$ in a plane wave decomposition, $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$ evolve with time-dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }(k^2+4k_0^2)t)`$. About the local saddle points corresponding to domain wall propagation, the extended modes are phase shifted corresponding to the trapping of a localized deformation mode with time dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }3k_0^2t)`$ and the translation mode discussed above, see e.g. Fogedby et al. (1985).

The dynamical interpretation of the noise-induced switching in the Ginzburg-Landau equation is now clear. The transition from e.g. $`u=+1`$ to $`u=1`$ starts by nucleating a small region of size $`k_0^1`$ and then propagating a domain wall or walls, with superposed linear modes subject to energy and momentum conservation and topological constraints, until the whole system is in the $`u=1`$ state. The energy of the initial state is given by $`E=(1/2)𝑑xp^2`$, and the noise field thus has to be assigned initially in order to reach the switched state $`u=1`$ in a prescribed time $`T`$. For topological reasons the domain walls must nucleate and annihilate in pairs in general accompanied by absorption or emission of linear modes. Since the linear modes also carry positive action the dynamical modes with lowest action correspond to nucleation or annihilation of domain wall pairs with equal and opposite momenta, i.e., equal speeds.

In the case of periodic boundary conditions the momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }=𝑑xup/x`$ of the initial and final states is zero. The system is translational invariant and the formation and annihilation of one or several domain wall pairs moving with the same speed take place at equidistant positions along the axis. For fixed boundary conditions the translational invariance is broken and the momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is nonvanishing corresponding to nucleation and annihilation of domain walls at the boundaries. This general scenario of switching is completely consistent with the numerical analysis in E et al. (2002).

Switching a system of size $`L`$ in time $`T`$ by means of a single domain wall, corresponding to the pathway via the lowest local saddle point of the free energy at $`F_{\text{dw}}=m`$, the propagation velocity $`v=p_0/m=L/T`$ and we obtain the action $`S_1(T)=mL^2/2T`$ and associated transition probability $`P\mathrm{exp}(mL^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$. In the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, $`P0`$ as a result of the broken symmetry in the double well potential. At long times the action falls off as $`1/T`$. At intermediate times $`t`$ and positions $`x`$ we have $`P\mathrm{exp}(mx^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and we infer that the domain walls in the stochastic interpretation perform a random walk with mean square displacement $`2\mathrm{\Delta }t/m`$, corresponding to diffusive behavior.

In Fig. 1a we show a domain wall nucleating at the left boundary and propagating with constant velocity $`v=1/T`$ to the right boundary, where it annihilates. We have used the same parameter values as in E et al. (2002), i.e., $`\delta =\mathrm{\Gamma }=.03`$, $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0^2=\delta ^1`$, $`T=7`$, and a system size $`L=1`$. In Fig. 1b we have plotted the trajectory of the domain wall in space and time.

The switching can also take place by nucleating two domain walls at the boundaries. These then move at half the velocity $`v/2`$ and subsequently annihilate at the center. This process corresponds to the pathway via the local saddle point of the free energy at $`F_{\text{dw}}=2m`$, and the action is given by $`S_2(T)=2S_1(4T)`$. Snapshots of this process are shown in Fig. 2a and the corresponding space-time plot in Fig. 2b.

Combining the contributions from nucleation and the subsequent domain wall propagation, we can write a heuristic expression for the total action:

$`S_n(T)=nS_{\text{nuc}}+{\displaystyle \frac{mL^2}{2nT}},`$ (12)
where $`S_{\text{nuc}}`$ is the action for nucleating a single domain wall and $`n`$ is the number of walls. The action of nucleation is easily estimated from the Arrhenius factor associated with the Kramers escape from the ground state $`u=+1`$ to the saddle point in the free energy (2), i.e., $`P\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }F_{\text{dw}}/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. We thus obtain a nucleation action $`S_{\text{nuc}}`$ of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0`$. A more detailed argument, to be presented elsewhere, based on estimating $`S_{\text{nuc}}`$ from the equations of motion (6) and (7) and the action (9), yields for domain wall nucleation and annihilation

$`S_{\text{nuc}}6.5\mathrm{\Gamma }k_0.`$ (13)
In Fig. 3 we have plotted $`S`$ versus $`T`$ for $`n=16`$ domain walls using the parameter values in E et al. (2002). Choosing $`S_{\text{nuc}}`$ according to (13) we find excellent agreement with the numerical results.

As also discussed in E et al. (2002) we note that the switching scenario depends on $`T`$. At shorter switching times it becomes more favorable to nucleate more domain walls. In the present formulation this feature is associated with the finite nucleation or annihilation action $`S_{\text{nuc}}`$. This is evidently a finite size effect in the sense that the action at a fixed $`T`$ diverges in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to the broken symmetry.

In this letter we have presented a dynamical description and analysis of a specific non equilibrium transition in the noisy Ginzburg-Landau equation based on a canonical phase space formulation. We find good agreement both qualitatively and quantitatively with the numerical finding of E. et al. E et al. (2002) based on an optimization of the Freidlin-Wentzel action. The dynamical approach offers in the nonperturbative weak noise or low temperature limit an alternative way of determining dynamical pathways and the Arrhenius part of the associated transition rates.


text:
# Screening effects on ¹𝑆₀ pairing in neutron matter

## Abstract

The $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ superfluidity of neutron matter is studied in the framework of the generalized Gorkov equation. The vertex corrections to the pairing interaction and the self-energy corrections are introduced and approximated on the same footing in the gap equation. A suppression of the pairing gap by more than $`50\%`$ with respect to the BCS prediction is found, which deeply changes the scenario for the dynamical and thermal evolution of neutron stars.

Neutron superfluidity in neutron star matter though an old subject, is still of great actuality and vividly debated (for a review, see SCHUL ). The reason for this stems from the fact that superfluidity is an extraordinarily subtle process when it comes to quantitative predictions starting from the bare NN interaction. On the other hand for neutron stars, such quantitative predictions are necessary, since the manifestation of the superfluidity are only rather indirect through glitches and relaxation phenomena and cooling rates. One, therefore, lacks direct experimental information on the magnitude of neutron pairing. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the dynamics and the thermodynamics of neutron stars are strongly influenced by the superfluid character of neutron matter and it is therefore important to get pairing properties of neutron-star matter under better control from the microscopic point of view. Of course, neutron matter superfluidity is not completely decoupled from the one prevailing in finite nuclei. Though we have experimental information for these objects, also in this case the fully microscopic explanation of the observed phenomena is far from being completely settled. It may be argued that in finite microscopic systems, where the surface plays a very important role, the situation can be quite different from the homogenous case. However, like for other quantities of nuclear physics it should be possible to disentangle volume and surface effects also for pairing properties in finite nuclei and it is therefore our belief that the topic of superfluidity in neutron matter, nuclear matter and finite nuclei should be studied in an interrelated way.

In this work we again concentrate on neutron matter in pursuing previous studies. However, it is planned to parallel this work for nuclear matter in the near future. In the past we have mainly been concentrating on the influence of either dynamic self-energy corrections ZUO  (see also BAL ) or vertex corrections to the neutron matter pairing problem CTLI . All investigations in this direction invariably led to the conclusion that dynamic self-energy corrections yield a quite strong reduction of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ pairing in neutron matter. However, to be consistent, self-energy corrections have to be followed by vertex corrections on the same footing. This is the objective of the present investigation. It will be seen that the vertex corrections have tendency to further reduce the gap but to a lesser extent than that is the case from self-energy corrections. Our approach is based on the Gorkov Green’s function formalism where we develop systematically self-energy and effective pairing interaction to lowest order in the particle-hole bubble insertion. Though intuitively quite reasonable and physically motivated, we should mention that this is neither based on an expansion in a small parameter nor does it rely on some variational principle. None the less our results will be quite comparable to those of other works, notably to those of Clark et al. CLARK  who based their investigation on the correlated basis function approach which, to a large extent, is variational.

The superfluid phase of a homogenous system of fermions is described by the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(\omega )`$, which is the solution of the generalized gap equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{k}(\omega )=\underset{k^{}}{}\frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi i}𝒱_{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}^{}}(\omega ,\omega ^{})F_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(\omega ^{}).$$
(1)
Here $`𝒱`$ is the sum of all irreducible nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction terms and $`F_k(\omega )`$ the anomalous propagator NOZ ; MIG ; RING . In most pairing calculations SCHUL  the effects of the medium polarization has been included in the self-energy BAL ; ZUO , and not in the pairing potential. A more general study requires the medium corrections to be treated on equal footing also in the vertex corrections as well as in the self-energy. This is the main concern of the present letter. Accordingly, the expansion of the interaction block $`𝒱`$ and the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have both been truncated to second order of the interaction. The corresponding diagrams are depicted in Fig. 1.

The limitation to lowest order bubble insertion may seem as a strong restriction because resummation of the bubble series into RPA can have an important influence. However, in the exploratory work where self-energy and vertex corrections are treated consistently for the first time, we think that higher order effects unnecessarily complicate the approach and that the lowest order effects in the density should at least give the correct tendency even up to densities around saturation.

The matrix elements of the bare interaction V exhibit hard-core divergences which have to be removed by dressing them with the short-range particle-particle correlations (ladder diagrams). This can be done either in a microscopic approach by replacing V with the G-matrix or in a semi-phenomenological approach by replacing V with an effective interaction.

In the calculations of all diagrams, the superfluid propagators have been replaced by the normal phase propagators. This amounts to neglecting second-order corrections in the gap, which are actually negligible as shown in a fully self-consistent calculation discussed below.

In general, the interaction as well as the self-energy are complex quantities which implies the energy gap to be a complex function. The introduction of the imaginary part of the self-energy amounts to taking into account the effects of the quasi-particle spectral function, which have been studied elsewhere BOZ ; IMA . The complex nature of the potential is due to finite time propagation and decay of processes shown in Fig. 1. In the present investigation $`𝒱`$ will be assumed to be a real function what implies the gap function to be real also.

For the present calculation we adopted the semi-phenomenological approach and chose the Gogny force D1 as effective interaction at each coupling vertex shown in Fig. 1. The replacement of the vertices in Fig. 1 by the Gogny force which can be considered as a phenomenological representation of a $`G`$-matrix may seem unjustified for the lowest order term in Fig. 1(a), since perturbation theory tells us that it should be the bare NN interaction. However, it is well known LOMBA  that limiting the $`k`$-space, the bare interaction has to been replaced by an effective one and choosing the cut off to be at $`k_F`$ the effective force in Fig. 1(a) can be shown to be again equivalent to the $`G`$-matrix. In neutron matter only the density independent part of the Gogny force survives with a range in $`k`$-space of about $`k_F`$ at the saturation density. Therefore, from this point of view, it may not be unreasonable to take the Gogny force even for the lowest order term in Fig. 1(a), which is further backed by the fact that the gap with the Gogny force (without polarization terms) is quite close to the one calculated from a bare NN force. In any case the qualitative influence of the polarization on the lowest order solution of the gap equation, given by retaining only graphs Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(c), should not depend very much whether we use in Fig. 1(a) the bare interaction or the Gogny force.

The self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(\omega )`$ in neutron matter has been calculated within the above described approximation. The first-order contribution is reported in Fig. 2(b) for three values of the nuclear matter density in the range where the pairing is expected to be largest. The second-order contributions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pp}^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{hh}^{(2)}`$ (graph b) and c)) in Fig. 1, respectively) are depicted in Fig. 2(a) as a function of the energy. Only the energy dependence of of these terms will be discussed, since the Gogny force implicitly contains the static part, which will be removed from the gap equation as described later on.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{hh}^{(2)}`$ exhibits a pronounced maximum in the vicinity of the Fermi energy due to the high probability amplitude for particle-hole excitations near $`\epsilon _F`$. It is in very good agreement with the results obtained from Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) calculation with $`G`$-matrix ZUO .

The second-order potential is given by the one-bubble exchange term (plotted in Fig. 1(b), which is the first one of the ring diagram series. Physically it represents the screening to the pairing due to the medium polarization. Again we take the Gogny force for all vertices in Fig. 1(a,b). Our prediction for $`𝒱_{kk^{}}^{(2)}(\omega )`$ at three typical densities is reported in Fig. 3. We plot the symmetric part

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{k,k^{}}^{(2)}(\omega ,\omega _k^{})\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^3}[𝒱(\omega ,\omega _k^{})+𝒱(\omega ,\omega _k^{})],$$
(2)
which is the only one relevant for the pairing gap. The strength of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ is concentrated around the Fermi energy ($`\omega =0`$) with a peak value at $`k=k^{}=k_F`$ and a width increasing with the density. Its $`\omega `$ dependence is shaped by the polarization part, i.e., Lindhard functions FETT  which at $`\omega =0`$ (static limit) is repulsive at any momentum and density, but it becomes attractive for $`|\omega |\epsilon _F`$. One therefore expects a reduction of the gap due to screening.

The gap equation, Eq. (1), is to be coupled to the closure equation for the Green’s function

$$\rho =\underset{k}{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}e^{i\omega 0^+}G_k(\omega )$$
(3)
fixing the chemical potential in the superfluid phase.

The anomalous propagator

$$F_k(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )}{\left[\mathrm{}\omega \epsilon _k(\omega )\right]\left[\mathrm{}\omega +\epsilon _k(\omega )\right]},$$
(4)
has two poles, symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis of the complex $`\omega `$-plane BAL , which are the roots of the equation

$$\pm \omega _k=\epsilon _k(\pm \omega _k).$$
(5)
The quasi-particle energy $`\epsilon _k`$ is given by

$$\epsilon _k(\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\stackrel{}{k}^{}(\omega )+\sqrt{\left[\epsilon _k^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\stackrel{}{k}^+(\omega )\right]^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{k}^2(\omega )},$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\stackrel{}{k}^\pm (\omega )=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_\stackrel{}{k}(\omega )\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }_\stackrel{}{k}(\omega )].$$
(7)
The two poles are located close to the real axis on opposite sides of the imaginary axis. Leaving aside a general integration of the gap equation, we adopt the pole approximation relying on replacing the full propagator by its pole part:

$`F_k(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{Z_k\mathrm{\Delta }_k(\omega )}{\epsilon _k(\omega )+\epsilon _k(\omega )}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \omega _k+i\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +\omega _ki\eta }}]`$ (8)
In general the residue $`Z_k`$ at the poles is defined as

$$Z_k=\left(1\frac{\epsilon _k(\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\omega _k}\right)^1,$$
(9)
calculated at the Fermi surface. In the calculations we took the limit of $`Z_k`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, which corresponds to the quasi-particle strength. The factor $`Z`$ is keeping the full dynamical dependence of the self-energy reported in Fig. 2. Afterwards we may subtract the static part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}(\omega )`$ from the self-energy. In the calculation of the gap the inclusion of the latter only brings a variation of less than one percent since the gap is not sensitive to the static self-energy far from $`ϵ_F`$. Inserting Eq. (8) for the anomalous propagator into the gap equation, after $`\omega `$ integration we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}k^2𝑑k^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{k,k^{}}(\omega \omega _k^{})\frac{Z_k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}(\omega _k^{})}{\epsilon _k(\omega _k^{})+\epsilon _k(\omega _k^{})}.$$
(10)
Notice that the reason why only the $`\omega `$-even part of the interaction contributes to the integral can be traced to time reversal invariance of the superfluid ground state for which the anomalous propagator as well as the gap function are even functions of $`\omega `$.

The remarkable advantage of this approximation is that the gap depends only parametrically on $`\omega `$ and its energy dependence is only related to the energy dependence of the interaction. The on-shell gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(\omega _k)`$ fulfills the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k(\omega _k)=\frac{1}{2}k^2𝑑k^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{k,k^{}}^S(\omega _k\omega _k^{})\frac{Z_k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}(\omega _k^{})}{\epsilon _k(\omega _k^{})+\epsilon _k(\omega _k^{})}.$$
(11)
equivalent to the gap equation in the static limit.

The approximate version of the gap equation, Eq. (10), has been solved using as input the self-energy and pairing potential discussed in the previous section. The focus was in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ neutron-neutron pairing for neutron matter, which is by far the most important component of pairing as to possible implications in nuclear systems. The energy gap at the Fermi surface ($`k=k_F`$ and $`\omega =0`$) as a function of $`k_F`$ is reported in Fig. 4. The domain of existence of the superfluid state is mainly at low densities with a peak value of about 1.4 MeV at $`k_F=0.6`$ fm-1. In the same figure we also report the result in the BCS limit \[for a review see SCHUL \] (neither self-energy effects nor screening) and the result with self-energy effects but without screening ZUO . From the comparison of the three predictions one sees that the main suppression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is due to the strong g.s. correlations which lead to a $`Z`$-factor much less than unit. However screening of the pairing interaction produces an additional suppression. It has to be noticed that the screening potential also shifts the peak value of the gap to lower density, where the suppression is less sizeable. This implies that the medium effects are not expected to reduce dramatically the pairing at the nuclear surface and the feature of pairing as surface effect is still confirmed by our fully consistent calculation of pairing in neutron matter. As final result, obtained solving Eq. (10), we report in Fig. 5 the gap as a function of the energy for $`k_F=0.6`$ fm-1. We address here the relevance of such a feature for the study of pair correlations in dynamical processes such as the expanding and disassembling phases of the fragmentation events in heavy-ion collisions BALLOM .

Screening effects on the pairing interaction have also been studied in different contexts. One of the earliest calculations has been performed in the framework of the second-order correlated basis perturbation theory CLARK , where a pairing suppression by a factor 4 is predicted. In that work the momentum dependence is mostly neglected that amounts to overestimate the suppression. Closer to the present approach is the polarization potential WAMB ; CTLI  calculated from the induced interaction theory BROW , which gives substantially the same gap when treated within the Landau parameter approximation LOMBA . Finally,we should mention a parallel study on finite nuclei BORT , where the polarization potential is given by the coupling to surface vibrations. While the self-energy plays the same role as in neutron matter, the phonon exchange produces an enhancement of the pairing at variance with the dominant repulsive effect of the spin fluctuations in neutron matter.

In conclusion, this work constitutes a continuation of a previous one(Ref. ZUO ) where we investigated self-energy effects on the pairing gap in infinite neutron matter. Here we treated consistently the additional inclusion of vertex corrections. On the same footing we considered the lowest order particle hole polarization bubble both in the self-energy and in the screening of the pairing force. Instead of the G-matrix we used the phenomenological Gogny force at all coupling vertices. We verified that this replacement has only very little influence on the numerical results. The screened pairing interaction is in principle energy dependent but in the quasi-particle approximation used here, this dependence on energy becomes only a parametrical one which greatly facilitates the numerical task of solving the gap equation. The outcome of the inclusion of vertex corrections is that the gap as a function of $`k_F`$ maintains approximately its bell-shaped form, but with respect to the self-energy corrections only, a further substantial reduction of the gap is induced by screening the bare NN interaction in the gap equation. Therefore with respect to the lowest order approach, i.e., without any polarization effects, that is with bare interaction and k-mass only, the gap at its maximum is now reduced by about 50%. This strong reduction is a common feature of all previous calculations and in this sense our investigation is a confirmation of what has been found by other authors earlier, even though the approaches differ in detail. Nonetheless this strong reduction of the pairing due to the polarization remains intriguing. If the same situation should prevail in nuclear matter an estimate via the local density approximation RING  would lead to a by far too low value of the gap in finite nuclei. However the influence of polarization terms in nuclear matter, due to the different quantum numbers involved, may be quite different from the one in neutron matter. It may be an extremely interesting problem for studies in the near future to see whether the polarization corrections in the different channels, i.e., n-n pairing in neutron matter, n-n pairing in nuclear matter and n-p pairing in nuclear matter, can, at least qualitatively, explain the experimental finding known from finite nuclei.