text:
# Doppler Modulation of X-ray lines in Cygnus X-3

## 1 Introduction

In spite of near continuous study at many wavelengths since its discovery (Giacconi et al., 1967), the nature of the Cygnus X-3 binary system remains mysterious. Several important questions remain about the nature of the compact object and its companion and about the specific location of the source of observed X-ray and infrared emission. Existing models describe the system either as a high-mass system consisting of a black hole and a Wolf-Rayet star (Cherepashchuk & Moffat, 1994) or as a low-mass system consisting of a neutron star and a degenerate companion (Tavani, Ruderman, & Shaham, 1989). Both of these models account for the intense X-ray emission, the existence of a Helium-rich stellar wind, and the resulting large mass loss from the system.

The observation of a 12.6 ms pulsar signal in gamma ray data (Chadwick et al., 1985) is evidence that the compact object is a neutron star. However, though this pulsar signal has been repeatedly observed by the group that first reported it (Bowden et al., 1992), it has not been confirmed by independent investigators and it has never been observed at lower energies. Non-observation at lower energies is not incompatible with observation at higher energies since the scattering distance for X-rays in the dense wind is much shorter than for gamma rays. If true, the pulsar detection is proof that the compact object is a neutron star. Absent independent confirmation, however, the reports of a pulsar signal must be regarded with skepticism.

One key to understanding the nature of the two stars in the system would be a direct measurement of their masses. By measuring the Doppler shift of the infrared emission, Schmutz et al. (1996) report that they have measured the velocity of the infrared companion and constrained the compact object to be, at the least, a very massive neutron star. Hanson, Still, & Fender (2000) use the Doppler shift of a different infrared feature to make a more correct measurement of the velocity of the companion which prefers lower mass systems except that it also implies that the companion must be the dominant mass in the system. This rules out systems consisting of a neutron star with a white dwarf companion. Knowing the velocity of only one of the stars of a binary system does not constrain the total mass of the system. To determine the masses of both stars, we must make a measurement of the velocity of the compact object.

## 2 Observations

We used data collected by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory (CXO) during the radio quiet period prior to the April 2000 radio outburst (McCollough et al., 2000). Data were taken on two occasions two days apart and each observation lasted approximately five hours, completely covering one orbital period of the source. The observations were carried out using the High Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer (HETGS). Due to photon pileup in the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer caused by the brightness of Cygnus X-3, the automatic processing was unable to pinpoint the center of the zeroth order maximum of the grating spectra. We refined the automatically determined source location by fitting prominent spectral features in both the positive and negative first order spectra of the Medium Energy Grating (MEG) and the High Energy Grating (HEG). The source location was adjusted so that the fitted wavelengths for all four first order spectra were identical. By this method, the location of the X-ray source was determined to be 20h32m25$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$8$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 $`+`$40°57′28$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0$`\pm `$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$1 which, given the 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$6 absolute astrometric accuracy of the CXO , is consistent with the radio location given by Ogley, Bell Burnell, & Fender (2001).

We divided the data into eight bins by the orbital phase of the source according to the ephemeris in Table 1. In each of these phase bins, we fit a continuum model and Gaussian line profiles to data from both positive and negative first-order spectra from the HEG and the MEG simultaneously. The continuum was fit by a power law spectrum with a model of interstellar absorption. Though the distance to Cygnus X-3 is still poorly determined, the degree of the absorption fit by the spectrum, $`8.5\pm 0.1\times 10^{22}`$ H I/cm2 is consistent with other measurements of the distance to Cygnus X-3 or of the intervening absorption column (Serlemitsos et al., 1975; Dickey, 1983; Predehl et al., 2000). Our measured value is also independent of orbital phase.

We fit a Gaussian line function to the three most prominent lines visible in the spectrum, the Lyman $`\alpha `$ lines of Si XIV and S XVI and the Helium $`\alpha `$ line of Fe XXV. Only these three lines were strong enough in the phase-dependent spectra that they could be fit reliably for all phase intervals. Examples of these fits are shown in Figure 1. The Si XIV and S XVI lines showed a consistent average Doppler shift corresponding to a recession velocity of $`550`$ km/s. This is somewhat less than the velocity of 750–800 km/s reported by Paerels et al. (2000), also from HETGS data, but nearly consistent given the absolute spectral accuracy of the HETGS is on the order of 100 km/s.

Figure 2(a) shows the Doppler shift of the 6.18 Å Lyman $`\alpha `$ line of Si XIV and Figure 2(b) shows the Doppler shift of the 4.73 Å Lyman $`\alpha `$ line of S XVI. The parameters of the best fit of a cosine function to the Doppler shift of each line are given in Table 2. The sinusoidal function provides a better fit to the data than does a constant function. For Si XIV, $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom drops from 2.7 to 1.6 with the change from a constant function to a sinusoidal function. In S XVI the change in $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is from 2.8 to 1.5. The F-test probabilities for these detections are 18% and 14%, respectively, so the chance probability of the simultaneous detection of these two modulations is 2.5%.

The Doppler shift of the Si XIV line has significant day-to-day variation though the modulation is clearly present on both days. The modulation of the S XVI line appears to be particularly repeatable. Sinusoidal functions may not be the most appropriate functional forms to fit to these data. In the simplest configuration, the emission region will be in the form of a ring or a disk near the compact object sampling different wind velocities. In addition, different parts of the emission region may be occulted at different times. Beyond the apparent inadequacy of the shape of the fit function, the phase of the maximum Doppler shift may be affected by the differential occultation of the emission region. Nevertheless, the amplitude of the fit sinusoid gives a reasonable approximation of the amplitude of the correct functional form. The quality of these fits to the data ($`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is 1.6 for Si XIV and 1.5 for S XVI) indicate that within our uncertainties the true functional form is not much more complicated than a sinusoid.

Figure 2(c) shows the Doppler shift of the 1.86 Å Fe XXV He $`\alpha `$ line. The data are consistent with a constant Doppler shift. The $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom assuming a constant Doppler shift is 1.77 while the best fit sinusoidal function yields a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 1.84. The non-observation of a modulation of the Doppler shift in Fe XXV allows us to set an upper limit on the velocity of the emission region for this line. The 90% confidence upper limit derived for a fit to these data is 220 km/s.

## 3 Discussion

In order to use our observations to draw conclusions about the size and mass of the Cygnus X-3 system, we must first decide where in the system the emission is produced. van Kerkwijk (1993) observed that line emission from hydrogen-like helium was produced in that part of the stellar wind of the companion which is shaded by the companion from the X-rays emanating from the compact object. According to his model, the rest of the wind is too highly ionized to produce helium line emission. The coincidence between the maximum red shift of the line emission from hydrogen-like silicon and sulfur and the time of the X-ray minimum (Taken to indicate the superior conjunction of the compact object) suggests that these emission features are produced in the companion wind near the compact object. The fact that the silicon and sulfur emission are produced much nearer to the X-ray source than the hydrogen emission suggests that the dominant source of ionization in the Cygnus X-3 system is the X-rays. The level of ionization appears to increase with proximity to the source of X-rays. Emission from hydrogen-like and helium-like iron will thus be produced even closer to the X-ray source—presumably the compact object—than is the silicon or sulfur emission. We will, therefore, assume that the emission feature produced by helium-like iron is produced close to the compact object.

### 3.1 Stellar Mass

The emission features of highly ionized iron may be produced in a region of the wind captured by the compact object or from an accretion disk around the object if not from the surface of the object itself. Without knowing the phase relationship between the Doppler shift of the Fe XXV line and the X-ray ephemeris, we can not be sure that it would reveal the motion of the compact object. If, however, we assume that this is so we can use our non-observation of Doppler shift in the Fe XXV line to constrain the velocity of the compact object. The equation for the mass function

$$m_f=\frac{1}{2\pi G}Pv_{\mathrm{Max}}^3\left(1ϵ^2\right)^{3/2}$$
(1)
yields an upper limit on the mass function of 0.22 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ taking $`P=4.8`$ h and our 90% confidence upper limit of 220 km/s for the maximum radial velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{Max}}`$. Ghosh et al. (1981) show that a high mass-loss rate can drive the system into an eccentric orbit as well as cause it to circularize. For simplicity we will assume $`ϵ=0`$ for the time being.

By measuring the Doppler shift of the centroid of an infrared absorption feature in the stellar wind Hanson et al. (2000) calculated a mass function for the wind producing companion of 0.027 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. We can combine this mass function with our mass function upper limit by simultaneously solving the following equations

$$m_{f}^{}{}_{\mathrm{D}}{}^{}=\frac{\left(M_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{sin}i\right)^3}{\left(M_\mathrm{D}+M_\mathrm{C}\right)^2},m_{f}^{}{}_{\mathrm{C}}{}^{}=\frac{\left(M_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{sin}i\right)^3}{\left(M_\mathrm{C}+M_\mathrm{D}\right)^2}$$
(2)
Where the subscript C refers to the compact object and the subscript D refers to the mass donating companion. $`i`$ is the inclination of the binary orbit. The upper limits on the masses of the two stars derived this way are $`M_\mathrm{C}0.24M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{D}0.49M_{\mathrm{}}`$ for an inclination, $`i=90^{}`$. These limits essentially exclude all stars that could produce the observed X-ray flux. Mass upper limits as a function of orbital inclinations are shown in Figure 3(a).

The orbital model of Cygnus X-3 that has been used most extensively is one of two stellar wind models proposed by Ghosh et al. (1981) which have a large orbital inclination and a large eccentricity. Even Hanson et al. (2000) state that the inclination should be large, but our results, taken in combination with theirs, make large inclinations unphysical. In light of other recent work (Singh et al., 2002) it appears that the lack of apsidal motion in the system requires that the orbital eccentricity be small. In addition, several authors (van der Klis & Bonnet-Bidaud, 1989; Mioduszewski et al, 2001) demonstrate that the orbital inclination of the system must also be small. The best fit to the Ghosh et al. (1981) model based on a variable luminosity X-ray source inside its companion’s stellar wind satisfies the need for both a small orbital inclination ($`i=24^{}`$) and eccentricity ($`ϵ=0.14`$). Using these values in Equations 1 & 2 gives an upper limit for the mass of the compact object, $`M_\mathrm{C}3.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and for the companion of $`M_\mathrm{D}7.3M_{\mathrm{}}`$. These mass limits don’t preclude the possibility of the system being composed of a black hole and a Wolf-Rayet star. Neither do they rule out the compact object being a neutron star but the suggestion that its companion is more massive than the compact object rules out the possibility that the companion is also degenerate (a white dwarf).

### 3.2 Stellar Size

Table 2 shows that the maximum red shift of the Si XIV and S XVI emission lines are nearly coincident with the minimum of the continuum X-ray intensity. The coincidence of the maximum radial velocity of the line emission and the X-ray minimum means that the line emitting region is moving most directly away from Earth at the same time that the compact object is at its furthest distance from Earth. This, then, suggests that the line emission emanates from a region of the companion’s stellar wind blowing by the compact object and close to it. We can therefore use our measured velocity for this wind with a model of wind acceleration to constrain the size of the binary system.

The standard model of stellar wind acceleration appropriate to Wolf-Rayet stars is

$$v(r)=v_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{r_c}{r}\right)^\beta $$
(3)
where $`r_c`$ is the core radius of the star and $`\beta `$ expresses the degree of acceleration. Alternately, the wind velocity can be expressed in terms of the extent of the accelerating wind,

$$v(r)=v_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{r}{r_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^\gamma $$
(4)
(Cherepashchuk & Moffat, 1994) where $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the distance from the wind producing star to where the terminal velocity is reached. We can combine the wind velocities implied by the analysis of the Si XIV and S XVI lines to provide an estimate of the wind velocity in the emission region surrounding the compact object of $`146\pm 50`$ km/s. Taking $`v_{\mathrm{}}=1500`$ km/s (Schmutz et al., 1996), $`r_{\mathrm{}}=15R_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Fender, Hanson & Pooley, 1999), and $`\gamma =1`$ (Antokhin & Cherepashchuk, 2001), the distance between the emitting region and the wind producing companion star is $`1.5\pm 0.5R_{\mathrm{}}`$. This result assumes an inclination $`i=90^{}`$. For an inclination angle $`i=24^{}`$, we calculate $`3.6\pm 1.2R_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the distance between the donor star and the emission region. Since this emission comes from near the X-ray star, the distance calculated between the emission region and the companion star is the distance between the two stars.

The size of the Roche lobe of each star can be calculated directly from the mass functions. The radius of the Roche lobes is given by

$$\frac{r_\mathrm{L}}{a}=\frac{0.49q^{2/3}}{0.6q^{2/3}+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+q^{1/3}\right)}$$
(5)
(Eggleton, 1983) where $`a`$ is the binary separation and $`q`$ is the ratio of the stellar masses, which is only dependent on the mass functions and which in the case of the results presented here $`M_\mathrm{D}/M_\mathrm{C}=2.0`$. This yields a Roche lobe radius of the companion star of $`R_\mathrm{D}=1.6\pm 0.5R_{\mathrm{}}`$ at an inclination, $`i=24^{}`$, which is somewhat small for a Wolf-Rayet star (Moffat & Marchenko, 1996) especially given that the dominant mass-transfer process is the stellar wind rather than Roche Lobe overflow. The companion Roche lobe radius is plotted as a function of the inclination of the system in Figure 3(b).

## 4 Conclusion

We have determined an upper limit on the radial motion of the X-ray emitting star. This limit assumes that the Doppler shift of the emission feature produced by Fe XXV would reveal the motion of the X-ray emitting star. The relative phases of the observed Doppler shift of the He II, Si XIV, and S XVI emission features suggest that the degree of ionization of the circumstellar material is correlated with proximity to the X-ray source. This is consistent with our assumption. Combined with several other observations, we begin to paint a consistent picture of the Cygnus X-3 system. The picture favored by our analysis is of a system consisting of two relatively low mass stars, a compact object $`M_\mathrm{C}3.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and its companion $`M_\mathrm{D}7.3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ which orbit each other separated by $`3.6\pm 1.2R_{\mathrm{}}`$ in relatively circular $`ϵ=0.14`$ orbit that has a small inclination $`i=24^{}`$ relative to our line of site. Future X-ray observations will enable us to test the assumptions underlying this picture and, if they prove correct, to determine the orbital parameters of the system.


format: text

text:
# Multi-wavelength observations of stellar populations in Galactic globular clusters

## 1. Introduction

Galactic globular clusters (GGCs) are extremely important astrophysical objects since (i) they are prime laboratories for testing stellar evolution; (ii) they are “fossils” from the epoch of galaxy formation, and thus important cosmological tools; (iii) they serve as test particles for studying the dynamics of the Galaxy. A few years ago our group started a long-term project devoted to study the global stellar population in a sample of ”proto-type” GGCs following a multi-wavelength approach: IR and optical observations to study cool giants and UV observations to study blue hot sequences (Horizontal Branch (HB), Blue Stragglers Stars (BSS), etc). In this paper I report a short summary of the most recent results.

## 2. Calibrating the photometric properties of the Red Giant Branch in the IR

The advantage of observing cool giants in the near IR is well known since many years. The contrast between the red giants and the unresolved background population in the IR bands is greater than in any optical region, so they can be observed with the highest S/N ratio also in the innermost region of the cluster. Moreover, when combined with optical observations, IR magnitudes provide useful observables such as the V–K color, an excellent indicator of the stellar effective temperature (Te), and allows a direct comparison with theoretical model predictions. Since the peeonering work by Frogel and collaborators (Frogel, Cohen & Persson 1983) in the early 80’s, many groups have performed systematic IR observations in (mainly) heavily-obscured GGCs (see Frogel et al. 1995; Kuchinski & Frogel, 1995; Minniti et al. 1995; Davidge 2000; Ortolani et al. 2001).

In Ferraro et al. (2000, hereafter F00) a new set of high quality near-IR Color Magnitude Diagrams (CMDs) was presented for a sample of 10 GGCs, spanning a wide range in metallicity. We used this homogeneous data–base to define a variety of observables allowing the complete characterization of the photometric properties of the Red Giant Branch (RGB), namely: (a) the location of the RGB in the CMD both in (J–K)0 and (V–K)0 colors at different absolute K magnitudes (–3, –4, –5, –5.5) and in temperature; (b) its overall morphology and slope; (c) the luminosity of the Bump and of the Tip. All these quantities have been measured with a homogeneous procedures applied to each individual CMD by adopting the distance moduli scale defined in Ferraro et al. (1999a, hereafter F99). The mean ridge lines for the selected clusters, in various planes are shown in Figure 1.

A set of relations linking the photometric parameters to the cluster global metallicity ($`[M/H]`$, see F99) has been obtained in F00. Such a set of equations can be very useful to derive photometric estimates of the metallicity distributions in complex, i.e. chemically inhomogeneous, stellar populations as those observed in nearby dwarf galaxies. Indeed, one of the most puzzling (and nearest) examples of complex stellar population is just in the Halo of the Galaxy: the cluster $`\omega `$ Centauri.

$`\omega `$ Centauri is the most massive globular cluster of the Milky Way ($`3\times 10^6M_{}`$), and it is the only known galactic globular which shows clear and undisputed variations in the heavy elements content of its giants. Recent wide field photometric surveys (Lee et al. 1999, Pancino et al. 2000) have shown the existence of a previously unknown anomalous RGB (RGB-a). We have recently obtained extensive J,K observations in a wide region ($`13^{}\times 13^{}`$) around the cluster center. Figure 2 (left panel) shows the CMD obtained combining IR observations with the optical catalog by Pancino et al (2000). The mean ridge line of the dominant (metal poor) population and of the anomalous RGB-a (metal rich) population are overplotted to the CMD, and compared (in Figure 2-left panel) with the mean ridge lines of three reference clusters (from F00). The shape of the RGB-a and its position in the CMD indicate a metallicity of $`[M/H]0.5`$, which is fully consistent with the most recent direct spectroscopic determination (Pancino et al 2002).

## 3. Mid-IR Observations of GGCs: probing the mass loss process along the Red Giant Branch

A complete, quantitative understanding of the physics of mass loss processes and the precise knowledge of the gas and dust content in GGCs is crucial in the study of Population II stellar systems and their impact on the Galaxy evolution. Despite its importance, mass loss is still a poorly understood process.

In order to shed some light on mass loss processes along the RGB we performed (Origlia et al 2002) a deep Mid-IR survey with ISOCAM of the very central regions of six, massive clusters: 47 Tuc, NGC 362, $`\omega `$ Cen, NGC 6388, M15 and M54. Mid-IR observations are the ideal tool to study mass loss, since they could detect an outflowing gas fairly far away from the star (typically, tens/few hundreds stellar radii).

Two different filters (, \[9.6\]) in the 10 $`\mu `$m spectral region have been used. The mid-IR colors have been then combined with near-IR colors in order to obtain photometric indices ($`K[12]`$ or $`K[9.6]`$), which are sensible tracers of circumstellar dust excess. Figure 3 shows the $`M_{\mathrm{bol}},(JK)_0`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bol}},(K[12])_0`$ CMDs. Stars with $`(K[12])_00.65`$ are classified as sources with significant dust excess and are marked with filled symbols in the Figure.

There are a series of interesting results suggested by this Figure: (i) all the stars showing evidence of mid-IR circumstellar dust excess are in the upper 1.5 bolometric magnitudes of the RGB, suggesting that significant mass loss occurs only at the very end of the RGB evolutionary stage; (ii) only 20 out of the 52 ($`40\%`$) ISOCAM sources detected in the upper 1.5 bolometric magnitudes of the RGB ($`M_{\mathrm{bol}}2.5`$) show evidence of circumstellar dust excess; by correcting for stars not detected because of the low spatial resolution of ISOCAM, dusty envelopes are inferred around about 15% of the brightest giants, this suggests that the mass loss process is episodic; (iii) there is no evidence of any dependence of mass loss occurrence on the cluster metallicity.

## 4. UV observations: probing the hot stellar population in GGCs

Although the CMD of an old stellar population (as a GGC) is dominated, in the classical $`(V,BV)`$-plane, by the cool stellar component, relatively populous hot stellar components do exist in GGCs and are strong emitters in the UV (hot post-Asymptotic Giant Branch stars, blue HB, BSS, various by-products of binary system evolution, and so on).

The advent of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), whith its unprecedented spatial resolution and imaging/spectroscopic capabilities in the UV, has given a new impulse to the study of hot stars in GGCs. We are involved in a long-term observational programme which uses HST to perform UV observations in a selected sample of GGCs. In this section I summarize the most recent results obtained for BSS (a few additional results on the search of peculiar objects can be found in the poster contribution by Sabbi et al. and Ferraro et al. in this book).

### 4.1. Blue Straggler Stars in the UV

Blue Straggler stars (BSS), first discovered by Sandage (1953) in M3, are commonly defined as stars brighter and bluer (hotter) than the main sequence (MS) turnoff (TO), lying along an apparent extension of the MS, and thus mimicking a rejuvenated stellar population. The existence of such a population has been a puzzle for many years, and even now its formation mechanism is not completely understood, yet. At present, the leading explanations involve mass transfer between binary companions or the merger of a binary star system or the collision of stars (whether or not in a binary system). Direct measurements (Shara et al. 1997; Gilliland et al. 1998) and indirect evidence have in fact shown that BSS are more massive than the normal MS stars, pointing again toward a collision or merger of stars. Thus, the BSS represent the link between classical stellar evolution and dynamical processes (see Bailyn 1995). The realization that BSS are the ideal diagnostic tool for a quantitative evaluation of the dynamical interaction effects inside star clusters has led to a remarkable burst of searches and systematic studies, using UV and optical broad-band photometry.

Our group has actively participated to this extensive surveys and has published some of the first and most complete catalogs of BSS in GCs (Fusi Pecci et al 1992; Ferraro,Bellazzini & Fusi Pecci 1995; Ferraro et al 2002). These works have significantly contributed to form the nowadays commonly accepted idea that BSS are indeed a normal component of stellar populations in clusters, since they are present in all of the properly observed GGCs. However, according to Fusi Pecci et al. (1992) BSS in different environments could have different origin. In particular, BSS in loose GGCs might be produced from coalescence of primordial binaries, while in high density GGCs (depending on survival-destruction rates for primordial binaries) BSS might arise mostly from stellar interactions, particularly those which involve binaries. Thus, while the suggested mechanisms for BSS formation could be at work in clusters with different environments (Ferraro, Bellazzini, & Fusi Pecci, 1995; Ferraro et al. 1999) there is evidence that they could also act simultaneously within the same cluster (as in the case of M3, see Ferraro et al. 1993; Ferraro et al. 1997). Moreover, as shown by Ferraro et al. (2002), both the BSS formation channels (primordial binary coalescence and stellar interactions) seem to be equally efficient in producing BSS in different environments, since the two clusters that show the largest known BSS specific frequency, i.e. NGC 288 (Bellazzini et al. 2002) and M 80 (Ferraro et al. 1999), represent two exteme cases of central density concentration among the GGCs ($`Log\rho _0=2.1`$ and $`5.8`$). Particularly interesting is the case of M80 which shows an exceptionally high BSS content: more than 300 BSS have been discovered in M80 (Ferraro et al 1999). This is the largest and most concentrated BSS population ever found in a GGC. Since M80 is the GGC which has the largest central density among those not yet core-collapsed, this discovery could be the first direct evidence that stellar collisions could indeed be effective in delaying the core collapse.

Figure 4 shows the ($`m_{255},m_{255}m_{336}`$) CMDs for six clusters observed in the UV with HST (Ferraro et al 2002). More than 50,000 stars are plotted in the six panels of Figure 4. The CMD of each cluster has been shifted to match that of M3 using the brightest portion of the HB as the normalization region. The solid horizontal line (at $`m_{255}=19`$) in the figure shows the threshold magnitude for the selection of bright (hereafter bBSS) sample. Such a dataset allows a direct comparison of the photometric properties of bBSS in different clusters. In particular, we have found evidence (Ferraro et al. 2002) for a possible connection between the presence of a blue tail in the HB and the BSS UV-magnitude distribution: GGCs without HB blue tails have BSS-Luminosity Function (LF) extending to brighter UV magnitudes with respect to GGCs with blue tails.

In Figure 5 the magnitude distributions (equivalent to a LF) of bBSS for the six clusters are compared. In doing this we use the parameter $`\delta m_{255}`$ defined as the magnitude of each bBSS (after the alignment showed in Figure 4) with respect to the magnitude threshold (assumed at $`m_{255}=19`$ \- see Figure 4). Then $`\delta m_{255}=m_{255}^{bBSS}19.0`$. From the comparison shown in Figure 5 (panel(a)) the bBSS magnitude distributions for M3 and M92 appear to be quite similar and both are significantly different from those obtained in the other clusters. This is essentially because in both clusters the bBSS magnitude distribution seems to have a tail extending to brighter magnitudes (the bBSS magnitude tip reaches $`\delta m_{255}2.5`$). A KS test applied to these two distributions yields a probability of $`93\%`$ that they are extracted from the same distribution. In panel(b) we see that the bBSS magnitude distribution of M13, M10 and M80 are essentially indistinguishable from each other and significantly different from M3 and M92. A KS test applied to the three LFs confirms that they are extracted from the same parent distribution. Moreover, a KS test applied to the total LFs obtained by combining the data for the two groups: M3 and M92 (group(a)), and M13, M80 and M10 (group(b)) shows that the the bBSS-LFs of group(a) and group(b) are not compatible (at $`3\sigma `$ level).

It is interesting to note that the clusters grouped on the basis of bBSS-LFs have some similarities in their HB morphology. The three clusters of group(b) have an extended HB blue tail; the two clusters of group(a) have no HB extention. Could there be a connection between the bBSS photometric properties and the HB morphology? This possibility needs to be further investigated.

#### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank all the collaborators involved in this vast project. In particular, I want to thank Elena Pancino for a critical reading of this manuscript and Livia Origlia for her continuos support. The financial support of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and of the Ministero della Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) is kindly acknowledged.

## References

Bailyn, C.D.: 1995, ARA&A, 33, 133

Bellazzini, M., et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 1509

Davidge, T.J., 2000, ApJSS, 126, 105

Ferraro, F.R., et al, 1993, AJ, 106, 2324

Ferraro, F.R., Fusi Pecci, F. & Bellazzini, M. 1995, A&A, 294, 80

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1997a, A&A, 320, 757

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1999a, AJ, 118, 1783 (F99)

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 1999b, ApJ, 522, 983

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 2000 AJ, 119, 1282 (F00)

Ferraro, F.R., et al., 2002, ApJ, submitted

Frogel J.A., Cohen J.G., Persson S.E., 1983, ApJ 275, 773

Frogel J.A., et al 1995, AJ, 109, 1154

Fusi Pecci, F., et al., 1992, AJ, 104, 1831

Gilliland, R.L., 1998, ApJ, 507, 818

Kuchinski L.E. & Frogel J.A., 1995, AJ, 110, 2844

Lee, Y-W., et al., 1999, Nature, 402, 55

Minniti D., et al., 1995, AJ, 110, 1686

Origlia, L., et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, 458

Ortolani, S., 2001, A&A, 376, 878

Pancino et al 2000, ApJ, 534, L83

Pancino et al 2002, ApJ, 568, L101

Sandage, A., 1953, AJ, 58, 61

Shara, R.A., et al, 1997, ApJ, 489, L59


text:
# 1 Specific heat, C, divided by temperature, T, at low temperatures between 0 and 35 T for single crystal URu2Si2with the field aligned along the c-axis. Note the very rapid change of both the magnitude of ΔC/Torderand Torderfor fields above 33.7 T: in only 1.3 T Torderdecreases more than 2.5 K as the hidden order phase transition is being finally suppressed to T=0.

Specific Heat of URu2Si$`_2`$in Fields to 42 T: Clues to the ’Hidden Order’

J. S. Kim, D. Hall, P. Kumar, and G. R. Stewart

Department of Physics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8440

Abstract: The large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C observed at 17.5 K in URu2Si2 is inconsistent with the small, 0.04 $`\mu _B`$ moment measured for the antiferromagnetism observed starting (perhaps coincidentally) at the same temperature. We report measurements of this specific heat transition, thought to be due to some ’hidden order’, in magnetic fields between 24 and 42 T, i. e. through the field region where three metamagnetic transtions are known to occur at 35.8, 37.3, and 39.4 T. The response of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C in single crystal URu2Si2 to magnetic field, which includes a change to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C being possibly associated with a first order phase transition for high fields, is analyzed to shed further light on the possible explanations of this unknown ordering process. At fields above 35 T, a new high field phase comes into being; the connection between this high field phase revealed by the specific heat and earlier magnetization data is discussed.

I. Introduction

The compound URu2Si2 was initially a focus of research due to the discovery1 of the coexistence of antiferromagnetism (TN = 17.5 K) and superconductivity. Later work2-3 focussed on the three steps in the magnetization (called ’metamagnetic transitions’) discovered4 by magnetoresistance and magnetization measurements at 35.8, 37.3, and 39.4 T with the field parallel to the c-axis in this medium heavy fermion compound . Recently, the explanation for the large (in proportion to the ordered moment5 of only 0.04 $`\mu _B`$) size of the discontinuity in the specific heat at 17.5 K in URu2Si2 has been the subject of much theoretical as well as experimental effort6-22, with explanations as diverse as quadrupolar order16 and various unusual kinds of magnetic order being proposed23. (Some of these latter have been found to be inconsistent with later neutron diffraction experiments8.) The term ’hidden order’ has been coined to refer to the as yet unknown order that leads to the large observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C, i. e. ’hidden’ in the sense that the nature of the order has not yet revealed itself to a variety (e. g. neutron scattering8, resistivity9, and NMR17) of measurement techniques that have been used to probe the order responsible for the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C.

It is apparent from various perspectives that the observed anomaly in the specific heat is not due to the observed8 low moment magnetism. One argument (see ref. 10) is that Landau theory predicts that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/T $``$ (kB/TN) times the square of the ratio of the observed moment to the paramagnetic moment observed (either from neutron scattering or from an analysis of the magnetic susceptibility fitted to the Curie-Weiss law) above TN. For URu2Si2, this gives10 a prediction for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/T that is three orders of magnitude smaller than that observed. Recent neutron diffraction19 and NMR20 measurements under pressure have been interpreted to imply that the observed magnetic moment is in fact from a minority (~1%) second phase, although this is still under discussion22.

Hall effect data to 40 T by Bakker, et al.3 show transitions in the Hall coefficient at 35.6, 36.2, and 39.2 T (i. e. the Hall effect data appear linked to the three transitions at 35.8, 37.3, and 39.4 T in the magnetization data). The decrease of the Hall coefficient down to a value close to zero at 39.2 T was interpreted3 as a closing of the gap in the Fermi surface which was opened at 17.4 K. This energy gap of about 110 K, measured below the ordering temperature in zero and applied field by various methods9, was seen by resistivity data9 in fields to 25 T to be associated with order that had a critical field of 40 T, i.e. with the ’hidden’ order. Thus, since the Hall effect data appear to show the closing of the gap at 40 T associated9 with the hidden order and since the Hall effect appears also to have three transitions comparable to those shown in the magnetization, perhaps the ’metamagnetic’ transitions in M vs H between 35.8 and 39.4 T are also associated with the hidden order.

Since the deciding measurement that determines the existence of the ’hidden’ order is the specific heat, since the specific heat (resistivity) of URu2Si2 has been reported12 only in fields up to 17.5 (259) T, and since there is clearly something unusual occurring in the phase diagram as a function of magnetic field at 35.8, 37.3, and 39.4 T, we undertook to measure24 specific heat for the first time in dc fields up to 42 T in the new dc hybrid magnet at the NHMFL in Tallahassee on single crystals of URu2Si2. (Prior to the advent of this unique magnet, all measurements above 35 T had to be performed in pulsed field magnets.) These measurements should help to further elucidate the nature of the ’hidden’ order by determining the response of the anomaly over the entire field range expected9 to suppress the anomaly and also by determining how the anomaly reacts (if at all) at the fields where the jumps in the magnetization occur.

II. Experimental

Although there are some minor differences25 in measuring specific heat in fields above 24 T versus techniques used24 for H$``$24 T, in general the measurements are quite similar. In order to avoid eddy current heating (much more a problem at the old Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory than in the new National High Magetic Field Laboratory due to the quieter, modern transistor based power supply used at NHMFL), the reference block24 used is made out of non-electrically conducting sapphire. The transfer standard to calibrate the sample platform thermometer (a flash-evaporated film of Au-Ge with26 a positive magnetoresistance - i. e. magnetic field enhances the thermometer’s sensitivity - of about 20% at 1 K in 33 T) is a capacitance thermometer from Lakeshore Cryotronics that is essentially27 field independent up to 45 T.

Flat platelet single crystals, with the c-axis perpendicular to the platelet, were obtained by removing the crystals that form as surface facets on a large (~2 g mass) arc-melted button of high purity URu2Si2, a technique that has also been used28 to produce single crystals of CeRu2Si2. A collage of 16.18 mg of these crystals thermally bonded to a sapphire disk using GE7031 varnish was used for the specific heat measurements. The Ru and Si used were 99.95% and 99.9999% pure respectively from Johnson Matthey; the U used was the best that is commercially available, electrotransport refined material from Ames Lab. The zero field specific heat of these crystals is comparable with the best samples reported, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/Torder = 335 mJ/molK2 at the high temperature ordering transition in the present work, vs 320 mJ/molK2 in ref. 12. ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C is defined as C/Tmax-C/T extrapolated from the higher temperature, normal state data down to Tmax.) Further, the transition width of the hidden order phase transition in zero field in the sample used in the present work is 0.30 K vs 0.38 K in the sample measured in ref. 12. The susceptibility with field parallel to both the c- and a-axes was also measured (where the two directions have a factor of ~eight difference in magnitude as well as a much different temperature dependence), with excellent agreement with the literature1 results.

III. Results and Discussion

The specific heat divided by temperature, C/T, of single crystal URu2Si2 between 24 and 35 T (where the first metamagnetic transition is reported at 35.8 T) is plotted in Fig. 1, between 35 and 37.5 T in Fig. 2, and between 37.5 and 42 T in Fig. 3. The discussion of these data divides naturally into two field regions.

A. H $``$ 35 T - Suppression of the Hidden Order Anomaly

The trend of the ordering temperature decreasing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/Torder increasing with increasing field up to 33.7 T apparent in Fig. 1 was also qualitatively observed by van Dijk, et al.$`^{12\text{ }}`$in their specific heat data in fields up to 17. 5 T. As may be seen, the anomaly in C/T sharpens up remarkably with increasing field above 27 T, becoming in appearance (see discussion below) like a first order phase transition. This sharpness of the anomaly makes the accurate determination of Torder for each field straightforward.

One result of these measurements is the critical field of the specific heat anomaly as a function of temperature, shown in Fig. 4. The temperature dependence of the critical field of this ’hidden’ order anomaly up to 35 T is not unusual at all, and follows at low field (as was known from, e. g., the specific heat data up to 17.5 T from ref. 12) Hc = H0\[1-(T/Torder)\]0.5 rather well, where H0~35.3 T and Torder is the zero field ordering temperature (defined as the temperature of the peak in C/T, rather

than the onset of the transition) of 17.4 K in URu2Si2. At high field, i. e. near H0=35.3 T, our data shown in Fig. 4 allow the determination that Hc follows H0\[1-(T/Torder)2\]. These two temperature dependences in the two limits T$``$Torder and T$``$0 provide useful information for theories (e. g. ref. 7) which examine the nature of the hidden order.

Considering now the field behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/Torder, this is plotted in Fig. 5. Special care was taken while measuring the data to accurately determine the field where the maximum in C/T occurs. As clear from Figs. 1 and 5, this field is 33.7 T to an accuracy of better than 0.3 T. This does not agree with the field determined in magnetization measurements for the first jump in M as a function of field, which is at 35.8 T. This disagreement is also apparent when considering the entropy as a function of field (also shown in Fig. 5). These facts rule out explanations for the jump in magnetization (related to the entropy through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation) which involve large changes in the entropy (e. g. level crossing transitions). It is interesting to note that the Hall effect data3 taken up to 40 T show an anomaly (unremarked upon in ref. 3) at 0.6 K between 33.8 and 34.5 T (i. e. similar to the field of 33.7 T where we see the maximum in C/T) that is actually slightly larger than the anomaly between 35.1 and 36.1 T that was identified3 as corresponding to the magnetization anomaly at 35.8 T.

The sharpness of the anomalies shown in Fig. 1 for H $``$ 29.6 T raises the questions of whether the hidden order anomaly in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/T becomes first order in high field, and if so, at what field this first occurs. If the hidden order phase transition becomes first order with increasing magnetic field, this would certainly be an important constraint for any theory explaining this as-yet not understood order. To address this question, plots of the entropy, S, for fields $``$ 29.6 T are presented in Fig. 6. Leaving discussion of the 38.1 T entropy results also shown in Fig. 6 for the next section, it is clear from Fig. 6 that, although the slope of S vs T is a maximum around 34 T and despite the quite large and sharp appearing specific heat anomalies in Fig. 1, the entropies never have the truly vertical jump characteristic of a first order phase transition. In order to address the question of the possibility that inhomogeneities in the collage of single crystals created a broadening of the jump in the entropy, and to improve the data density vs temperature (see, e. g., Fig. 1) achieved within the (severe) time constraints of measuring in the 45 T hybrid magnet, we have measured during a separate week at NHMFL the specific heat of the largest URu2Si2 crystal

(5.03 mg) from the collage in 33 T (see Fig. 7). These measurements were performed using the most painstaking data density possible with our measurement technique, with very small temperature excursions and a very high density of measurement temperatures around the peak in C/T. (Measurement time in a magnet that reaches 33 T is easier to obtain than time in the unique, 45 T hybrid magnet at NHMFL.) The entropy calculated from these high density data in 33 T is shown in Fig. 8. The slope of the steepest part of the entropy vs temperature data of this single crystal data with much higher data density, Fig. 8, is only about 9 % higher than that of the data for the most comparable field, 33.4 T, data shown in Fig. 6. Thus, unless there is a high level (significantly above what is expected) of either a.) internal (e. g. variation in stoichiometry) inhomogeneities in the individual single crystal, b.) inhomogeneities in the field30, or c.) impurities or defects29 in the single crystal, the hidden order transition for fields $``$ 34.5 T appears to be second order.

Above 33.7 T (see Figs. 1 and 5), the size of the anomaly in C/T falls precipitously, well before the first anomaly in the magnetization at 35.8 T. At 35 T, the peak in the C/T anomaly is below our lowest temperature of measurement (2 K) and is (based on an extrapolation of the data at 34 and 34.5 T where the peak is still visible) smaller by about a factor of three from the maximum (see Fig. 5) in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/Torder at 33.7 T. One possible explanation for the rather precipitous fall in Torder and the size of the transition between 34.5 and 35 T shown in Fig. 1 is best seen by considering the phase diagram shown in Fig. 4. As the hidden order transition temperature is suppressed with increasing field towards lower temperatures, Fig. 4 shows that this phase line becomes more and more horizontal as H$``$35 T(or slightly greater). At this point in a phase diagram, measurements in a given field as a function of temperature will show a broadening of any field dependent phase transition. Measurements to lower temperatures would help further investigate this possibility.

B. 35 T $``$ H $``$ 42 T - A New High Field Phase

The specific heat data between 35 and 37.5 T and between 37.5 and 42 T are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively. A specific heat anomaly at ~3 K is seen to be moving up in temperature with increasing field already in 35.6 T after the hidden order anomaly was suppressed below 2 K in 35 T. While the second anomaly in the magnetization data taken at 1.3 K is at4 37.3 T (or 37.4 T in the more recent work of Sugiyama, et al.31), the data in Fig. 2 show a monotonic increase in both the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/Torder as well as Torder up to 37.5 T, after which (see Fig. 3) the anomaly continues to increase in size up to 38.1 T, but Torder begins to decrease for H $`>`$ 37.5 T. The fields and Torder are shown in Fig. 4; clearly the high field phase diagram shows another phase transition that appears after the hidden order anomaly is suppressed around 35 T. Considering now the entropy, S(10 K) shown in Fig. 5 trends slightly downwards in this field range after its peak around 33 T.

A second, small anomaly at ~6.5 K is visible in the 35.6 T data, with indications of a related anomaly in the trend of the 36.5 T data up to 6 K. This smaller anomaly is absent by 38.1 T, and - as discussed below - may correspond to a small second field-induced transition in addition to the very large anomaly in C/T with a maximum as a function of field at 38.1 T. Further data in the field and temperature ranges 35 - 38 T and 4 - 10 K are needed to resolve this. Another possibility is based on the discussion of the phase diagram and the 35 T data at the end of the section above: this broadened anomaly in 35.6 T is again where a phase boundary line is nearly horizontal. Thus, the broadened anomaly with its beginning at ~6.5 K may in fact just be due to the spreading out of a phase transition as the phase boundary for the new, higher field phase joins the field axis horizontally. Clearly from Fig. 2, the anomaly above 36.5 T begins to sharpen and increase in temperature, corresponding to a finite slope for the phase boundary at increasing fields as shown in Fig. 4.

Sugiyama, et al.31 consider the temperature dependence of the three magnetization anomalies (shown as dashed lines in Fig. 4), which addresses the intercomparability of the anomalies at magnetization measured - in most cases - at different points (1.5 K and 35.8, 37.3, and 39.4 T in the early work of de Visser, et al.4 and at 1.3 K and 35.4, 37.4, and 39.2 T in the more recent work of Sugiyama, et al.31) in the H,T phase diagram than the anomalies in C/T. They find that the anomaly in the magnetization at 1.3 K and 37.4 T disappears by around 3 K and a new anomaly appears at 36 T faintly in their 3 K data but grows in size and is quite visible in their 3.6 and 4.2 K data. This anomaly is comparable to the part of the H,T phase space sampled by our specific heat data in 36.5 T, where an anomaly in C/T is peaked at 3.5 K.

Considering now the specific heat data in the field range around the third anomaly in the magnetization, Fig. 3 (see Fig. 4 for the resultant phase diagram), we see that the growing anomaly in C/T evident in 37.5 T in Fig. 2 rises up very sharply as a function of field (see also Fig. 5), peaking in magnitude at 38.1 T and 4.44 K in a transition that - even more than the transitions shown in Fig. 1 - is reminiscent of a first order phase transition. One important comparison (see Fig. 6) is the steepness of the S vs T curve at the anomaly. As shown in Fig. 6, the anomaly at 38.1 T is clearly, based on the criterion of how steeply S rises as a function of temperature, more first order in appearance. (Quantitatively, the slopes of the entropies at 38.1 and 33.4 T at their steepest sections differ by a factor of two.) The question then arises if the transition evinced by the (rather steep) entropy anomaly in 38.1 T shown in Fig. 6 is a broadened first order phase transition, or simply a rather sharp second order phase transition. Thus, just as a second order phase transition should theoretically have a discontinous change in the specific heat at the transition - but in fact there is always a finite and sometimes a significant transition width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T in the specific heat jump, so may a first order phase transition have a finite transition width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T in the entropy jump. In zero field at 17.5 K, our sample of single crystal URu2Si2 has sufficient inhomogeneity to have a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T of 0.30 K in its specific heat jump. The width of the steep increase in the entropy at the transition in 38.1 T is less than 0.20 K. High data density, low temperature excursion data will be taken on the 5.03 mg single crystal of URu2Si2 just as done for the 33 T data discussed above as soon as hybrid magnet time is available in order to further investigate the possible first order nature of the 38.1 T transition.

In the phase diagram constructed by Sugiyama, et al.31, the highest field anomaly occurs at 39.1 T for 4.4 K. This disagreement, plus the complete lack of any hint in the magnetization data of a rapid variation with field of the magnitude of this third anomaly imply once again that the specific heat results are presenting new information about the phase diagram of URu2Si2 in high magnetic field. In the specific heat measured at various fields as a function of temperature, an anomaly appears in C/T at 35.6 T and grows smoothly in magnitude (see Fig. 5) with increasing field up to 38.1 T, with a peak in Torder of 4.68 K at the slightly lower field of 37.5 T. This is incorporated in the high field portion of the phase diagram shown in Fig. 4.

The magnetization, rather than showing a region of existence in the phase diagram of the high field phase, shows31 a smooth, gradual decrease in the fields of the upper and lower anomalies with increasing temperature, and a decrease in the field of the middle anomaly with increasing temperature that shows a sudden decrease at around 3 K. Thus, the magnetization-data-generated phase diagram shows the three separate, apparently independent dotted lines drawn in Fig. 4. Comparing the magnetization and the specific heat data graphically in the phase diagram in Fig. 4 suggests that the two higher field magnetization anomalies may mark the boundaries of the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$C/T high field phase transtion observed in the specific heat. Whether or not the slight anomaly in the 35.6 T data in Fig. 2 corresponds to a second high field phase that is bounded by the lower two of the dashed lines in Fig. 4 representing the H,T behavior of the two magnetization anomalies at 35.8 and 37.3 T depends on the outcome of further work. It is interesting to note the possible connection in the jump in the magnetization phase line for the middle magnetization anomaly and the swerving away from joining the ordinate for the lower boundary of the specific heat phase boundary shown in Fig. 4.

IV. Conclusions

Specific heat indicates that the hidden order anomaly is suppressed at ~35 T, and that the hidden order anomaly in high field before its suppression appears to remain second order. The order of this transition is important for understanding the nature of the hidden order in URu2Si2 and needs to be pursued in further work since whether the anomaly in the specific heat for H$``$33.7 T becomes first order is only approximately determined by the data in the present work. In addition, the specific heat data reported here show for the first time the existence of a high field phase in URu2Si2 which is apparently linked to the two higher field magnetization anomalies first seen in 19874. This new high field phase may be first order in nature. Indications of a second high field phase observed in the narrow field range between 35.6 and 38.1 T may also be explained by the rather flat H vs T phase boundary in this part of the phase diagram.

Note Added in Proof: Recently, M. Jaime et al.32 have measured the high field specific heat of a single crystal sample of URu2Si2 in dc fields up to 45 T, with a spacing of approximately 2 T between measurement fields in the field range between 30 and 40 T. They also find the new high field phase reported herein and, using magnetocaloric measurements in pulsed fields, also find evidence that suggests that the transition at ~39 T is ”a first order-like transition in field.”

Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Prof. M. Wortis. Work at the University of Florida performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy, contract #DE-FG05-86ER45268. Data were taken at the NHMFL, Tallahassee, which is operated under the auspices of the U. S. National Science Foundation.

References

1. W. Schlabitz, J. Baumann, B. Pollit, U. Rauchschwalbe, H. M. Mayer, U. Ahlheim, and C. D. Bredl, Z. Phys. B 62, 171 (1986); T. T. M. Palstra, A. A. Menovsky, J. van den Berg, A. J. Dirkmaat, P. H. Kes, G. J. Nieuwenhuys, and J. A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2727 (1985); M. B. Maple, J. W. Chen, Y. Dalichaouch, T. Kohara, C. Rossel, M. S. Toricachvili, M. W. McElfresh, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 185 (1986).

2. K. Sugiyama, H. Fuke, K. Kindo, K. Shimohata, A. A. Menovsky, J. A. Mydosh, and M. Date, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 59, 3331 (1990).

3. K. Bakker, A. de Visser, A. A. Menovsky, and J. J. M. Franse, Physica B 186-188, 720 (1993).

4. A. de Visser, F. R. deBoer, A. A. Menovsky, and J. J. M. Franse, Solid State Commun. 64, 527 (1987).

5. C. Broholm, H. Lin, P. T. Matthews, T. E. Mason, W. J. L. Buyers, M. F. Collins, A. A. Menovsky, J. A. Mydosh, and J. K. Kjems, Phys. Rev. B43, 12809 (1991).

6. P. Chandra, P. Coleman, and J. A. Mydosh, Physica B, in press.

7. N. Shah, P. Chandra, P. Coleman, and J. A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. B61, 564 (2000).

8. T. E. Mason, W. J. L. Buyers, T. Petersen, A. A. Menovsky, and J. D. Garrett, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 7, 5089 (1995).

9. S. A. M. Mentink, T. E. Mason, S. Suellow, G. J. Nieuwenhuys, A. A. Menovsky, J. A. Mydosh, and J. A. A. J. Perenboom, Phys. Rev. B53, R6014 (1996).

10. W. J. L. Buyers, Physica B223&224, 9 (1996).

11. S. A. M. Mentink, U. Wyder, J. A. A. J. Perenboom, A. de Visser, A. A. Menovsky, G. J. Nieuwenhuys, J. A. Mydosh, and T. E. Mason, Physica B230-232, 74 (1997).

12. N. H. van Dijk, F. Bourdarot, J. C. P. Klaasse, I. H. Hagmusa, E. Brueck, and A. A. Menovsky, Phys. Rev. B56, 14493 (1997).

13. L. P. Gor’kov and A. Sokol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2586 (1992).

14. Y. Miyako, S. Karawarazaki, H. Amitsuka, C. C. Paulsen, and K. Hasselbach, J. Appl. Phys. 70, 5791 (1991).

15. A. P. Ramirez, P. Coleman, P. Chandra, E. Brueck, A. A. Menovsky, Z. Fisk, and E. Bucher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2680 (1992).

16. P. Santini, and G. Amoretti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1027 (1994).

17. O. O. Bernal, C. Rodrigues, A. Martinez, H. G. Lukefahr, D. E. MacLaughlin, A. A. Menovsky, and J. A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 196402 (2001).

18. P. Chandra, P. Coleman, J. A. Mydosh, and V. Tripathi, ”Hidden Orbital Order in URu2Si2”, Nature 417, 831 (2002).

19. H. Amitsuka, N. Sato, N. Metoki, M. Yokohama, K. Kuwahara, T. Sakakibara, H. Morimoto, S. Kawarazaki, Y. Miyako, and J. A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5114 (1999).

20. K. Matsuda, Y. Kohori, T. Kohara, K. Kuwahara, and H. Amitsuka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 087203 (2001).

21. H. Amitsuka, M. Yokoyama, S. Miyazaki, K. Tenya, T. Sakakibara, W. Higemoto, K. Nagamine, K. Matsuda, Y. Kohori, T. Kohara, Phys. B 312-313, 390 (2002).

22. N. Bernhoeft, G. H. Lander, M. J. Longfield, S. Langridge, D. Mannix, E. Lidstroem, E. Colineau, A. Hiess, C. Vettier, F. Wastin, J. Rebizant, and P. Lejay, to be published in the proceedings of SCES 2002, Krakow, Poland.

23. For a review, see ref. 7.

24. G. R. Stewart, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 54, 1 (1983); B. Andraka, G. Fraunberger, J.S. Kim, C. Quitmann, and G.R. Stewart, Phys. Rev. B39, 6420 (1989).

25. The differences between measuring specific heat in fields up to 33 T and in the dc hybrid magnet up to 45 T, both at NHNMFL, were found to involve fringe field effects on the measuring electronics due to the rather large fringe field generated by the hybrid magnet. Orientation with respect to the fringe field of the Keithley current sources was found to be important.

26. J. S. Kim and G. R. Stewart, unpublished.

27. B. Brandt, private communication.

28. K. Heuser, E.-W. Scheidt, T. Schreiner, Z. Fisk and G.R. Stewart, Journal of Low Temp. Physics, 118, 235 (2000)

29. Y. Imry and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B19, 3580 (1979).

30. The approximate field inhomogeneity expected for the hybrid magnet is 1 part in 104 for a position 5 mm from the field center. The single crystal collage used for the hybrid magnet measurements were all quite thin ($`<`$ 1mm) in vertical extent and collected on their sapphire disk within a 2 mm radius from the center. A part in 104 in field would only be 0.0035 T in a 35 T field, and the sample was well within 5 mm of field center in both the radial and axial directions. Although Figs. 1 and 3 show that 0.3 to 0.4 T field changes significantly alter the specific heat anomaly near 34 and 38 T, there is no sign that a field inhomogeneity of order 0.0035 T has a significant effect.

31. K. Sugiyama, M. Nakashima, H. Ohkuni, K. Kindo, Y. Haga, T. Honma, E. Yamamoto, Y. Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 68, 3394 (1999).

32. M. Jaime, K. H. Kim, G. Jorge, S. McCall, and J. A. Mydosh, cond-mat/0209500.


text:
# Open problems in forward-backward multiplicity correlations in hadron-hadron collisions in the TeV region

### energy dependence of $`b_{\text{total}}`$

It is found that the points at 1000 GeV and 1800 GeV from E735 Collaboration have the same energy dependence (they lie on the same straight line) as the other data in the GeV region . In order to include the point at 1800 GeV the three extrapolated scenarios for the semi-hard component discussed in Ref.  are reexamined. Results are shown in Fig. 1.

In general, one can conclude that the leakage parameter for the semi-hard component, $`p_{\text{semi-hard}}`$, must decrease, and accordingly particle leakage increase, in all scenarios. To be quantitative, we have found that satisfactory results are obtained by taking the leakage parameter for the soft component energy independent and equal to 0.8, as argued in , and taking tentatively $`p_{\text{semi-hard}}=0.840.07\mathrm{log}(\sqrt{s}/200)`$ for $`\sqrt{s}>200\text{GeV}`$; keeping this energy dependence for $`p_{\text{semi-hard}}`$ at all energies, the curves in Fig. 1 have been extrapolated to 14 TeV. It should be noticed that in scenario 2, characterised by a semi-hard component with strong KNO scaling violation, the FBMC strength becomes less steep with the increase of the c.m. energy and its saturation toward 1 (as that of $`b_{\text{total}}`$) quicker than in the other two scenarios.

In conclusion, a linear behaviour of $`b_{\text{total}}`$ with c.m. energy is incompatible with our approach above 2.5 TeV in scenario 1, above 3.5 TeV in scenario 2 and above 5 TeV in scenario 3, i.e., the leakage parameter energy dependence cannot be adjusted to such situation in the various scenarios without spoiling the model itself. On the contrary, if such a linear behaviour were found experimentally at LHC, it could be indicative of the onset of a third component (class of events).

### $`z^2_n`$ vs $`n`$ dependence

Figure 2 shows experimental data from UA5 Collaboration  at 900 GeV in $`1<|\eta |<4`$ together with the result of calculations in the present approach (solid line); the dashed line is a linear fit according to the cluster model of Chou and Yang , already discussed in . Below $`n40`$, where data are available, it is quite hard to distinguish the two model predictions; at $`n40`$ our approach shows a “hump”. In view of the lack of sufficiently precise data in this domain, no conclusions can be drawn.

It should be pointed out that at higher c.m. energy (1.8 TeV), the E735 data also show at $`n40`$ a qualitative picture like a hump. However, a quantitative comparison is problematic for two reasons: a) our calculations are based on extrapolations in full phase-space while data refer to the interval $`|\eta |<3.25`$, for which no MD has been published (on the contrary, available MD data from UA5 allowed us to compare our model’s predictions at Spp̄S); b) at lower c.m. energy (546 GeV, see Fig. 3) we noticed a discrepancy between UA5 results  and E735 results; for completeness, in Fig. 3 our results and a linear fit are also shown.

The three scenarios we have discussed previously do not show any remarkable difference in the GeV region as far as the $`z^2_n`$ vs $`n`$ dependence is concerned (see Fig 4a, where $`z^2_n`$ vs $`n`$ is plotted in the three scenarios at 900 GeV in full phase-space). In Fig. 4b the same plot is shown at 1800 GeV. Differences in the three scenario predictions become more evident for $`n`$ larger than 40 and the hump is more visible. In Fig. 4c at 14 TeV the hump becomes even more visible and in addition its maximum varies with the scenario.

In conclusion, the behaviour of $`z^2_n`$, i.e., the two different sides of the hump appearing in the plot of $`z^2_n`$ vs $`n`$, which is remarkable at 1800 GeV, confirms in our view the presence of two components (samples of two classes of events) and the importance of the role of the semi-hard component at this energy. The question remains whether this is also the indication of the occurrence of a phase transition .

## Acknowledgements

One of us (R.U.) would like to thank L. Gutay for discussion on E735 results.


text:
# Renormalization group for evolving networks

## Abstract

We propose a renormalization group treatment of stochastically growing networks. As an example, we study percolation on growing scale-free networks in the framework of a real-space renormalization group approach. As a result, we find that the critical behavior of percolation on the growing networks differs from that in uncorrelated nets.

Evolving networks with a complex distribution of connections attract much interest from a wide circle of researchers . The physicists’ contribution to the rapid progress in this field is based on understanding that networks are objects of classical statistical mechanics and can be effectively studied by using standard approaches of statistical physics.

In this communication, we demonstrate how a real-space renormalization group approach (or positional renormalization group), which is traditional in critical phenomena theory (see, e.g., Refs.  and references therein), can be applied to stochastically growing networks. For the demonstration, we consider a bond percolation problem, although other models of cooperative behavior on evolving networks can be investigated in a similar way.

Percolation on uncorrelated equilibrium networks is well studied . In fact, many other cooperative models (with discrete symmetry of the order parameter and absence of frustrations) on equilibrium networks (the spread of diseases , the Ising and the Potts models , etc.) show a behavior similar to that for the percolation. In this respect, percolation problems are very representative.

Percolation on a growing network is a more complex problem than for equilibrium ones. The reason for this complexity is a wide spectrum of correlations, which are inevitably present in growing nets. Note that the correlations between the degrees of the nearest-neighbor vertices , which were thoroughly studied in equilibrium networks , is only a particular kind of the correlations.

We study the following problem. First we grow an infinite size network and then consider a classical bond percolation problem on it. That is, randomly chosen edges of the infinite network are simultaneously removed. A fraction $`p`$ of edges is retained. We use the model of a stochastically growing, undirected, highly-clustered, scale-free network  (see Fig. 1), which is ideally suited for a real-space renormalization group procedure. In principle, the percolation problem for this network can be exactly solved, at least, at some particular case. We, however, use this model for the first demonstration of the renormalization group method for growing random networks.

The second moment of the degree distribution $`P(k)`$ of this growing network diverges (degree is the total number of connections of a vertex, sometimes it is called “connectivity”). We show that the “percolation threshold” is zero, $`p_c=0`$, that is the percolating cluster (the giant connected component) exists at each $`p0`$ (super-stability against random damage). The $`\gamma `$ exponent of the degree distribution $`P(k)k^\gamma `$ of the net is below $`3`$. We find that all the derivatives of the relative size of the giant component $`M(p)`$ over $`p`$ diverge at the percolation threshold. Moreover, $`M(p1)e^{\text{const}/p}`$. This differs from the corresponding critical singularity for percolation on uncorrelated scale-free networks with exponent $`\gamma <3`$.

The network is constructed in the following way . The growth starts from a single edge connecting two vertices ($`t=0`$). At each time step, each edge of the network transforms as shown in Fig. 1:

* with probability $`q`$, an edge “creates” a vertex which is attached to both the end vertices of its “mother” edge, or
* with the complementary probability $`1q`$, this edge creates a bare vertex.

Of course, we can equally leave an edge unchanged in item (b), and, at first sight, the creation of bare vertices seems superfluous. However, this inessential feature of the transformation will be convenient for us.

In the particular case $`q=1`$, this network turns out to be the simple deterministic graph that was introduced in Ref.  and studied in detail in Ref. . This graph ($`q=1`$) belongs to a wide class of deterministic growing nets which are currently being intensively studied . If $`q<1`$, the growth is stochastic. As $`q0`$ (but $`q0`$) the network coincides with a network growing by attaching a new vertex to the ends of a randomly chosen edge at each time step . The latter has practically the same degree distribution as the Barabási-Albert model ($`\gamma =3`$) but is strongly clustered. Indeed, the network that is generated by the transformation shown in Fig. 1 has numerous loops of length three. So it has a large clustering coefficient at any value of $`q`$.

One can easily modify the transformation in such a way that the resulting network will turn out to be exactly the Barabási-Albert model in the limiting case $`q0`$ ($`q0`$). Let at each time step, each edge creates a new vertex which, with probability $`q`$, is attached to one end vertex of the edge and, with the same probability, is attached to the other end vertex. At $`q=1`$, we again obtain the deterministic graph , and as $`q0`$, the network approaches the Barabási-Albert model with zero clustering.

We, however, apply the transformation that provides the strongly clustered networks at each $`q`$. Note that we use transformations generating networks with the small-world effect , that is the average shortest-path length of the network grows logarithmically with the network size.

Simple calculations show that the degree distribution of the network is scale-free with exponent

$$\gamma =1+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+2q)}{\mathrm{ln}(1+q)}.$$
(1)
The spectrum of degrees is continuous at $`q<1`$. As $`q`$ decreases from $`1`$ to $`0`$, $`\gamma `$ grows from $`1+\mathrm{ln}3/\mathrm{ln}2=2.585\mathrm{}`$ to $`3`$. The average number of edges in the network grows as $`(1+2q)^t`$, where $`t`$ is the number of a time step.

For demonstration, we use the simplest, rather naive version of the real-space renormalization group approach . Let us outline the procedure in application to our network. We stop the grows at a time step $`T\mathrm{}`$ and spoil the network: if an edge is present in the undamaged net, then this edge is retained in the damaged net with the probability $`p`$. Then we invert the transformation in Fig. 1 and define $`n=Tt`$ for the inverted transformation, which is actually a decimation procedure. Further, we introduce the probability $`p_n`$ that if an edge connects a pair of vertices of the undamaged net at $`t=Tn`$, then at the $`n`$-th step of the decimation for the damaged net, there is connection between these vertices. Here, $`p_0=p`$. One can easily derive the following recursion relation for $`p_n`$:

$`p_{n+1}=`$ $`q[p_n^3+3p_n^2(1p_n)+p_n(1p_n)^2]`$ (3)
$`+(1q)p_n.`$
Its structure is evident from Fig. 1.

Let us find the dependence of the relative size $`M`$ of the percolating cluster on $`p`$. Here, for convenience, we define $`M`$ as the fraction of edges that belong to the giant connected component of the network (the percolating cluster). So, $`M(p=1)=1`$ in the undamaged network. As is usual, for calculating $`M`$, we find the average number $`m_n`$ of edges in the “percolation” configurations of the renormalization group transformation at an $`n`$-th step:

$`p_nm_n=`$ (4)
$`q[3p_{n1}^3+23p_{n1}^2(1p_{n1})+1p_{n1}(1p_{n1})^2]`$ (5)
$`+(1q)p_{n1}`$ (6)
\[compare Eqs. (3) and (6); notice also the multiple $`p_n`$ on the left-hand side of Eq. (6)\]. Then, $`M(p)`$ can be obtained from the following relation

$$M=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{m_n}{1+2q},$$
(7)
where we have taken into account that the number of edges in the undamaged network increases by $`1+2q`$ times at each time step of the evolution.

The final forms of the recursion relation for $`p_n`$ and the expression for the relative size of the percolating cluster are

$`p_{n+1}=p_n[qp_n(1p_n)+1],`$ (8)
$`M(p)=p{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+2qp_n(2p_n)}{1+2q}},`$ (9)
where $`p_0=p`$. One can see that the recursion relation for $`p_n`$ has only two fixed points, $`0`$ and $`1`$. At any $`p_0=p0`$, $`p_n`$ approaches $`1`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, which indicates the presence of the percolating cluster. So, the percolating cluster of this network cannot be eliminated by the random removal of edges at any value of the parameter $`q`$.

By using the relations (9), we numerically obtain the dependence $`M(p)`$ (see Fig. 2). From Fig. 2(a), one can see that the curves $`M(p)`$ weakly depend on the parameter $`q`$ if $`p`$ is large enough. The essential difference is visible in the range of small $`p`$, see Fig. 2(b). The analytical analysis of the relations (9) immediately yields the asymptotic behavior of $`M(p)`$ at small $`p`$:

$$M(p1)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+2q)}{q}p^1\right].$$
(10)
We do not write down the preexponential factor, since our simplified, demonstrative renormalization group procedure certainly cannot give its proper form. In fact, at each step of the procedure, the complex spectrum of the probabilities of the realization of various edge configurations is renormalized to (one can also say, is substituted by) a single delta-function distribution. If a cooperative model under consideration does not contain frustrations, then usually, this substitution is not dangerous (we discuss only qualitative results). This is the case for percolation. Only for $`q1`$, this approximation can cause serious problems \[e.g., very inaccurate values of the resulting factor in the exponential of Eq. (10)\].

Expression (10) shows that all the derivatives of $`M(p)`$ diverge at the “percolation threshold” $`p_c=0`$. The type of this divergence differs from that for uncorrelated scale-free networks with $`2<\gamma <3`$, where $`M(p1)p^{1/(3\gamma )}`$ and only if $`\gamma =3`$, the relative size of the percolating cluster behaves as $`M(p1)e^{\text{const}/p}`$ (see Ref. ).

There are two possible reasons for this difference. The first is the wide spectrum of correlations induced by the growth. The second is the high clustering and numerous loops in our network. The loops, in principle, may lead to fluctuation effects. (These effects are absent in cooperative models on uncorrelated networks, which have a tree-like local structure.)

One has to admit that a real-space renormalization group approach has a reputation of an uncontrolled approximation. Moreover, in our demonstration, we have used the simplest version of the approach, which has allowed us to obtain analytical results. In principle, one can use more refined versions of the real-space renormalization group procedure (e.g., see Ref. ), where, however, numerical calculations are necessary .

We considered one of traditional cooperative models on undirected growing networks. However, the renormalization group approach can also be used as a tool for studying structural properties (e.g., a distribution of loops , etc.) of evolving networks. Directed networks can be considered in a similar way as for randomly directed percolation on a lattice . Furthermore, the transformation that we used for generating the growing random network (see Fig. 1) is only a simple example and can be easily generalized .

In this communication, the renormalization group approach was applied to evolving networks. One should mention the applications of a real-space renormalization group technique to static networks: to small-world networks in Ref.  and, recently, to a random network of masses connected by springs in Ref. .

In summary, we have applied the real-space renormalization group procedure to stochastically growing networks. In the framework of this approach, we have considered the percolation problem for scale-free growing networks with exponent $`\gamma `$ in the interesting region $`\gamma <3`$. The percolation threshold is zero, $`p_c=0`$, but the observed critical behavior essentially differs from that for uncorrelated networks. Our results demonstrate new possibilities of a renormalization group method.

This work was partially supported by the project POCTI/1999/FIS/33141. The author thanks A.V. Goltsev and A.N. Samukhin for many useful discussions. Special thanks to the Centro de Física do Porto and J.F.F. Mendes.

Electronic address: sdorogov@fc.up.pt


text:
# Born-Infeld black hole in the isolated horizon framework

## I Introduction

The Reissner-Nordström (RN) solution (characterized by its charge and mass) turns out to be the final fate of a charged star, having as uncharged limit the Schwarzschild black hole, then it is of interest to investigate in more detail its nonlinear electromagnetic generalization, in particular, the Born-Infeld field Born .

The Einstein-Born-Infeld (EBI) generalization of the RN black hole was obtained by García-Salazar-Plebañski (GSP) in 1984 GSP . Two years after, Demianski Geon  presented the static spherically symmetric solution that nowadays is known as the EBIon, it is the most known solution of the EBI equations; in the spirit of the concept of geon introduced by Wheeler in the sixties, this means electromagnetic radiation held together by its self- gravitational attraction. These two solutions, GSP and Demianski’s, are actually the same, differing only by a constant.

Remarkable properties of the EBI black hole arise in the context of the isolated horizon formalism, recently put forward by Ashtekar and co-workers in a series of papers in Phys. Rev. D and Class. and Q. Grav. Ashtekar . In this approach it is pointed out the unsatisfactory (uncomplete) description of a black hole given by concepts such as ADM mass and event horizon, for instance, specially if one is dealing with hairy black holes. To remedy this uncompleteness, Ashtekar et al have proposed alternatively the isolated horizon formalism, that furnish a more complete description of what happens in the neighborhood of the horizon of a hairy black hole. Moreover, they conjecture about the relationship between the colored black holes and their solitonic analogs Sudarsky : the ADM mass contains two contributions, one attributed to the black hole horizon and the other to the outside hair, captured by the solitonic residue. In the present communication we show that the EBI colored black hole and the corresponding solitonic solution have most of the properties of the model proposed in Sudarsky .

The EBI black hole corresponds to the solution for the field equations arising from the Einstein-Born-Infeld action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\{R(16\pi )^1+L\},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ denotes the scalar curvature, $`g:=\mathrm{det}|g_{\mu \nu }|`$ and $`L`$, the electromagnetic part, is assumed to depend in nonlinear way on the invariants of $`P_{\mu \nu }`$, the nonlinear generalization of the electromagnetic field, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$,

$$L=\frac{1}{2}P^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+K(P,Q),$$
(2)
where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are the invariants of $`P_{\mu \nu }`$, $`K(P,Q)`$ is the so called structural function which for the Born-Infeld nonlinear electrodynamics is given by

$$K=b^2\left(1\sqrt{12P/b^2+Q^2/b^4}\right),$$
(3)
where $`b`$ is the maximum field strenght and the relevant parameter of the BI theory.

The EBI solution for a static spherically symmetric (SSS) spacetime is given by:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\psi dt^2+\psi ^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),`$ (4)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b^2r^2(1\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{r^4}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{4q^2}{3r}}g(r),`$ (5)
$`g^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`(r^4+a^4)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (6)
where $`g^{}(r)=\frac{dg(r)}{dr}`$, $`m`$ is the mass parameter, $`q`$ is the electric charge (both in lenght units), $`a^4=q^2/b^2`$ and $`b`$ is the Born-Infeld parameter given in units of $`[\mathrm{lenght}]^1`$. The nonvanishing components of the electromagnetic field are

$$F_{rt}=q(r^4+a^4)^{\frac{1}{2}},P_{rt}=\frac{q}{r^2}.$$
(7)
The solution given by García-Salazar-Plebañski GSP  corresponds to

$$g(r)=_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}=\frac{1}{2a}F(\mathrm{arccos}\{\frac{r^2a^2}{r^2+a^2}\},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}),$$
(8)
while the one given by Demianski Geon  corresponds to

$$g(r)=_0^r\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}=\frac{1}{2a}F(\mathrm{arccos}\{\frac{a^2r^2}{a^2+r^2}\},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}).$$
(9)
Choosing $`g(r)`$ as in Eq. (8) or Eq. (9) has as a consequence a different behavior of the solution at the origin. The metric function $`\psi `$ with $`g(r)`$ given in Eq. (8) (GSP solution) diverges at $`r0`$ (even when $`m=0`$), it corresponds to the black hole solution. The other one, meaning $`\psi `$ with $`g(r)`$ given in Eq. (9) (Demianski), is the so called EBIon, a particlelike solution that is finite at the origin (for $`m=0`$). The integrals of Eqs. (8) and (9) are related by

$$_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}=_0^r\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}+\mathrm{Const},$$
(10)
The constant can be fixed by imposing that in the limit $`b\mathrm{}`$ we recover the RN solution, then,

$$\mathrm{Const}=_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}+_0^r\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}=\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{K}(\frac{1}{2})$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{K}(\frac{1}{2})`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. In the limit of large distances, $`r\mathrm{}`$, asymptotically the solution corresponds to the RN solution. Also when the BI parameter goes to infinity, $`b\mathrm{}`$, we recover the linear electromagnetic (Einstein-Maxwell) RN solution. In the uncharged limit, $`b=0`$ (or $`q=0`$), it is recovered the Schwarzschild black hole.

### I.1 Hairy EBI Black hole

When the black hole is not completely determined by global charges defined at spatial infinity such as ADM mass, angular momentum or electric charge, but rather it possesses short range charges (hair) that vanish at infinity, then it is a hairy black hole. This is the case for the EBI black hole, since the location and size of the horizon depends on the parameter $`bq`$ (the corresponding metric function was studied in Breton ), however, at infinity it is undistinguisable from a RN black hole characterized only by its charge $`q`$ and mass $`m`$.

In a series of papers Ashtekar et al have proposed a more complete description to characterize a hairy black hole, based on quantities defined at the horizon. This formalism is intended to deal with situations more general than SSS hairy black holes and it involves the canonical formalism of gravity. Furthermore, they proposed a formula relating the horizon mass and the ADM mass of the colored black hole solution with the ADM mass of the soliton solution of the corresponding theory,

$$M_{sol}^{(n)}=M_{ADM}^{(n)}M_{hor}^{(n)},$$
(12)
where the superscript $`n`$ indicates the colored version of the hole; in the papers of Ashtekar et al this $`n`$ refers to the Yang-Mills hair, labeled by this parameter, corresponding to $`n=0`$ the Schwarszchild limit (absence of YM charge). This relation has been proved numerically to work for the Einstein-Yang-Mills (EYM) black hole. For the case studied here the $`n`$ version shall correspond to the distinct hairy black holes labeled by distinct (continuous) BI parameter, $`b`$; to the limit $`b\mathrm{}`$ corresponds the linearly charged case, that is precisely the RN black hole; in the limit $`b0`$ (or $`q=0`$) we arrive to the Schwarszchild black hole (our $`n=0`$ also).

It turns out that the EBI black hole and the corresponding EBIon solution fulfill the relation between the masses as well as most of the properties of the model for the colored black hole, as will be shown in what follows. The EBI black hole case has the additional advantage of being an exact solution.

First of all let’s check the relation between the masses Eq. (12). The horizon and ADM masses as functions of the horizon radius $`r_h`$ for the EBI solution are given, respectively, by

$$M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)=\frac{r_h}{2}+\frac{b^2r_h}{3}(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})\frac{2q^2}{3}_0^{r_h}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{a^4+s^4}},$$
(13)
$$M_{ADM}^{(b)}(r_h)=\frac{r_h}{2}+\frac{b^2r_h}{3}(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})+\frac{2q^2}{3}_{r_h}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{a^4+s^4}},$$
(14)
In Fig.1 it is shown $`M_{ADM}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ for different values of the BI parameter $`b`$ compared with $`M_{ADM}^{RN}(r_h)`$ of Reissner-Nordström and the bare black hole (Schwarszchild).

The mass of the soliton can be obtained by letting $`r0`$ in the ADM mass, Eq. (14), we obtain $`M_{sol}^{(b)}=\frac{2q\sqrt{qb}}{3}\mathrm{K}(\frac{1}{2})`$. From these expressions one can trivially check that they satisfy Eq. (12). Moreover, in the heuristic model for the colored black hole there are predictions that the EBI solution satisfies. We enumerate them as stated in Sudarsky :

(i) The bare black hole horizon mass, $`M_{hor}^{(0)}(r_h)`$, is greater than the ‘dressed’ mass, $`M_{hor}^{(n)}(r_h)`$, for all $`n`$ and all values of the horizon radius, $`r_h`$. The corresponding for the EBI case is $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)<M_{hor}^{(0)}(r_h)`$, which amounts to

$$\frac{r_h}{2}>\frac{r_h}{2}[\frac{b^2r^3}{3}(\sqrt{1+\frac{a^4}{r^4}}1)+\frac{2q^2}{3}_0^{r_h}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{a^4+s^4}}],$$
(15)
since the term in square brackets is positive, the unequality holds for all $`b`$, for all $`r_h`$. Moreover, the horizon masses satisfy the inequality $`M_{hor}^{RN}(r_h)>M_{hor}^{(0)}(r_h)>M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$. This is shown in Fig.2.

(ii) For all $`b`$ and all $`r_h`$, the surface gravity of the coloured black hole is less that the one for the bare black hole, i.e. $`\kappa _{(b)}(r_h)<\kappa _{(0)}(r_h)`$,

$$\frac{1}{2r_h}\{1+2b^2(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})\}<\frac{1}{2r_h},$$
(16)
the unequality reduces to

$$r_h^2(1\sqrt{1+\frac{a^4}{r^4}})<0,$$
(17)
that in fact is satisfied since $`\sqrt{1+\frac{a^4}{r^4}}>1`$ for $`q,b0`$. It is shown in Fig. 3 for some values of $`b`$.

(iii) From Figs. 2 and 3 it is manifest that both $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ and $`\kappa _{(b)}(r_h)`$, for fixed $`r_h`$, are monotonically decreasing functions of $`b`$. In other words, as $`b0`$, the coloured black hole tends to the bared one.

(iv) For fixed $`b`$, the function $`\beta _{(b)}(r_h)=2r_h\kappa _{(b)}(r_h)<1`$. This condition reduces to $`\{1+2b^2(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})\}<1`$ that is satisfied since $`(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})<0`$. The condition is illustrated in Fig.4 where $`\kappa _{(b)}(r_h)=\frac{1}{2r_h}\{1+2b^2(r_h^2\sqrt{r_h^4+a^4})\}`$.

(v) This prediction is about the behavior of $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ and is the only one that the EBI solution does not fulfil. Contrary to the EYM case, the $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$, as a function of $`r_h`$ (fixed $`b`$), does not increase monotonically, as can be seen in Fig. 2 that for $`b=1.5`$ and larger, $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ has a minimum and then increases monotonically. Asymptotically its slope tends to the one of the bare black hole. We note that for the EYM solution this prediction was done on the basis of two numerical cases ($`n=1,2`$) and for low $`b`$ the EBI solution also satisfy this condition.

(vi) For any given $`b`$, the curve $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ lies between the two parallel lines $`(r_h/2M_{sol}^{(b)})`$ and $`1/r_h`$. Using the corresponding expressions for $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$, Eq. (13) and $`M_{sol}^{(b)}=\frac{2q\sqrt{qb}}{3}\mathrm{K}(\frac{1}{2})`$ and also Eq. (10), this condition reduces to the fulfilment of the inequality

$$2q^2_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{\sqrt{s^4+a^4}}>b^2r^3[\sqrt{1+\frac{a^4}{r^4}}1],$$
(18)
that in fact is true as can be shown plotting both sides of the inequality.

Additionally the EBI ADM masses, $`M_{ADM}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ show the crossing of families corresponding to distinct BI parameter $`b`$, as can be seen in the Fig. 5. This is also a feature in the EYM case.

### I.2 Final Remarks

We have shown that the the static sector of the EBI theory is described by the heuristic model for the colored black holes proposed by Ashtekar et al. It is carried out provided that in the EBI theory there exist both exact solutions: the colored black hole and the soliton like solution. In such a manner that the predictions of the model can be demonstrated analytically, and they are shown in plots as a better illustration. There is only one prediction of the model that the EBI solution does not fulfil: $`M_{hor}^{(b)}(r_h)`$ does not increase monotonically, except for low values of $`b`$.

We also point out some differences in comparison with the EYM black hole whose study lead to the model ulises : the Abelian character of BI theory vs. non-Abelian EYM and that BI theory is described with a continuos parameter $`b`$ in contrast with the discreteness of the EYM parameter $`n`$.

In general it occurs that $`M_{ADM}^{(b)}>M_{hor}^{(b)}`$. Using the corresponding expressions Eqs. (14) and (13), this inequality reduces to inequality (18). Since the diference between the hamiltonian horizon mass and the ADM mass can be seen as the energy that is available for radiation to fall both into the black hole and to infinity, then the nonzero value of the Hamiltonian could be an indication of instability of the EBI solution. On this basis, one can conjecture that the EBI black hole is unstable.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author acknowledges discussions with U. Nucamendi.