text:
# Supernovae, Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Stellar Rotation

## 1. Introduction

For seventy years scientists have debated the physics behind the explosion of massive stars as supernovae (Baade & Zwicky 1934; Colgate & White 1966) and the possible role of rotation in these events (Hoyle 1946; Fowler & Hoyle 1964; LeBlanc & Wilson 1970; Ostriker & Gunn 1971). During the last five years, the discovery of supernovae showing evidence for gross asymmetry and anomalously large energy (e.g., Kawabata et al. 2002) coupled with a growing realization that GRBs require rapidly rotating massive stars for their progenitors, has rekindled interest in this historic controversy.

Here we briefly review ($`\mathrm{\S }`$2) the currently favored models for GRBs. The starting point for each is a rapidly rotating, massive (M $`\text{ }>\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\mathrm{M}_{}`$) Wolf-Rayet star (WR-star) whose central iron core has become unstable. The amount of angular momentum required for the material just outside the core ($`j\text{ }>\text{ }10^{16}`$ cm2 s-1) is far in excess of what is observed in young pulsars and also greater than what is predicted by current stellar models (Heger, Woosley, & Spruit 2003; see also Heger et al. this volume). In fact, the models predict angular momenta in presupernova stars in between what is needed for GRBs and pulsars - too slow for the former, too fast for the latter ($`\mathrm{\S }`$3). We are thus led to consider scenarios in which excess angular momentum exists in a small fraction of WR-stars near death, as well as mechanisms for removing angular momentum from neutron stars produced by ordinary supernovae ($`\mathrm{\S }`$4). Given that current estimates of gravitational radiation by the $`r`$mode instability are orders of magnitude too small, a promising possibility is braking the rotation of young neutron stars by the “propeller mechanism”. This happens when a strongly magnetic neutron star is spun down by interacting with slow moving matter that fails to achieve ejection in the supernova. As this material falls back on the spinning neutron star, it is spun up and ejected, carrying with it excess angular momentum.

We conclude with some speculations ($`\mathrm{\S }`$5) on how the diverse needs for slowly rotating pulsars and rapidly rotating GRB progenitors might be achieved.

## 2. Models for Gamma-Ray Bursts

Recent developments in the study of GRBs have been reviewed by Meszaros (2002) and we will only mention a few relevant to the present discussion. It is now acknowledged that the most common variety of GRBs, the so called “long-soft” bursts, originate at cosmological distances with an average redshift of about 1.3 (there may be observational bias in this number and the true average could be greater). Each burst is beamed to a small fraction of the sky with a typical opening angle of $``$5 degrees; thus for every burst we see, there are approximately 300 that we do not see. Correcting for this beaming and making a reasonable estimate for the efficiency of producing gamma-rays, the kinetic energy of the GRB producing jets is $`3\times 10^{51}`$ erg (Frail et al 2001). Approximately two dozen events cluster within an order of magnitude of this this value. It is interesting that this is close to the kinetic energy of a typical supernova ($`1\times 10^{51}`$ erg), but, on the other hand, ordinary supernovae do not collimate their ejecta into jets and do not concentrate a large fraction of their energy into highly relativistic motion. It is estimated, on the basis of variability arguments and self-opacity considerations, that the Lorentz factor in these jets is typically in excess of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ 300, making them by far the most rapidly moving bulk matter in the universe. The event rate in the observable universe for GRBs, both those beamed at us and away, is about 1000 per day.

Observations of GRB afterglows, where they have been seen, show the bursts come from star-forming regions in distant galaxies. There have also been reports of approximately five Type I supernovae coincident in location and onset with GRBs. The most striking and well observed of these was SN 1998bw, in coincidence with GRB 980425. This supernova, a Type Ic, had very unusual properties including anomalously high velocities, high energy, asymmetry, and evidence for relativistic motion (inferred from its radio afterglow).

Taken together, the evidence suggests that at least this common subclass of GRBs is produced by the death of massive stars. The energies involved are similar to supernovae, but somehow a large fraction of the energy has been channeled into relativistic, bi-polar outflows. We see a burst only when we look directly down the axis of these outflows. Finally, since the bursts typically last $``$20 s, the star producing the GRB cannot be a giant star (neither blue nor red) because a jet lasting 20 s or less would lose its energy before escaping from the star. It would also be unrealistic for a jet that lasted much longer, say the $``$1000 seconds required for light to cross a red supergiant, to die abruptly 10 - 20 s after escaping. The progenitor has apparently lost its envelope.

Within this context several models have been proposed. Each involves the death of a WR-star initiated by iron-core collapse, and in each, the parent star is exploded by jets that then travel very far outside the stellar surface before making the actual GRB. As we shall see, each model, also invokes rapid rotation of the parent star.

### 2.1. Supranovae

Vietri & Stella (1998, 1999) have suggested that GRBs result from the delayed implosion of rapidly rotating neutron stars to black holes. The neutron star forms in a traditional (neutrino-powered) supernova, but is “supramassive” in the sense that without rotation, it would collapse. With rapid rotation, however, collapse is delayed until angular momentum is lost by gravitational radiation and magnetic field torques. Vietri and Stella assume that the usual pulsar formula holds and, for a field of 1012 G, a delay of order years (depending on the field and mass) is expected. When the centrifugal support becomes sufficiently weak, the star experiences a period of runaway deformation and gravitational radiation before collapsing into a black hole. It is assumed that $`0.1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ is left behind in a disk which accretes and powers the burst explosion.

As a GRB model, the supranova has several advantages. It predicts an association of GRBs with massive stars and supernovae - as do all the models discussed here. Moreover it produces a large amount of material enriched in heavy elements located sufficiently far from the GRB as not to obscure it. The irradiation of this material by the burst or afterglow can produce x-ray emission lines as have been reported in several bursts (e.g., Piro et al. 1999, 2000). However, the supranova model also has some difficulties. It may also take fine tuning to produce a GRB days to years after the neutron star is born. Shapiro (2000) has shown that neutron stars requiring differential rotation for their support will collapse in only a few minutes. The requirement of rigid rotation reduces the range of masses that can be supported by rotation to, at most, $``$20% above the non-rotating limit. The angular momentum required is essentially that of a neutron star born rotating at break up.

### 2.2. Millisecond magnetars

Another model, championed most recently by Wheeler et al. (2000, 2002), is the “super-magnetar” model (see also Usov 1992). As usual, the iron core of a massive star collapses to a neutron star, but for whatever reasons, unusually high angular momentum perhaps, the neutron star acquires, at birth, an extremely powerful magnetic field, $`10^{15}`$ \- 1017 G. If the neutron star additionally rotates with a period of $`1`$ ms, up to 1052 erg in rotational energy can be extracted on a GRB time scale by a variation of the pulsar mechanism. This model has the attractive features of being associated with massive stars, making a supernova as well as a GRB, and utilizing an object, the magnetar, that is implicated in other phenomena - soft gamma-ray repeaters and anomalous x-ray pulsars. It has the unattractive feature of invoking the magnetar fully formed in the middle of a star in the process of collapsing without consideration of the effects of neutrinos or rapid accretion. The star does not have time to develop a deformed geometry or disk that might help to collimate jets. To break the symmetry, Wheeler et al. invoke the operation of a prior LeBlanc-Wilson (1970) jet to “weaken” the confinement of the radiation bubble along the rotational axis. Numerical models to give substance to this scenario are needed (see also Wheeler, Meier, & Wilson 2002).

### 2.3. Collapsars

This is currently the leading model for GRBs, in part because of the detailed calculations that have been done to support the scenario. A collapsar is a rotating massive star whose central core collapses to a black hole surrounded by an accretion disk (Woosley 1993; MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). Accretion of at least a solar mass through this disk produces outflows that are further collimated by passage through the stellar mantle. These flows attain high Lorentz factor as they emerge from the stellar surface and, after traversing many stellar radii, produce a GRB and its afterglows by internal and external shocks. The passage of the jet through the star also gives a very asymmetric supernova of order 1051 erg.

There are three ways to make a collapsar and each is likely to have different observational characteristics.

* A standard (Type I) collapsar (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999) is one where the black hole forms promptly in a helium core of approximately 15 to 40 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. There never is a successful outgoing shock after the iron core first collapses. A massive, hot proto-neutron star briefly forms and radiates neutrinos, but the neutrino flux is inadequate to halt the accretion. Such an occurrence seems likely in helium cores of mass over $`10\mathrm{M}_{}`$ because of their large binding energy and the rapid accretion that characterizes the first second after core collapse.
* A variation on this theme is the “Type II collapsar” wherein the black hole forms after some delay - typically a minute to an hour, owing to the fallback of material that initially moves outwards, but fails to achieve escape velocity (MacFadyen Woosley, & Heger 2001). Such an occurrence is again favored by massive helium cores. Unfortunately the long time scale associated with the fall back may be, on the average, too long for typical long, soft bursts. Their accretion disks are also not hot enough to be neutrino dominated and this may affect the accretion efficiency (Narayan, Piran, & Kumar 2001) and therefore the energy available to make jets.
* A third variety of collapsar occurs for extremely massive metal-deficient stars (above $``$300 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) that probably existed only in the early universe (Fryer, Woosley, & Heger 2001). For non-rotating stars with helium core masses above 133 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (main sequence mass 260 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$), it is known that a black hole forms after the pair instability is encountered. It is widely suspected that such massive stars existed in abundance in the first generation after the Big Bang at red shifts $``$5 - 20. For rotating stars the mass limit for black hole formation will be raised. The black hole that forms here, about 100 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, is more massive, than the several $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ characteristic of Type I and II collapsars, but the accretion rate is also much higher, $``$10 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ s-1, and the energy released may also be much greater. The time scale is also much longer.

Of these possibilities, the collapsar Type I is currently favored and most frequently discussed, in part because of its shorter characteristic time scale.

## 3. GRB Progenitors

Using the same formalism and code as discussed by Heger et al. (these proceedings), a 15 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ helium core has been evolved from the onset of central helium burning until iron core collapse. Estimates of the dominant magnetic and non-magnetic modes of angular momentum transport were included. The assumed mass loss rate was taken from Wellstein & Langer (1999) reduced by 3 to account for clumping (Hamann & Koesterke 1998). We take a metallicity of 10% solar and further decrease the mass loss by the square root of this number. Altogether the mass loss rate was

$$\mathrm{log}(\frac{\dot{M}}{\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1})=10.95+1.5\mathrm{log}(\frac{L}{L_{}}).$$
(1)
This is equal to $`1.7\times 10^5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ yr-1 when the star dies, a value some might regard as low for an 8.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ WR-star but at least an order of magnitude greater than inferred for SN 2002ap (Berger, Kulkarni, & Chevalier 2002) and SN 1998bw (Li & Chevalier 1999), two well studied massive Type Ic supernovae. The initial model was assumed to be rigidly rotating with a surface angular speed corresponding to a fraction of break up (typically 10% or 30%). A sampling of results is given in Table 1 and in the figures. For other models and more extensive discussion see Heger, Woosley, & Spruit (2003).

The first three columns in Table 1 define the initial model and physics employed (magnetic torques, amount of rotation expressed in terms of a per-centage of Keplerian at the surface, and mass loss by winds). Next is the period a pulsar would have if it formed in this star, then the non-dimensional spin parameter, $`a`$, a black hole would acquire, if all the angular momentum below the mass coordinate indicated were to go into the black hole of that mass (formal values in excess of 1 are shown in brackets solely to give a measure for the angular momentum available in the model). In the last column we show the mass ranges in which the equatorial mass could form a centrifugally supported accretion disk around a central compact object. The dashed lines in Fig. 2 indicate the specific angular momentum needed for a rotationally supported disk at the last stable orbit of a Schwarzschild or extreme Kerr (a = 1) black hole.

As the figures and table show, mass loss and magnetic torques are detrimental to any GRB model that invokes hyper-critical rotation of the collapsed remnant. This is true even for initial rotation rates unlikely to be achieved in single stars (e.g., 30% critical at the surface). Most of the angular momentum is lost during helium burning and very little in the advanced burning stages.

TABLE 1

## 4. Slowing the Rotation Rate of Young Neutron Stars

While the rotation rates in Fig. 2 and Table 1 are too slow for GRB progenitors, they are much too fast for ordinary pulsars. This remains true even for the more moderate rotation rates coming from red supergiant progenitors and discussed by Heger et al. (this volume). A young neutron star can be braked by neutrino emission, by gravitational radiation, and by electromagnetic torques. The first two have the virtue of carrying away angular momentum and energy in a form that, at least for now, is invisible. In principle, core collapse could occur in the presence of rotation so large as to be dynamically important, or even to make a collapsar, but the excess angular momentum could be radiated away before any measurements of the pulsar period become possible.

Neutrinos carry away angular momentum because their last interaction occurs at the surface of the neutron star where the specific angular momentum is high. The ratio of angular momentum to effective mass (E/c2) is greater than the average for the neutron star and neutrino loss results in the loss of specific angular momentum in the remaining star. Unfortunately, such losses are limited by the small fraction of the neutron star’s mass emitted as neutrinos ($``$20%). Calculations by Janka (2002, private communication) show that the maximum lengthening of the period is 30%.

For some time it was thought that gravitational radiation induced by the “$`r`$-mode instability” would rapidly brake young neutron stars. However, Arras et al (2002) have recently found that the $`r`$-mode waves saturate at amplitudes far lower than obtained in previous numerical calculations (Lindblom, Tohline, & Vallisneri 2001) that assumed an unrealistically large driving force. Much less gravitational radiation occurs and the braking time for a rapidly rotating neutron star becomes millennia rather than hours. Arras et al. calculate that

$$\tau _{\mathrm{s}pindown}=2000\mathrm{yr}(\frac{\alpha _e}{0.1})^1(\frac{335\mathrm{Hz}}{\nu })^{11},$$
(2)
with $`\alpha _e`$, the maximum amplitude of the instability (for which Arras et al estimate 0.1 as an upper bound). A 3 ms pulsar will thus take about 2000 years to substantially brake. Kaspi & Helfand (2002), on the other hand, note several slowly rotating young pulsars, in particular J1811-1925 in G11.2-0.3 with Pinit = 62 ms and age 2000 years. It seems that pulsars are either born rotating slowly - because their parent stars rotated slowly - or else have been braked by electromagnetic torques. In the later case, the excess energy should either appear as radiation or contribute to the kinetic energy of the explosion.

In this regard the estimated rotation rates calculated for presupernova cores by Heger et al. elsewhere in these proceedings lie in an interesting range, too slow to be the sole source of the supernova’s energy, yet too fast for ordinary pulsars. Such calculations are admittedly very uncertain, but, taken at face value, raise an interesting question. Could pulsars frequently be born rotating with 5 to 10 ms periods, yet be slowed to values 30 to 100 ms, say, during their first year? One possibility is the pulsar mechanism itself, but we would like to consider here two others - magnetic stellar winds and the propeller mechanism.

### 4.1. Neutrino-Powered Magnetic Stellar Winds

During the first 10 s of its life a neutron star emits about 20% of its mass as neutrinos. This powerful flux of neutrinos passing through the proto-neutron star atmosphere drives mass loss and the neutron star loses $`0.01\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Duncan, Shapiro, & Wasserman 1986; Qian & Woosley 1996; Thompson, Burrows, & Meyer 2001). Should magnetic fields enforce corotation on this wind out to a radius of 10 stellar radii, appreciable angular momentum could be lost from a 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ neutron star (since $`jr^2\omega `$). The issue is thus one of magnetic field strength and its radial variation.

For a neutron star of mass $`M`$ and radius, $`R_6`$, in units of 10 km, the mass loss rate is approximately (more accurate expressions are given by Qian & Woosley)

$$\dot{M}10^3\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{s}^1\left(\frac{L_{\nu ,\mathrm{tot}}}{10^{53}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}}\right)^{5/3}R_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{5/3}\left(\frac{1.4\mathrm{M}_{}}{M}\right)^2.$$
(3)
The field will cause corotation of this wind out to a radius (Mestel & Spruit 1987) where

$$\rho (v_{\mathrm{wind}}^2+\omega ^2r^2)\frac{B^2}{4\pi }.$$
(4)
Calculations that include the effect of rotation on the neutrino-powered wind have yet to be done, but one can estimate the radial density variation from the one-dimensional models of Qian & Woosley. For a mass loss rate of 10$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{M}_{}^{}`$ s-1 they find a density and radial speed at 100 km of 108 g cm-1 and 1000 km s-1 respectively. At this time, the proto-neutron star radius is 30 km and these conditions persist for $`1`$ s. Later, they find, for a mass loss rate of 10-5 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ s-1 and a radius of 10 km, a density at 100 km of $``$105 g cm-3 and velocity 2000 km s-1. This lasts $`10`$ s. Unless $`\omega `$ is quite low, $`v_{\mathrm{wind}}`$ is not critical. For $`\omega 1000`$ rad s-1 the field required to hold 108 g cm-3 in corotation at 100 km is $`3\times 10^{14}`$ G; for 105 g cm-3 it is 1013 G.

To appreciably brake such a rapidly rotating neutron star, assuming $`Br^2`$, thus requires ordered surface fields of $``$1015 \- 1016 G. Similar conclusions have been reached independently by Todd Thompson (2003). Such fields are characteristic of magnetars, but probably not of ordinary neutron stars. On the other hand if the rotation rate were already slow, $`\omega 100`$ rad s-1 ($`P`$ 60 ms), even a moderate field of 1014 G could have an appreciable effect. It should also be kept in mind that the field strength of a neutron star when it is 1 - 10 s old could be very different than thousands of years later when most measurements have been made.

### 4.2. Fallback and the Propeller Mechanism

After the first 1000 s, the rate of accretion from fall back is given (MacFadyen, Woosley, & Heger 2001) by

$$\dot{M}10^7t_5^{5/3}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(5)
with the time in units of 105 s. For the mass loss rate in units of $`10^{26}`$ g s-1, we obtain

$$\dot{M}_{26}2t_5^{5/3}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(6)
For a dipole field with magnetic moment $`\mu _{30}=B_{12}R_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$, with $`B_{12}`$ the surface field in units of 1012 G, the infalling matter will be halted by the field at the Alfven radius (Alpar 2001),

$$r_\mathrm{A}=6.8\mu _{30}^{4/7}\dot{M}_{26}^{2/7}\mathrm{km}.$$
(7)
At that radius matter can be rotationally ejected, provided the angular velocity there corresponding to co-rotation exceeds the Keplerian orbital speed. The ejected matter carries away angular momentum and brakes the neutron star. This is the propeller mechanism (Illarionov & Sunyaev 1975; Chevalier 1989; Lin, Bodenheimer, & Woosley 1991; Alpar 2001).

Obviously $`r_\mathrm{A}`$ must exceed the neutron star radius (10 km here) if the field is to have any effect. The above equations thus require a strong field, $`B>10^{12}`$ G, and accretion rates characteristic of times at least one day. Additionally there is a critical accretion rate, for a a given field strength and rotation rate, above which the co-rotation speed at the Alfven radius will be slower than the Keplerian orbit speed. In this case the matter will accrete rather than be ejected. Magnetic braking will thus be inefficient until $`\omega ^2r_\mathrm{A}^3>GM`$, or

$$\dot{M}_{26}<5.7\times 10^4\omega _3^{7/3}\mu _{30}^2,$$
(8)
where $`\omega _3`$ is the angular velocity in thousands of radians per second ($`\omega _3`$ = 1 implies a period of 2$`\pi `$ ms). This turns out to be a very restrictive condition. For a given $`\mu _{30}`$ and $`\omega _3`$, eq. (6) and (8) give a time, $`t_{5,\mathrm{min}}`$, when braking can begin. The torque on the neutron star from that point on will be

$$I\dot{\omega }=\mu ^2/r_\mathrm{A}^3=10^{60}\frac{\mu _{30}^2}{r_\mathrm{A}^3},$$
(9)
with $`I`$, the moment of inertia of the neutron star, approximately 1045 (Lattimer & Prakash 2001). The integrated deceleration will be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =250\mu _{30}^{2/7}t_{5,\mathrm{m}in}^{3/7}.$$
(10)
Putting it all together, a 1.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ neutron star can be braked to a much slower speed ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega `$) by fall back if $`\mu _{30}>`$ 78, 43, or 25 for initial periods of 6, 21, or 60 ms, respectively. If the surface field strength - for a dipole configuration is less than $`2\times 10^{13}`$ G, braking by the propeller mechanism will be negligible in most interesting situations.

However, we have so far ignored all non-magnetic forces save gravity and centrifugal force. A neutron star of age less than one day is in a very special situation. The accretion rate given by eq. (5) is vastly super-Eddington. This means that matter at the Alfven radius will be braked by radiation as well as centrifugal force and the likelihood of its ejection is greater. Fryer, Benz, & Herant (1996) have considered neutron star accretion at the rates relevant here and find that neutrinos released very near the neutron star actually drive an explosion of the accreting matter. Just how this would all play out in a multi-dimensional calculation that includes magnetic braking, rotation, and a declining accretion rate has yet to be determined, but is obviously a subject worthy of more investigation.

The ejection of material by the propeller mechanism also inhibits the accretion so the process is self limiting. If this is the way most neutron stars are slowed, one might expect a correlation of pulsar period with the mass of the progenitor star. More massive stars experience more fall back and make slowly rotating neutron stars. Interestingly the Crab was probably a star of $``$10 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and may thus have experienced very little fall back. The matter that is ejected by the propeller mechanism in more massive stars could contribute appreciably to the explosion of the supernova and especially its mixing.

## 5. GRBs and Pulsars - Can One Have Them Both?

We have highlighted an interesting quandary. In order to make GRBs in the collapsar model one needs a specific angular momentum $`j>10^{16}`$ erg s, corresponding to a period of $`\text{ }<\text{ }0.5`$ ms for a neutron star with moment of inertia $`10^{45}`$ g cm2. Other GRB models need only two or three times less. Yet pulsars are estimated to have periods at birth in the range 20 - 100 ms, roughly two orders of magnitude slower. Can reasonable stellar evolution scenarios give both?

First, we note that the circumstances leading to a GRB are special, occurring in only $`1`$% of all core collapse supernovae (roughly 1000 GRBs happen in the universe each day; the supernova rate is of order one per second). The star that dies and makes a GRB must be a WR-star and was very likely influenced by being in a mass exchanging binary. Removing the envelope lessens the torque at the edge of the helium core and allows more rapid rotation at death. But mass loss and magnetic torques during the WR-phase decrease the angular momentum, especially if one uses currently favored loss rates. Reducing those rates, by e.g., $`Z_o^{1/2}`$ where $`Z_o`$ is the initial metallicity of the star, certainly goes in the right direction and would help to explain why GRBs seem to occur more frequently in the early universe (Stern, Ateia, & Hurley 2002), but even this does not go far enough. The torques given by Spruit (2002) and included in the calculations of Heger et al. reported at this meeting rule out the most favored model for GRBs (Table 1). These torques are obviously uncertain, and perhaps one should be pleased to get within an order of magnitude of the desired answer, but they do scale as the sixth power of the shear ($`(\frac{r_r\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }})^6`$). Unless this scaling is itself quite wrong, variations of order factor of 10 in the overall strength will make little difference in the outcome. It may be possible to obtain the necessary conditions for GRBs with reasonable variation of Spruit’s parameters, but then isn’t one required to use these same parameters in studies of more common supernovae that make pulsars?

Factors that would facilitate the production of collapsars or other GRB models requiring rapid rotation in a massive WR-star would be:

* Decreased mass loss - mass loss removes angular momentum as well as mass. Does decreasing the initial metallicity appreciably slow mass loss for WR-stars?
* The angular dependence of mass loss - if the mass loss is concentrated at the poles as some models (Maeder & Meynet 2000) suggest, less angular momentum is carried away.
* Reduced magnetic torques - Is the formalism of Spruit (2002), based on the interchange instability, correct for massive stars? Are composition gradients more effective at inhibiting angular momentum transport than the default values of parameters in that model would suggest?
* Binary mergers - Scenarios for keeping the helium core rotating rapidly by merger with a binary companion (presumably via common envelope) when the primary is well into helium burning need exploring, but the frequency of such events must be reasonably high.

Perhaps the puzzle is not why GRB progenitors rotate so rapidly as why pulsars rotate so slowly. Either common neutron stars are born with long rotational periods or they are braked. We have discussed here two processes that might brake a young neutron star. Both seem to require magnetic field strengths substantially in excess of 1013 G. Interestingly these braking mechanisms would slow a young neutron star, but not a black hole and this at least may be seen as favoring the collapsar model.

This research has been supported by the NSF (AST 02-06111), NASA (NAG5-12036), and the DOE Program for Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC; DE-FC02-01ER41176). AH is supported, in part, by the Department of Energy under grant B341495 to the Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University of Chicago, and a Fermi Fellowship at the University of Chicago.

## References

Alpar, M. A. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1245

Arras, P., Flanagan, E. E., Morsink, S. M., Schenk, A. K., Teukolsky, S. A., & Wasserman, I. 2002, submitted to ApJ, astro ph-0202345

Baade, W., & Zwicky F. 1934, Pub National Acad Sci, 20, 259

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., & Chevalier, R. A. 2002, ApJL, 577, 5

Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 847

Colgate, S. A., & White, R. H. 1966, ApJ, 143, 626

Duncan, R. C., Shapiro, S. L., & Wasserman, I. 1986, ApJ, 309, 141

Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., Djorgovski, S. G., Bloom, J. S., Galama, T. J., Reichart, D. E., Berger, E., et al. 2001, ApJL, 562, 55

Fryer, C. L., Benz, W., & Herant, M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 801

Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 372

Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1964, ApJS, 9, 201

Hamaan, W.-R., & Koesterke, L. 1998, A&A, 335, 1003

Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368

Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. 2003, ApJ, in preparation

Hoyle, F. 1946, MNRAS, 106, 343

Illarionov, A. F., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1979, A&A,39, 185

Kaspi, V., & Helfand, D. 2002, in ASP Conf Series 271, ed. P. O. Slane & B. M. Gaensler, San Francisco: ASP, p.3

Kawabata, K. S., Jeffery, D. J., Iye, M., Ohyama, Y., & 27 others 2002, ApJL, 580, 39

Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426

LeBlanc, J. M., & Wilson, J. R. 1970, ApJ, 161, 541

Li, Z.-Y., & Chevalier, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 716

Lindblom, L., Tohline, J. E., & Vallisneri, M. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett, 86, 1152

Lin, D. N. C., Woosley, S. E., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 1991, Nature, 353, 827

Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2000, A&A, 361, 159

MacFadyen, A., Woosley, S. E. 1999 ApJ, 524, 262

MacFadyen, A., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 410

Mestel. L., & Spruit, H. C. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 57

Meszaros, P. 2002, ARAA, 40, 137

Narayan, R., Piran, T., & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 557, 949

Ostriker, J. P. & Gunn, J. E. 1971, ApJL, 164, 95O

Piro, L., Costa, E., Feroci, M., Frontera, F., Amati, L., dal Fiume, D., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 1999, ApJL, 514, L73.

Piro, L., Garmire, G., Garcia, M., Stratta, G., Costa, E., Feroci, M., Meszaros, P., Vietri, M., et al. 2000, Science, 290, 955

Qian, Y. Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 331

Shapiro, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 544, 397

Spruit, H.C. 2002 , A&A, 381, 923

Stern, B. E., Atteia, J.-L., & Hurley, K. 2002, ApJ, 578, 304

Thompson, T. 2003, preprint.

Thompson, T., Burrows, A., & Meyer, B. 2001, 562, 887

Usov, V. 1992, Nature, 357, 472

Vietri, M., & Stella, L. 1998, ApJL, 507, L45

Vietri, M., & Stella, L. 1999, ApJL, 527, L43

Wheeler, J. C., Yi, I., Höflich, P., & Wang, L. 2000, ApJ, 537, 810

Wheeler, J. C., Meier, D. L., & Wilson, J. R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 807

Wellstein, S., & Langer, N. 1999, A&A, 350, 148

Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273.


format: text

text:
# Elementary Particles under the Lens of the Black Holes

## I  Black Holes: Historical developments

The first black hole solution was found in 1916 by the German astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild few months after General Relativity was formulated (and little time before his death in the Russian front). It was a static and spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum Einstein Eqs. described by the line element

$$ds^2=(12M/r)dt^2(12M/r)^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`M`$ is the black hole mass. Notwithstanding it took many decades before the scientific community accepted that black holes were physical solutions which could be indeed realized in nature. In 1939 we can still find A. Einstein stating in the conclusions of an article E : “the Schwarzschild singularities do not exist in the physical reality”. This was not what J. Oppenheimer and his student, H. Snyder, concluded in the same year OS , however, after analyzing the collapse of massive stars.

In 1938, J. Oppenheimer and G. Volkoff found that neutron stars had a limit for its mass beyond which they should collapse OV . In the year after, Oppenheimer and Snyder decided to analyze it in more detail. For technical reasons, they assumed some simplifications: spherical symmetry, constant density, no rotation and no shock waves with emission of matter or radiation. Under these conditions they concluded that the collapse would lead eventually to a black hole indeed, but there remained some unclear features to be understood. In contrast to the description made by observers at rest on the surface of the star who would witness a continuous collapse towards the singularity, asymptotic observers would see the star surface like “frozen” on the event horizon. These seemingly contradictory descriptions were only reconciled after D. Finkelstein found in 1958 a coordinate system which was able to cover smoothly the internal and external regions of the black hole F . This conceptual step in addition with more precise numerical simulations, which were possible thanks to a better comprehension of the nuclear structure, ended up to corroborate Oppenheimer and Snyder’s conclusion and bit most skepticism about the possible existence of black holes. J. Wheeler, in particular, evolved from criticizer to supporter of the black hole idea and in 1967 he introduced the denomination black hole to what was called collapsed star in the west and frozen star in the east. More than 40 years after the Schwarzschild solution was discovered, black holes were treated at least as a real possibility.

It is common to consider 1964 as the beginning of the black hole golden era. From the theoretical point of view, R. Penrose has introduced topological methods with which he was able to derive some quite general results. For example, he was able to show (under some natural assumptions in the classical realm) that black holes must have a singularity in their interior P . Developments in the observational domain also took place. In 1966 I. Novikov and Ya. Zel’dovich raised the possibility that there should exist binary systems formed by an ordinary star and a black hole orbiting around each other. It would be natural, thus, to expect the combined emission of X-ray and visible light from such systems since as matter is attracted by the black hole its gravitational potential would be converted into thermal energy and eventually into X-ray NZ . This turned out to be the most probable explanation for the spectrum associated with Cygnus X-1 as it became clear in 1971 with the collected data from the Uhuru satellite. It is worthwhile to notice that while the prediction that star-size black holes could be X-ray sources was confirmed only 5 years after its formulation, the explanation that radio galaxies (observed since the 30’s) and quasars (observed since the 60’s) were energized by the presence of super black holes had to wait more than 40 years.

Different evidences favoring the existence of black holes are mounting since then, and it is expected for soon some direct signal from a black hole event horizon. This may come as a shadow disc at the photograph plate of Sgr A (at the center of the Milky Way, where a many-million-solar-mass black hole is believed to exist) \[when small enough wavelength observations become possible\] or in the form of gravitational wave signals to be detected up to the 10’s by the Ligo and Virgo Earth-based gravitational wave detectors or in the 20’s by the Lisa space gravitational wave detector, we do not know; but what we do know is that it will be the confirmation of one of the greatest predictions of theoretical physics.

## II  Black Holes: CLASSICAL properties

A strongly asymptotically predictable spacetime

$$(,g)$$

is formally said to contain a black hole $`B`$ if

$$BJ^{}(𝒥^+)$$

is not empty, i.e., if there is a region from where classical light rays cannot escape to infinity, where $`J^{}`$ is the causal past and $`𝒥^+`$ is the future null infinity, . The event horizon of the black hole is defined as being the boundary of $`B`$:

$$H\dot{J}^{}(𝒥^+).$$

The solution discovered by Schwarzschild contains a particular kind of black hole which is static and spherically symmetric but could it exist other black holes with, let us say, more exotic forms and exquisite properties? In 1964, A. Doroshkevich, I. Novikov and Ya. Zel’dovich showed that quasi-spherically symmetric collapsing stars give rise to perfectly spherically symmetric black holes DZN . This was the prelude of a series of far-reaching theorems known as black hole no-hair theorems.

In 1967 W. Israel derived what can be considered the first piece of this series of theorems, namely, every rotationless black hole should be spherically symmetric I . As a next step, it was natural, thus, to extend the analysis to rotating black holes. A solution for a rotating black hole was unveiled by R. Kerr in 1963 K  (but only identified as so in 1965 by R. Boyer and R. Lindquist BL , B. Carter C  and R. Penrose). At that time, it was not clear, however, if there would not exist other vacuum solutions of the Einstein Eqs. describing black holes with angular momentum. This quest was embraced by B. Carter in 1972 (with a contribution by D. Robinson) who showed that according to the vacuum Einstein Eqs. the most general black hole solution was the one given by Kerr. The event horizon of a Kerr black hole is more elongated at the equator than on the poles and the underlying geometry of a rotating black hole is richer than of a static one but still its structure remains quite simple since most properties of the original star are lost in the collapse. To put it in R. Price’s words: In a star collapse process with a black hole formation, everything that can be radiated (i.e. does not satisfy some conservation law) will be radiated.

The most general formulation of the no-hair theorems associated with the electrovacuum solution of Einstein Eqs. states that black holes are completely characterized by their mass $`M`$, charge $`Q`$ and angular momentum $`J`$ and its geometry is described by the Kerr-Newman line element. For instance, the black hole area can be written as ($`c=G=1`$)

$$A=4\pi ^2\left[2M^2Q^2+2M\sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2}\right].$$

Thus black holes not only are probably the most exotic structures at the heavens but also one of the simplest ones as well.

## III  Black Holes: SEMICLASSICAL properties

The beginning of the black hole semiclassical era took place in 1974. This was the summit of a number of curious events which actually began in 1971 H71 . In this year, S. Hawking showed that the total horizon area for any given set of black holes did not decrease with time. In particular, according to this theorem, black holes were indestructible. In order to derive this theorem, Hawking used some quite reasonable hypotheses (at least in the classical realm). In 1972, in analogy to the second law of thermodynamics, J. Bekenstein associated an entropy to each black hole proportional to the area of its event horizon B . Hawking had a strong negative reaction at first but two years later, as he analyzed the collapse of stars in the context of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetimes (where positive energy conditions normally used in classical theorems are not valid), Hawking showed that black holes should radiate with a thermal spectrum H74  with temperature ($`c=G=\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$)

$$T=𝒦/2\pi ,$$

(as measured by assymptotic observers), where

$$𝒦=4\pi \sqrt{M^2Q^2J^2/M^2}/A$$

is the surface gravity. Eventually, black holes could have associated an entropy proportional to its horizon area

$$S=\frac{c^3A}{4G\mathrm{}}$$

as conjectured by Bekenstein (and precisely calculated by Hawking). This discovery opened a subarea denominated Black Hole Thermodynamics, which is presently very active because of some fundamental questions raised in connection with information theory and quantum mechanics but which will be hardly solved outside the context of a full quantum gravity theory. In Hawking s words: Holes may be black classically but are gray quantum-mechanically.

In order to understand better the Hawking effect, let us make a detour through Quantum Field Theory. It became clear since the early times of Quantum Mechanics that the no-particle state, i.e. the vacuum, has a very rich structure. Most (if not all) of its exotic properties are connected with the concept of virtual particles. Virtual particles violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and, thus, cannot be directly observed. Notwithstanding, they do have indirect observable consequences. Probably the most paradigmatic example of the physical consequences of the virtual particles is given by the Casimir effect.

According to the Casimir effect Ca , uncharged parallel metallic plates in the vacuum experience an attractive pressure given by (see Ref. MT  for a comprehensive review and Ref. C-PFT  for a pedagogical introduction)

$$|F|/A=3\pi ^2\mathrm{}c/710d^4,$$

where $`d`$ is the distance between the plates and we are discounting any gravitational effects because of the plate masses. We note that this is intrinsically a quantum-relativistic effect which would vanish for $`\mathrm{}0`$ and lead to nonsense results in the nonrelativistic limit $`c\mathrm{}`$. Roughly speaking, the metal plates play the role of boundaries to the virtual photons diminishing the total vacuum energy $`0|\widehat{H}|0`$ as the plates get closer to each other, where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the free Hamiltonian associated with the photon field.

We already know that virtual photons feel the presence of static metallic plates but what does it happen if we consider a (nonuniformly) accelerated metallic plate in the vacuum? The metal plate will transfer energy to the virtual particles letting them real. Indeed, a photon flux will be emitted opposite to the acceleration direction while negative energy fluxes will be emitted in the acceleration direction. This is known as dynamical Casimir effect (but could be fairly called Moore effect M ). This effect is interesting in its own right and also for being a kind of flat-spacetime analog of the Hawking effect. Here the mirror plays the role of the star, the emitted photons correspond to the Hawking radiation and the inward flux of negative energy is responsible for the black hole evaporation. The main difference here is that contrary to the mirror case, where only photons are radiated, the star collapse leads to the emission of all kind of particles. This is so because, according to the equivalence principle, all particles are coupled to gravity in the same way. What would not be easy to anticipate is that the spectrum of the emitted particles as detected by asymptotic observers can be associated to a black body. In the particular case of a static chargeless black hole, the corresponding temperature is

$$T=\mathrm{}c^3/8\pi k_BGM,$$

where $`M`$ is the black hole mass. Notice the appearance of the four universal constants $`c,\mathrm{},G,k_B`$.

The larger the black hole, the lower the temperature and only “small-mass” particles ($`mc^2k_BT`$) will be likely to escape. Large-mass particles will be scattered back to the hole by the scattering potential. Notwithstanding, it is worthwhile to notice that arbitrarily large mass particles could be, in principle, observed as follows. By assuming that the evaporation process is adiabatic, the radiation temperature as measured by static observers at different Schwarzschild radial coordinates $`r`$ outside the black hole will differ from the one at the infinity by a red-shift factor T , namely,

$$T(r)=T/\sqrt{12GM/rc^2}.$$

Thus, the closer to the horizon the higher the temperature and the more likely to detect massive particles. However, there is no free lunch in nature: in order to probe particles with Planck mass one has to get as close to the horizon as the Planck length.

## IV  ELEMENTARY PARTICLES UNDER THE LENS OF THE BLACK HOLES

The Hawking effect connects in a nontrivial way Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Thermodynamics and has raised a number of different questions, some of which are still opened. Notwithstanding it became clear since 1976 after W. Unruh U  that although static observers outside black holes detect a thermal bath of particles, free falling observers close enough to the horizon would have their detectors basically unexcited. (Here one may think of a usual 2-level Unruh-DeWitt detector UD .) The explanation for this phenomenon is closely connected with previous works by S. Fulling Fu  and P. Davies D  which called attention to the fact that the particle content of a Quantum Field Theory is observer dependent. This conclusion has far-reaching implications even to Quantum Field Theory in flat spacetime. Indeed, the vacuum state as defined by inertial observers in the Minkowski space corresponds to a thermal state of all particles at temperature

$$T=\mathrm{}a/2\pi ck_B$$

as detected by observers with constant proper acceleration $`a`$. It can be said that uniformly accelerated observers see as real those particles which inertial observers ascribe as being virtual.

It is also possible to figure out the opposite situation where particles which are unobservable to uniformly accelerated observers are observable to inertial ones. In 1991 A. Higuchi, D. Sudarsky and the author were analyzing the following problem associated with the radiation emitted from uniformly accelerated charges. It is well known that accelerated charges radiate with respect to inertial observers and the emitted power is given by the Larmor formula J  as (see also Ref. H  for a deep discussion on the radiation reaction problem)

$$W=e^2a^2/6\pi c^3.$$

In spite of this, there was a consensus that co-accelerated observers with uniformly accelerated charges, i.e. charges with constant proper acceleration $`a`$, would not detect any radiation since the corresponding field is static with respect to them RB . According to Quantum Field Theory, however, the usual classical electromagnetic radiation can be interpreted in terms of photons. So, if the co-accelerated observers did not observe any radiation, “where had the photons observed by the inertial observers gone”? The answer to this question is directly related with the fact that the elementary particle concept is observer dependent. Indeed, the emission of a finite-energy photon as seen in the inertial frame corresponds to the emission to or absorption from the Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) thermal bath (in which the electron is immersed according to co-accelerated observers) of a zero-energy Rindler photon. The emission rate of finite energy photons as defined by the inertial observers and the combined emission and absorption rate of zero-energy Rindler photons as defined by the co-accelerated observers can be both written as HMS1  ($`c,\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$P_k_{}(a)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^3a}|K_1(k_{}/a)|^2$$

where $`k_{}`$ is the photon transverse momentum (with respect to the acceleration direction). Zero-energy Rindler photons are perfectly well defined entities since they can carry non-zero transverse momentum but cannot be detected by physical observers because they concentrate on the horizon of the uniformly accelerated observers CCMV . From an epistemological point of view, zero-energy Rindler photons have much in common with virtual particles since although they cannot be observed they are indirectly important as a mean to explain some physical phenomena; in this case, the “disappearance” of the photons in the electron co-accelerated frame. Zero-energy particles are also important in analyzing other problems as, for instance, the response of static sources interacting with the Hawking radiation of a black hole CCHMS .

Probably because of its non-intuitiveness the FDU effect was received with skepticism by part of the scientific community. Although the derivation of the effect is sound and the conclusion indisputable, part of the community took the position that only a “direct” observation of the effect would be convincing. Notwithstanding, this is not an easy task since no macroscopic body would resist to the typical accelerations $`a`$ necessary for this purpose:

$$T/(1K)=a/(2.5\times 10^{22}cm/s^2).$$

The strategy had to be otherwise, namely, a gedanken experiment able to make it clear that the FDU effect would be necessary for the consistency of the Quantum Field Theory itself. This was the strategy followed by D. Vanzella and the author MV  inspired by previous works UW ; HMS1 .

According to the standard model, inertial protons are stable. But this is not so for accelerated ones because of the work transferred to the proton by the external accelerating agent. As far as the proton proper acceleration satisfies $`am_n+m_e+m_\nu m_p`$ the decay process will be much suppressed but for $`a>m_n+m_e+m_\nu m_p`$ the weak decay channel

$$p^+n^0+e^++\nu $$
(1)
will be favored up to $`am_\pi `$ after what the strong-decay channel

$$p^+n^0+\pi ^+$$
(2)
will dominate. Recent calculations show that high-energy protons with $`E10^{14}`$ eV under the influence of magnetic fields of $`B10^{14}`$ G found in some pulsars should decay in a fraction of a second in laboratory time VM .

The analysis above, however, is valid for inertial observers. But how can we understand the decay process from the point of view of co-moving observers with a uniformly accelerated proton? According to these observers, in order to decay the proton must remove energy from the particles of the thermal bath in which it is immersed in its rest frame. Thus, according to the co-moving observers, the decay processes will be seen quite differently. Indeed, in the regime where the proton/neutron can be considered as unexcited/excited states of a two-level quantum mechanical system, processes (1) and (2) will be interpreted according to coaccelerated observers as

$$p^++e^{}n^0+\nu $$
(3a)
$$p^++\overline{\nu }n^0+e^+$$
(3b)
$$p^++\overline{\nu }+e^{}n^0$$
(3c)
and

$$p^++\pi ^{}n^0$$
(4)
respectively. In particular, the correct mean lifetime is predicted in the co-accelerated frame by assuming the processes above in conjunction with the presence of the FDU thermal bath MV ; SY . Had we not taken into account the FDU thermal bath, the proton would be seemingly stable according to the co-accelerated observers (for sake of energy conservation) in contradiction with the inertial frame conclusion: The FDU effect is necessary for the consistency of Quantum Field Theory.

## V  Concluding remarks

The overwhelming difficulty of constructing a quantum gravity theory can be illustrated by the fact that different people will give different answers to what such a theory should look like. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the rules of quantum mechanics which are tested up to scales of $`10^{15}`$ cm would not be drastically modified in the quantum gravity domain. Assuming that $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`G`$ are the only fundamental constants to the quantum gravity theory, we expect that its typical effects will become obvious at the Planck scale, i.e. as soon as we accelerate elementary particles at energies of $`E>M_pc^2=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c^5/G}`$, we are able to probe distances of $`L_p<\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^3}`$, we look at processes with time scales of $`T_p<\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^5}`$ or we observe structures with densities of $`\rho _p=c^5/G^2c^2`$. In principle, these extreme situations would be likely to be realized only in singular regions, as e.g., close to the Big Bang and at black hole singularities. Unhappily the Big Bang is mostly screened by a number of effects associated with the primordial plasma (although it may be that gravitational wave detectors open a window to it) and black hole singularities are not naked. Thus, it might seem that we would be hopelessly lost from both sides: theoretically and observationally. But this is not so according to the Semiclassical Gravity theory!

If one is not allowed to visit the Chinese Imperial city, one should better wait for news just outside its limits. In our case, the Imperial city is the Quantum Gravity realm; it is forbidden to us because we do not fit into the Planck scale; and it is worthwhile to wait for news coming from it because quantum mechanical information should leak from the lock. The Hawking effect is probably the better example of how quantum gravity effects can escape towards the macroscopic domain. It might be difficult to observe the radiation emitted from large black holes since the associated temperature is very small:

$$T/(1K)=10^7M_{}/M$$

but this is not so for the radiation emitted from smaller (primordial?) black holes. Even for large black holes, the situation is not that bad as soon as we may probe directly the region close to the horizon where the radiation temperature is very blue-shifted.

We do not know how far we will be able to go with this semiclassical approach as well as people did not know how far they were going to reach by using the semiclassical electromagnetic theory rather than QED in atomic physics; but what we do know is that every step forward in this down-up strategy will be (in principle) a long-lasting one because, after all, we are dealing with the safe side of our standard theories. Moreover because the Semiclassical Gravity is in the interface of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and Thermodynamics, unexpected effects which does not have to do directly with Quantum Gravity are being unveiled. Here we have focused on the contribution of the Semiclassical Gravity Theory to the concept of elementary particle but other contributions could also be cited. Recently, Unruh has raised the very interesting possibility of mimicking the Hawking effect through Condensed Matter laboratory experiments U2 . For this purpose it is enough to arrange a compact region in a background medium (think of a spherical region in the middle of a pool) such that inside it the inward velocity of the medium is larger than the sound velocity. In this way, phonons would not be able to escape from this trapped region and we would have a sonic hole. Many (kinematical) classical and semiclassical properties of the black holes can be experimentally probed in this way. In particlular, Hawking phonon radiation is expected to be observed from sonic holes.

More embarassing than having not formulated yet the full quantum gravity theory is being aware of how much we still do not know about those theories which we thought to have mastered long ago. In this vein, quantum gravity can wait; the misteries hidden in our standard theories cannot. After all, we can always hold on V. Weisskopf words: Is it really the end of theoretical physics to get the world formula? The greatest physicists have always thought that there was one, and that everything else could be derived from it. Einstein believed it, Heisenberg believed it. I am not such a great physicist, I do not believe it… This, I think, is because nature is inexhaustible.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am thankful to J. Castiñeiras and A. Dias for reading the manuscript and Conselho Científico e Tecnológico and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo for funding partially this work and consistent support along the years.


text:
# Sliding conduction by the quasi one-dimensional charge-ordered state in Sr14-xCaxCu24O41

Web \]http://maeda3.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp

(Received June 5, 2002)

## Abstract

Nonlinear conduction (NLC) of the two-leg spin ladder, Sr14-xCaxCu24O41, was investigated for the $`x`$=0, 1 and 12 materials . Although insulating materials ($`x`$=0 and 1) exibited the NLC both in the ladder- and rung directions, the NLC in the ladder direction of the $`x`$=0-material was found to be very special. We considered this to be due to the sliding motion of the charge ordered state, which was responsible for the resonance at microwave frequencies. We discussed possible candidates for the charge ordered state responsible for the NLC, including Wigner crystal in quasi one dimension (4$`k_F`$-CDW).

Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 (SCCO) has two kinds of quasi one-dimensional structures constructed from Cu and OCarter . One is the CuO2 chain and the other is the Cu2O3 ladder, which can be regarded as the one-dimensional offshoot of the two-dimensional CuO2 planes. Thus, this material has been thought to be a good reference for high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors, where the square CuO2 plane is essential for high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity. Dagotto and RiceDagotto  predicted that carrier doping into such a ladder structure of a strongly correlated system leads to superconductivity, through a mechanism which they thought was similar to that of high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity in quasi two-dimensional cuprates. In fact, superconductivity was realized under high pressure in a material heavily doped by CaAkimitsu . According to an optical studyOsafune , the role of Ca substitution, which does not change the formal valence of Cu, was thought to transfer holes from the chain to the ladder. Thus, the superconductivity in this system is considered to be realized when the quasi one-dimensionality of holes on the ladder becomes sufficiently weakenedNagata .

The opposite limiting case of low hole concentration is also interesting. The c-axis (ladder-direction) dc conductivity of the parent material, Sr14Cu24O41 (SCO), is insulating with an activation gap of $``$ 2000 KMotoyama  at least below 300 K. An NMR/NQR measurement suggested the occurrence of some charge order below 150 KTakigawa . A recent study of the microwave electrical conductivity found a dramatic increase of conductivity below $``$ 170 KKitano . Detailed study of the frequency dependence of the conductivity showed a small but sharp resonance around 50 GHz ($``$ 2.4 K) in this temperature region. Since the peak frequency is much smaller than the thermal energy per carrier, this strongly suggested the resonance of some collective charge excitation, similar to the pinned phase mode of charge-density wave (CDW) systems and spin-density wave (SDW) system in quasi-one dimensional materialsGruner . It also reported a definite nonlinear electrical conduction as a function of electric field in a rather weak field region. Quite recently, a similar NLC was also observed by Gorshunov et alGorshunov . This NLC also suggested the collective nature of the phenomena. These phenomena are quite reminiscent of those established in the CDW systems. However, a very small oscillator strength of the collective resonance in SCO showed a serious discrepancy in quantitative aspects of the interpretation as being a resonance of the pinned CDW. Thus, it has been suggested that the collective mode found in SCO might be a mode characteristic of a strongly correlated system.

To investigate the details of this collective mode, we have studied the nonlinear conduction as a function of dc electric field at various temperatures, in samples with different carrier concentrations, and along different directions of the crystal. We found the nonlinear conduction to be present in almost all experiments (samples, temperatures, directions). However, the nonlinear conduction found in the c-direction of SCO was very different from all other results. Thus, we conclude that the collective mode has a quasi one-dimensional nature, and is characteristic of samples with low hole concentration. We discussed possible candidates for the charge ordered state responsible for the NLC, including Wigner crystal (WC)Wigner  in quasi one dimension (4$`k_F`$-CDW).

Crystals were prepared by the traveling-solvent-floating-zone methodMotoyama . For electrical conductivity measurement, small pieces were cut from the boul, with typical dimensions of 3 $`\times `$ 1 $`\times `$ 0.5 mm3. The longest dimension was in the c-axis. Electrical contacts were made by evaporating silver on the sample, above which electrical leads were attached by EPOTEK-H20E silver paste. Post annealing under an oxygen flow atmosphere at 200 degrees centigrade decreased the contact resistance remarkably. Typical contact resistance was 104 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at 100 K ($`x`$=0), which was about 20 % of the intrinsic resistance of the sample. So, it is important to check the ohmic nature of the electrical contact, which was confirmed in each measurement. The electrical conductivity was measured by four-probe methods. To avoid the temperature rise due to Joule heating, short rectangular pulses generated by an HP8116A pulse function generator, amplified by an NF4105 amplifier, were applied to the sample, and the response was measured by an SRS-SR250 boxcar averager or a TDS420A digital oscilloscope. For both cases, an NF5305 differential preamplifier was used if necessary. By repeating the measurements for pulses with different repetition rates (10$``$1 kHz), duty cycles (1/10 $``$ 1/1000), and widths (5$``$ 500 $`\mu `$sec), we checked whether or not any changes in conductivity were due to the simple Joule heating effects. At weak electric fields, a conventional lock-in technique was also used for the differential conductivity measurement. For measurements at various temperatures, an Oxford He-flow type cryostat was used. To avoid the direct contact of the sample with flowing gas, we fabricated the modified insert. By using this insert, temperature stability of about 50 mK was achieved throughout the measurements.

Figure 1 shows the low-field conductivity, $`\sigma _0`$, as a function of inverse temperature for several different carrier concentrations. Except for the $`x`$=12 sample, the materials are insulating with similar activation energies of $``$ 2500 K and 1400 K above and below 160 K, respectively. Figure 2 shows the chordal conductivity, $`\sigma `$, of SCO in the two different directions (ladder(c-axis) and rung(a-axis)) as a function of electric field for various temperatures. In the inset, the differential conductivity, $`\sigma ^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}j}{\mathrm{d}E}`$, is also shown for comparison. All the data in this figure were normalized by the ohmic conductivity, $`\sigma _0`$, at each temperature. In both directions, we observed nonlinearity in the conductivity as a function of electric field. As we already reported previously, the c-axis conductivity increases with increasing field. However, the amount of the conductivity increase is very small (at most 3 % of the ohmic value at 10 V/cm). On the other hand, in the a-direction (rung direction), the conductivity increase is rather distinct. At the lowest temperature measured ($``$ 100 K), the conductivity increase is more than 17 % of the low field value.

First, we concentrate on the c-axis conductivity. Although it is hard to define a definite threshold field for the onset of nonlinearity, the nonlinearity seems to start between 0.1 V/cm and 2 V/cm, as shown in the inset of Fig. 3. To be quantitative, we define a characteristic field, $`E_0`$, for the onset of NLC as the intersection of two extrapolated straight lines in the differential conductivity data, as shown in the inset of Fig. 3. In the main panel of Fig. 3, $`E_0`$ was displayed as a function of temperature. $`E_0`$ was found not to depend very greatly on temperature. The conductivity normalized by the ohmic value at each temperature, $`\sigma _0(T)`$, was found not to depend on temperature below 150 K, either. This is remarkable because the ohmic conductivity, $`\sigma _0`$, changed about two orders of magnitude from 120 K to 160 K, as was already shown in Fig. 1. This means that the conductivity in this temperature region was expressed by a formula,

$$\frac{\sigma (E,T)}{\sigma _0(T)}=f(\frac{E}{E_0}),$$
(1)
where $`f(z)`$ is a universal function of $`z`$. That is, a scaling relation holds between the nonlinear conductivity, $`\sigma (E,T)`$, and the ohmic conductivity, $`\sigma _0(T)`$. At higher temperatures of 200 K, the Joule-heating effect hindered detailed studies of the nonlinearity. However, it seems that the increase of the normalized conductivity becomes lessened.

On the other hand, for the a-axis nonlinear conductivity, the quantitative behavior is rather different. First, in the $`a`$ direction, as shown in the inset of Fig. 3, the existence of the characteristic field, $`E_0`$, for the onset of nonlinear conduction is less clear. Within our resolution, the nonlinearity exists even at the lowest field. Second, there is no temperature region where the scaling relation holds. Such quantitative differences between the c-axis and a-axis suggest that the mechanism of the NLC is different between these two directions.

For further comparison, we empirically express the differential-conductivity data using power laws as follows, since the nonlinearity is not so strong.

$$\frac{\sigma ^{}(E)}{\sigma _0}1=A(T)(\frac{E}{E_0^{(c)}}1)^{\gamma _c}(\mathrm{c}\mathrm{axis}),$$
(2)
and

$$\frac{\sigma ^{}(E)}{\sigma _0}1=B(T)(\frac{E}{E_0^{(c)}})^{\gamma _a}(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{axis}),$$
(3)
where $`E_0^{(c)}`$ is the characteristic field for the onset of nonlinearity along the c-axis, $`\sigma _0`$ is the conductivity at the lowest field in each direction, $`\gamma _c`$, $`\gamma _a`$ are exponents, $`A(T)`$ is an almost temperature-independent constant, and $`B(T)`$ is a temperature-dependent constant. If we fit the data to these formulae, as is shown in the inset of Fig. 4, we obtain the temperature dependence of the exponents, $`\gamma _c`$ and $`\gamma _a`$, as shown in Fig. 4 (a), and those of $`A(T)`$ and $`B(T)`$, as shown in Fig. 4 (b). As was anticipated, $`A(T)`$ and $`\gamma _a`$, and also $`\gamma _a`$, did not depend on temperature, whereas $`B(T)`$ depended on temperature strongly.

Figure 5 shows the conductivity in the c-direction (ladder direction) as a function of electric field for different Ca concentrations, $`x`$=1 and $`x`$=12. For the $`x`$=1 sample, the basic features of the NLC are very similar to those in the a-direction of the $`x`$=0 sample. That is, the conductivity increase is large (more than 15$``$20 % at 100 K) without any definite threshold nor characteristic fields for the NLC onset, and there was no sign of a scaling relation such as eqs. 1 and 2. On the other hand, for the $`x`$=12 sample, the conductivity remained field-independent up to 30 V/cm within a resolution of 0.3 %.

The above results showed that the NLC was observed only in materials with a semiconducting (or insulating) ground state. Furthermore, the NLC in the ladder direction of the $`x=`$0 material showed special behavior when compared with the data in the rung direction and with those from samples with different Ca contents. In the previous paperKitano , we suggested that the NLC is due to the collective motion of some charge ordered state that also exhibited a sharp resonance in the microwave region. For the NLC due to the collective motion of the charge ordered state such as CDW, if the weak field conductivity shows semiconducting temperature dependence, it has been knownGruner  that the extra conductivity due to the collective motion of the condensate, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{col}`$, is proportional to the quasiparticle conductivity (conductivity due to the uncondensed carrier), $`\sigma _{qp}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{col}\sigma _{qp}.$$
(4)
This is because the deformation of the density wave (DW) is screened by the uncondensed quasiparticles. The c-axis conductivity of the $`x`$=0 sample was found to obey the scaling relation (eq. 1). This is exactly what is described in eq. 4. Thus, as far as the c-axis NLC of the $`x`$=0 material is concerned, this NLC is consistent with sliding conduction due to the charge ordered condensate.

On the other hand, in the a-direction, the qualitatively different behavior of the NLC suggest that the NLC in this direction is not due to the collective motion of the charge ordered state. This suggests a strongly one-dimensional nature of the conduction due to the collective condensate. This is, again, consistent with the sliding motion of the charge ordered state such as the CDW in the $`x`$=0 material.

The absence of the characteristic field, strong temperature dependence of the prefactor, $`B(T)`$, and the absence of the resonance in the microwave conductivityKitano  suggest that the NLC in the $`a`$ direction is due to the hopping conduction of uncondensed quasiparticles between the neighboring ladders. The power-law field dependence suggests delocalization by the electric field from the weakly localized state of the quasiparticlesYoshida ; Uchida .

Now, let us move on to the $`x`$=1 material. The NLC of the $`x`$=1 material in the c-direction is quite reminiscent of the a-axis NLC of the $`x`$=0 material, and is probably caused by the delocalization of the quasiparticles by the electric field. This suggests that the charge ordered state showing the sliding conduction is characteristic of material with small carrier concentration, and is very fragile for carrier doping. Thus, it can be said that the collective mode is closely related to electron-electron correlation.

PreviouslyKitano , we discussed that the characteristic field, $`E_0`$ satisfied a relationship expected for the depinning of the CDW,

$$e^{}E_Tm^{}\omega _0^2\lambda ,$$
(5)
where $`e^{}`$ and $`m^{}`$ are the effective charge and the mass of the collective mode, $`E_T`$ is the threshold field of the NLC, and $`\omega _0`$ is the pinning frequency of the collective mode, provided $`e^{}`$=$`e`$=1.6$`\times `$10-19 C and $`m^{}`$=$`m`$=9.1$`\times `$10-31 kg. This suggests that the collective mode does not contain any lattice deformations as far as the charge dynamics are concerned. Therefore, we suggest that the collective mode responsible for the NLC in the ladder direction of the $`x`$=0 material is the charge-orderd state of the conduction electrons, such as the WCWigner  in one dimension.

Formation of the WC has been considered in quantum Hall systems and He systems at an interfaceFukuyama ; Andrei ; Shirahama1 . Both of them are two dimensional systems, where the low density is essential to from the WCWigner ; Mott .

However, in quasi one-dimensional systems, it has been suggested theoreticallySchulz  that the long-range nature of the Coulomb interaction always leads to a very slow decay of the 4$`k_F`$ ($`k_F`$ is Fermi wave number) components of the density-density correlation function of the electrons, suggesting the stabilization of the WC (4$`k_F`$-CDW) across a wide range of material parameters.

As for the dynamics in the ordered state, the sliding motion of the WC was considered theoretically in one dimensionSchulz  and in two dimensionsFukuyama ; Giamarchi , and experimentally only in two dimensionsGoldman ; YPL1 ; YPL2 ; Tsui ; YPL3 ; Engel ; Shirahama1 . If the NLC reported here is due to the WC, this is the first example of the sliding conduction of the WC in one-dimensional systems.

Another possible candidate for the charge ordered state is the ordered state on the CuO2 chain. Indeed, the existence of the superstructure at low temperatures on the chains was reported in neutronMatsuda  and X-rayCox  experiments.

In conclusion, the NLC of the two-leg spin ladder, Sr14-xCaxCu24O41, was investigated for the $`x`$=0, 1 and 12 materials. Although insulating materials ($`x`$=0 and 1) exibited the NLC both in the ladder- and rung directions, the NLC in the ladder direction of the $`x`$=0-material was found to be very special. We considered this to be due to the sliding motion of the charge ordered state, which was responsible for the resonance at microwave frequencies. We discussed possible candidates for the charge ordered state responsible for the NLC, including Wigner crystal in quasi one dimension (4$`k_F`$-CDW).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank E. Kim, B. Gorshunov, and M. Dressel for helpful discussions. This research was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of the Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. One of the authors (RI) thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for financial support.


text:
# Magnetic Field Geometry of the Broad Line Radio Galaxy 3C111

## 1 Introduction

The broad-line radio galaxy 3C111 (0415+739) is the nearest ($`z=0.0485`$) classical FR II radio galaxy with a strong compact core at cm/mm wavelengths (Wills, 1975). Radio observations on kiloparsec scales show a highly collimated jet leading from the core to the northeastern lobe (Linfield & Perley, 1984). On parsec scales, the jet is much more prominent and is one-sided towards the northeast, roughly aligned with the kpc-scale jet (Linfield, 1981).

Following a large mm-outburst, we observed the source with the NRAO VLBA (10 $`\times `$ 25 m) and the Effelsberg antenna (100 m) in dual-polarization mode at 8.4 GHz and 43 GHz, on July 8 and September 19, 1996. A preliminary analysis of the total intensity images was presented by Alef et al. (1998). We present here the first results of our polarization analysis.

## 2 Observations and Results

The data for both epochs were reduced using standard techniques in the NRAO AIPS package. The instrumental polarizations (‘D-terms’) were determined using the task LPCAL, using the compact source 0420–014 at 43 GHz and the unpolarized source 3C84 at 8 GHz. We calibrated the absolute values of the polarization position angles $`\chi `$ by applying the calibrations determined for other VLBA experiments at 43 and 8 GHz within a few months of our epochs, taking care to use the same reference antenna during the calibration (Los Alamos). This procedure is justified by the fact that the right–left phase differences of the VLBA antennas are stable on time scales of six months or more (e.g. Reynolds et al., 2001).

We show the two 43-GHz and the two 8-GHz images convolved with the same beams, corresponding roughly to the beam sizes obtained for uniform weighting: $`0.20\times 0.15`$ mas in $`PA=20^{}`$ for the 43-GHz maps and $`1.15\times 0.70`$ mas in $`PA=20^{}`$ for the 8-GHz maps. The maps show contours of total intensity ($`I`$) increasing in steps of two with polarization ($`P`$) vectors superimposed.

### 2.1 July 8, 1996

Figure 1a shows the 43 GHz image for July 8, 1996. The jet to the northeast is clearly visible. Polarization is reliably detected from the core and a bright knot at a distance of $`r`$ 0.5 mas from the core. The $`P`$ vectors in the core are aligned with the inner jet, but the relationship between $`\chi `$ for the bright knot and the local jet direction is unclear. The degree of polarization in the core region is approximately 1%, and rises to 3–4% in the bright knot.

Figure 1b shows the 8 GHz image for the same epoch. The polarization at the western edge of the core region has roughly the same $`\chi `$ as the 43-GHz core ($`\chi 4555^{}`$), suggesting that they may originate in the same region. The inner part of the 8-GHz jet has a region with transverse $`P`$; if Faraday effects are not significant and this region is optically thin, this implies a longitudinal B field. However, this region roughly coincides with the bright knot at $`r0.5`$ mas in the 43-GHz image, and we would expect the 43-GHz and 8-GHz $`\chi `$’s to be more similar in the absence of significant Faraday or optical depth effects. We are in the process of a more detailed analysis of the origin of this large offset between the observed $`P`$ vectors at 8 GHz ($`\chi 20^{}`$) and 43 GHz ($`\chi 90^{}`$). If Faraday or optical depth effects are substantial, the 43-GHz $`\chi `$ more accurately reflects the underlying B-field geometry. Further from the core ($`r4`$ mas), the polarization appears to become somewhat oblique to the jet direction ($`\chi 45^{}`$).

### 2.2 September 19, 1996

Figure 2a shows the 43 GHz image for September 19, 1996. The peak has decreased by a factor of about 1.7. It is now clear that the jet first emerges to the northeast, turns nearly directly east, then turns again to the northeast. In this light, the earlier orientation of the 43-GHz $`\chi `$ for the knot at $`r0.5`$ mas now makes sense: $`\chi `$ was apparently well aligned with the direction of the jet flow, nearly directly eastward. This bright feature has moved to $`r0.75`$ mas. Its $`\chi `$ again appears oblique to the jet direction; however, it is possible that it bears some relationship to the local flow direction (either parallel or perpendicular to it), but that the flow direction is again not known. The core polarization was not detected at this epoch.

Figure 2b shows the 8 GHz image for the same epoch. The polarization in the core region is aligned with the inner jet (see Fig. 2a). There is a region of transverse $`\chi `$ at $`r3`$ mas from the core, implying a longitudinal B field (if this region is optically thin and Faraday effects are not important). The $`\chi `$ in the knot $`r`$ 4.5 mas from the core is very similar to that at the earlier epoch ($`\chi 45^{}`$), although in both cases this appears to be somewhat oblique to the local jet direction. The degree of polarization in the core region is 1–2%, and rises to 8–10% in the 3-mas and 4.5-mas knots. It is interesting that, at both epochs, there is weak polarization at the northern edge of the inner 8-GHz jet with $`\chi `$ roughly along the jet direction, suggesting this polarization may be associated with a transverse B field that is not well aligned with the jet ridgeline.

## 3 Conclusions

Our images of 3C111 for two epochs separated by only 2.5 months reveal dramatic changes in the VLBI structure after a millimetre outburst. The 43-GHz images show obvious expansion of a bright knot from the core. The $`\chi `$ of this knot rotated by about $`6070^{}`$ between the two epochs. At the earlier epoch, $`\chi `$ is well aligned with the local flow, implying a transverse B field. The orientation of $`\chi `$ relative to the jet flow at the later epoch is not obvious, but may become clearer as we are able to better elucidate the local flow direction. The polarization of an 8-GHz knot roughly $`r4`$ mas from the core has the same $`\chi `$ at both epochs, somewhat oblique to the jet direction.

In general, the degree of polarization in the core region is modest (1–2%), while it is somewhat higher in the jet and may increase with distance from the core. The degree of polarization reaches 3–4% at 43-GHz $``$ 0.5–1 mas from the core and 8–10% at 8 GHz $``$ 3–5 mas from the core.

Comparison of our 43 and 8-GHz images for July 1996 shows a large offset between the $`P`$ vectors at $`r0.51`$ mas, indicating that Faraday and/or optical-depth effects may be playing a significant role. However, these images also suggest that the $`P`$ vectors in the core region have nearly the same orientations at the two frequencies, in which case Faraday and optical depths are less important there than in the inner jet.

We are in the process of a more detailed analysis of these data, including model fitting of the $`I`$ and $`P`$ data. In addition, we are reducing additional 8+43 GHz VLBA data for June 1997, as well as 43-GHz data for December 1997, May 1998, and December 1998.

## 4 Acknowledgements

P. Kharb is grateful for local support from the conference organisers and travel support from the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research, Govt. of India. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.