text:
# Measuring the Oblateness and Rotation of Transiting Extrasolar Giant Planets

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Discovery of a transiting extrasolar planet, HD209458b (Charbonneau et al., 2000; Henry et al., 2000), has provided one mechanism for researchers to move beyond the discovery and into the characterization of extrasolar planets. Precise *Hubble Space Telescope* measurements of HD209458b’s transit lightcurve revealed the radius ($`1.347\pm 0.060\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$) and orbital inclination ($`86.68^{}\pm 0.14^{}`$, from impact parameter $`0.508`$) of the planet, which, along with radial velocity measurements, unambiguously determine the planet’s mass ($`0.69\pm 0.05\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$) and density ($`0.35\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$; Brown et al., 2001). Of the over 100 extrasolar planets discovered so far, this large radius makes HD209458b the only one empirically determined to be a gas giant.

Knowledge of a planet’s cross-sectional area provides a zeroeth order determination of its geometry, and the *HST* photometry is precise enough to constrain the shape of HD209458b to be rounded to first order. While a planet transits the limb of its star, the rate of decrease in apparent stellar brightness is related to the rate of increase in stellar surface area covered by the planet in the same time interval. We investigate whether it is possible to use this information to determine the shape of the planet to second order.

Rotation causes a planet’s shape to be flattened, or oblate, by reducing the effective gravitational acceleration at the equator (as a result of centrifugal acceleration) and by redistributing mass within the planet (which changes the gravity field). Oblateness, $`f`$, is defined as a function of the equatorial radius ($`R_{eq}`$) and the polar radius ($`R_p`$):

$$f\frac{R_{eq}R_p}{R_{eq}}.$$
(1)
For Jupiter and Saturn, high rotation rates and low densities result in highly oblate planets: $`f_{Jupiter}=0.06487`$ and $`f_{Saturn}=0.09796`$, compared to $`f_{Earth}=0.00335`$.

An earlier investigation of the detectability of oblateness in transiting extrasolar planets was published by Seager & Hui (2002). Our work represents an improvement over Seager & Hui (2002) in the use of model fits to compare oblate and spherical planet transits, the use of the Darwin-Radau relation to associate oblateness and rotation, and a thorough investigation of the degeneracies involved in fitting a transit lightcurve.

In this paper, we investigate the reasons for measuring planetary rotation rates, the relationship between rotation rate and oblateness for extrasolar giant planets, the effect of oblateness on transit lightcurves, and the prospects for determinating the oblateness of a planet from transit photometry.

## 2 EXOPLANETS AND ROTATION

While knowledge of a planet’s mass and radius provides information regarding composition and thermal evolution, measurements of rotation and obliquity promise to constrain the planet’s formation, tidal evolution, and tidal dissipation. What these data might reveal about a planet depends on whether the planet is unaffected by stellar tides, slightly affected by tides, or heavily influenced by tides.

### 2.1 Tidally Unaffected

The present-day rotation rate of a planet is the product of both the planet’s formation and its subsequent evolution. Planets at sufficiently large distances from their parent stars are not significantly affected by stellar tides, thus these objects rotate with their primordial rates altered by planetary contraction and gravitational interactions between the planet, its satellites, and other planets. To the degree that a planet’s rotational angular momentum is primordial, it may be diagnostic of the planet’s formation. Planets formed in circular orbits from a protoplanetary disk inherit net prograde angular momentum from the accreting gas, resulting in rapid prograde rotation (Lissauer, 1995). Planets that form in eccentric orbits receive less prograde specific angular momentum than planets in circular orbits, and as a result they rotate at rates varying from slow retrograde up to prograde rotations similar to those of circularly accreted planets (Lissauer et al., 1997). Thus, comparing the current-day rotation rates for planets in circular and eccentric orbits may reveal whether extrasolar planets formed in eccentric orbits or acquired their eccentricity later from dynamical interactions with other planets or a disk.

The orientation of a planet’s rotational axis relative to the vector perpendicular to the orbital plane, the planet’s obliquity or axial tilt $`t`$, can also provide insight into the planet’s formation mechanism. Jupiter’s low obliquity ($`3.12^{}`$) has been suggested as evidence that its formation was dominated by orderly gas flow rather than the stochastic impacts of accreting planetesimals (Lissauer, 1993). Tidally unevolved extrasolar planets determined to have high obliquities could be inferred either to have formed differently than Jupiter or to have undergone large obliquity changes as has been suggested for Saturn ($`t=26.73^{}`$; Ward & Hamilton, 2002).

### 2.2 Tidally Influenced

Tidal interaction between planets and their parent stars slows the rotation of those planets with close-in orbits (Guillot et al., 1996). This tidal braking continues until the net tidal torque on the planet becomes zero. Whether a planet reaches this end state depends on its age, radius, semimajor axis, and the planet : star mass ratio.

The rate of tidal braking also depends on the parameter $`Q`$, which represents the internal tidal dissipation within the planet. The value of $`Q`$ is poorly constrained even for the planets in our own solar system (Goldreich & Soter, 1966). Nevertheless, measurements of extrasolar planet rotation rates could constrain $`Q`$ for these planets based on the degree of tidal evolution that has taken place (Seager & Hui, 2002).

Tidal braking for objects with nonzero obliquity can, somewhat counterintuitively, act to increase an object’s obliquity. Tidal torques reduce the component of a planet’s angular momentum perpendicular to the orbital plane faster than they reduce the component of the planet’s angular momentum in the orbital plane (Peale, 1999). This occurs because at solstice the planet’s induced tidal bulge is not carried away from the planet’s orbital plane by planetary rotation. Therefore for large fractions of the year stellar tidal torques do not act to right the planet’s spin axis, while torques that reduce the angular momentum perpendicular to the orbital plane act year-round. As a result, planets that have undergone partial tidal evolution can exhibit temporarily increased obliquity as the planet’s rotation rate decreases. Eventually, such a planet reaches maximum obliquity and thereafter approaches synchronous rotation and zero obliquity simnultaneously. Planets undergoing tidal evolution may be expected to have higher obliquities on average than planets retaining their primordial obliquity.

### 2.3 Tidally Dominated

The end state of tidal evolution for planets in circular orbits is a $`1:1`$ spin-orbit synchronization between the planet’s rotation and its orbital period, along with zero obliquity. However, most of the extrasolar planets discovered thus far are on eccentric orbits (Marcy et al., 2000) (we sometimes shorten ’planets on eccentric orbits’ to ’eccentric planets’ even though the eccentricity is not inherent to the planet). Thus these eccentric planets will never reach $`1:1`$ spin-orbit coupling as a result of tidal evolution because the tidal torque (Eq. 2) on the planet from its star is much stronger (due to the $`r^6`$ dependence) near periapsis.

The tidal torque between a planet and star is given by (Murray & Dermott, 2000)

$$\tau _p=\frac{3}{2}\frac{k_2GM_{}^2R^5}{Qr^6}\mathrm{sgn}(\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\varphi }),$$
(2)
where $`k_2`$ is the planet’s Love number, $`R`$ its radius, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ its rotation rate (in radians per second), $`\dot{\varphi }`$ the instantaneous orbital angular velocity (also in radians per second), and $`r`$ is the instantaneous distance between the planet and star. The function $`\mathrm{sgn}(x)`$ is equal to $`1`$ if $`x`$ is positive and $`1`$ if $`x`$ is negative. The magnitude of the stellar perturbation is proportional to $`GM_{}^2`$, the product of the stellar mass ($`M_{}`$) squared and the gravitational constant ($`G`$). The planet is spun down by tidal torques if its rotation is faster than its orbital motion ($`\mathrm{\Omega }>\dot{\varphi }`$), and it is spun up if its rotation is slower than the orbital motion ($`\mathrm{\Omega }<\dot{\varphi }`$).

If an eccentric planet were in a $`1:1`$ spin-orbit state, it would be spun up by the star when its orbital angular velocity is greater than average near periapsis, and it would be spun down when the orbital angular velocity is low near apoapsis. The total positive tidal torque induced while the planet is in close will exceed the negative torque while it is far away, despite the shorter time spent near periapsis. Thus to be in rotational equilibrium with respect to stellar tides, an eccentric, fluid planet must rotate faster than its mean motion.

The Earth’s moon avoids this fate because it has a nonzero component of its quadrupole moment in its orbital plane. The torque that the Earth exerts on this permanent bulge exceeds the net tidal torque imparted on the moon due to its eccentric orbit, keeping the Moon in synchronous rotation (Murray & Dermott, 2000). Fluid planets, however, have no permanent quadrupole moment and thus have no restoring torque competing with the stellar tidal torques (Greenberg & Weidenschilling, 1984). Tidal evolution ceases for these bodies when the net torque per orbit is zero, which can only be achieved by supersynchronous rotation.

The precise rotation rate necessary to balance the tidal torques over the eccentric orbit depends on how $`Q`$ varies with the tidal forcing frequency (the difference between the rotation rate and instantaneous orbital angular velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\dot{\varphi }_p`$). Conventionally, $`Q`$ has been assumed to be either independent of the forcing frequency or inversely proportional to it (Goldreich & Peale, 1968). The resulting equilibrium spin-orbit ratios as a function of eccentricity for each of these cases are plotted in Figure 1.

Probably both of these assumptions for the behavior of $`Q`$ are too simple. In particular, if the behavior of $`Q`$ changes under a varying tidal forcing frequency ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\dot{\varphi }_p`$ is a function of time), then the tidal equilibrium rotation rate would differ significantly from that plotted in Figure 1. Measurement of rotational rates of eccentric extrasolar planets in tidal equilibrium could, in principle, either differentiate between these two models or suggest other frequency dependences, shedding light on the yet unknown mechanism for tidal dissipation within giant planets.

## 3 ROTATION AND OBLATENESS

Rotation affects the shape of a planet via two mechanisms: gravity must provide centripetal acceleration, thus the higher velocity at the equator causes the planet to bulge by transfer of mass from polar regions; and, secondarily, the redistributed mass alters the planet’s gravitational field and attracts even more mass toward the equatorial plane. The ratio of the required centripetal acceleration at the equator to the gravitational acceleration, $`q`$, represents the relative importance of the centripetal acceleration term:

$$q=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R_{eq}^3}{GM_p},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotation rate in radians per second, $`M_p`$ is the mass of the planet, and $`R_{eq}`$ is the planet’s equatorial radius (Murray & Dermott, 2000).

We use the Darwin-Radau relation to relate rotation and oblateness accounting for the gravitational pull of the shifted mass: (Murray & Dermott, 2000):

$$\frac{C}{M_pR_{eq}^2}=\frac{2}{3}\left[1\frac{2}{5}\left(\frac{5}{2}\frac{q}{f}1\right)^{1/2}\right]$$
(4)
where $`C`$ is the planet’s moment of inertia around the rotational axis and $``$ is shorthand for $`CM_p^1R_{eq}^2`$. The Darwin-Radau relation is exact for uniform density bodies ($`=0.4`$), but is only an approximation for gas giant planets ($`0.25`$; Hubbard, 1984).

By combining Equation 3 and Equation 4, we arrive at a relation for rotation rate, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as a function of oblateness, $`f`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\frac{fGM_p}{R_{eq}^3}\left[\frac{5}{2}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\right)^2+\frac{2}{5}\right]}.$$
(5)
For our solar system, the Darwin-Radau relation yields rotation periods accurate to within a few percent (Table 1) using model-derived moments of inertia from Hubbard & Marley (1989).

Extending the Darwin-Radau relation to extrasolar planets requires estimation of the appropriate moment of inertia coefficients, $``$, for those planets. For transiting planets whose masses and radii are known, we use a self-consistent hydrodynamic model of the planet and assumptions about its composition to estimate $``$ following Fortney & Hubbard (2002). To first order, $``$ is independent of oblateness due to similar symmetry around the rotational axis, so our hydrodynamic model does not need to explicitly incorporate oblateness. The Darwin-Radau relation and spherically symmetric hydrodynamic models provide sufficient precision for the current work; however, to estimate the oblateness as a function of rotation more robustly, a two-dimensional interior model involving both rotational and gravitational forces should be used (e.g., Hubbard & Marley, 1989).

Under the spherically symmetric assumption, we calculate the $``$ of Jupiter to be $`0.277`$ with no core and $`0.253`$ with a $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ core, and we calculate the $``$ of Saturn to be $`0.225`$ with a core (we are unable to calculate the interior structure of Saturn without a core due to deficiencies in our knowledge of the equation of state). Using these moments of inertia instead of the measured ones listed in Table 1 yields similar rotation errors of a few percent. We apply our model to generic $`1.0R_{Jup}`$ extrasolar giant planets of varying masses and architectures in Figure 2.

For HD209458b, our models calculate $``$ to be $`0.218`$ with no core and $`0.185`$ with a $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ core. To estimate the oblateness of HD209458b assuming synchronous rotation, we rearrange Equation 5 to solve for $`f`$,

$$f=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^3}{GM_p}\left[\frac{5}{2}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\right)^2+\frac{2}{5}\right]^1,$$
(6)
and then use the synchronous rotation rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2.066\times 10^5\mathrm{radians}\mathrm{per}\mathrm{second}`$ to obtain $`f=0.00285`$ with no core and $`f=0.00256`$ with a $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ core. These results imply an equator-to-pole radius difference of $`200\mathrm{km}`$, which, although small, is still comparable to the atmospheric scale height at $`1\mathrm{bar}`$, $`700\mathrm{km}`$.

Showman & Guillot (2002) suggest that zonal winds on HD209458b may operate at speeds up to $`2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the prograde direction, and Showman & Guillot (2002) go on to show that these winds might then spin up the planet’s interior, possibly to commensurate speeds of several hundred $`ms^1`$ up to a few $`kms^1`$ (though the model of Showman & Guillot (2002) does not treat the outer layers and interior self-consistently). This speed is a non-negligible fraction of the orbital velocity around the planet at the surface, $`30\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and is also comparable to the planet’s rotational velocity at the equator, $`2.0\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. As such, if radiatively driven winds prove to be important on HD209458b they would affect the planet’s oblateness. We use the rotation rate implied by the Showman & Guillot (2002) calculations to provide an upper limit for the expected oblateness of HD209458b. If the entire planet were spinning at its synchronous rate plus $`2\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at the cloud tops, the rotational period would be halved to $`1.8\mathrm{days}`$, with a corresponding oblateness of $`0.0109`$ and $`0.0098`$ for the no core and core models respectively.

During revision of this paper, Konacki et al. (2003) announced the discovery of a second transiting planet. This new planet, OGLE-TR-56b, has a radius of $`1.3\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$, a mass of $`0.9\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$, and an extremely short orbital period of $`1.2\mathrm{days}`$. Although these parameters are less constrained than those for HD209458b, we proceed to calculate that the oblateness of this new object should be 0.017 with no core and 0.016 with a $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ core, for $``$ of 0.228 and 0.204 respectively.

Current ground-based transit searches detect low-luminosity objects like brown dwarfs and low-mass stars in addition to planets. However, the high surface gravity for brown dwarfs and lower main sequence stars leads to low values of $`q`$ and very small oblatenesses for those objects. For a $`13\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$ brown dwarf with $`1.0\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$ in an HD209458b-like $`3.52`$ day orbit, the expected oblateness is only $`0.00007`$. Measuring oblateness will therefore only be practical for transiting planets and not for other transiting low-luminosity bodies.

We also note that the measurement of oblateness along with an independent measurement of a planet’s rotation rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would determine the planet’s moment of inertia. This would provide a direct constraint on the planet’s internal structure, possibly allowing inferences regarding the planet’s bulk helium fraction and/or the presence of a rocky core.

## 4 OBLATENESS AND TRANSIT LIGHTCURVES

### 4.1 Transit Anatomy

Brown et al. (2001) (hereafter BCGNB) investigated the detailed structure of a transit lightcurve while studying the *Hubble Space Telescope* lightcurve of the HD209458b transit. Figure 3 relates transit events to corresponding features in the lightcurve, modeled after BCGNB Figure 4. The flux from the star begins to drop at the onset of transit, known as the first contact. As the planet’s disk moves onto the star, the flux drops further, until at second contact the entire planet disk blocks starlight. Third contact is the equivalent of second contact during egress, and fourth contact marks the end of the transit. Due to stellar limb darkening the planet blocks a greater fraction of the star’s light at mid-transit than at the second and third contacts, leading to curvature at the bottom of the transit lightcurve.

For a given stellar mass, $`M_{}`$, the total transit duration, $`l`$, is a function of the transit chord length and the orbital velocity. We assume a circular orbit, which fixes the planet’s orbital velocity. The chord length depends on the stellar radius, $`R_{}`$, and the impact parameter, $`b`$. The impact parameter relates to $`i`$, the inclination of the orbital plane relative to the plane of the sky, as

$$b=\frac{\left|a\mathrm{cos}(i)\right|}{R_{}},$$
(7)
where $`a`$ is the semimajor axis of the planet’s orbit.

The duration of ingress and egress, $`w`$, is the time between first and second contact, and is a function of $`R_p`$, $`R_{}`$, and $`b`$ (or $`i`$). Transits with $`b0`$ have smaller $`w`$ than transits with higher $`b`$. For transits with $`b1`$, called grazing transits, $`w`$ is undefined because there is no second or third contact.

The total transit depth, $`d`$, fixes the ratio $`R_p/R_{}`$, where $`R_p`$ is the radius of the planet (except in the case of grazing transits).

The magnitude of the curvature at the bottom of the transit lightcurve, $`\eta `$, determines the stellar limb darkening. We use limb darkening parameters $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$, or $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, which we define mathematically in Section 4.2.

### 4.2 Methods

We calculate theoretical transit lightcurves by comparing the amount of stellar flux blocked by the planet to the total stellar flux. The relative emission intensity across the disk of the star is greatest in the center and lowest along the edges as a result of limb darkening. Many parameterizations of limb darkening exist (see Claret, 2000); however, we use the one proposed by BCGNB because it is the most appropriate for planetary transits.

The emission intensity at a given point on the stellar disk, $`I`$, is parameterized as a function of $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{sin}^1(\rho /R_{}))`$, where $`\rho `$ is the projected (apparent) distance between the center of the star and the point in question. BCGNB defined a set of two limb darkening coefficients, which we call $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, that are are equivalent to

$$\frac{I(\mu )}{I(1)}=1c_1\frac{(1\mu )(2\mu )}{2}+c_2\frac{(1\mu )\mu }{2}.$$
(8)
The advantage of this limb darkening function is that $`c_1`$ describes the magnitude of the darkening, while $`c_2`$ is a correction for curvature. This makes the BCGNB coefficients particularly useful for fitting transit observations because a good fit to data can be achieved by fitting only for the $`c_1`$ coefficient.

Our algorithm for calculating the lightcurve takes advantage of the symmetry inherent in the problem: that $`I(\mu )`$ depends only on $`\rho `$ and not on the angle around the star’s center, $`\theta `$. We evaluate the apparent stellar flux at time $`\tau `$, $`F(\tau )`$, relative to the out-of-transit flux $`F_0`$, by subtracting the amount of stellar flux blocked by the planet from $`F_0`$:

$$F_0=_0^R_{}2\pi I(\rho )𝑑\rho ,$$
(9)
$$F_{blocked}=_0^R_{}2\pi I(\rho )x(\rho ,\tau )𝑑\rho ,$$
(10)
and

$$F(\tau )=\frac{F_0F_{blocked}}{F_0},$$
(11)
where $`x(\rho ,\tau )`$ is the fraction of a ring of radius $`\rho `$ and width $`d\rho `$ covered by the planet at time $`\tau `$. In effect, we split the star up into infinitesimally small rings and add up the fluxes in Equation 9, then we determine how much of each of these rings is covered by the planet in Equation 10. We calculate the integrals numerically using Romberg’s method (Press et al., 1992); $`x(r,t)`$ is evaluated numerically as well — there is no closed form general analytical solution to the intersection of an ellipse and a circle.

This algorithm is more efficient than the raster method used by Hubbard et al. (2001) for planets treated as opaque disks because the use of symmetry and Romberg integration minimize the number of computations of the stellar intensity, $`I(\mu )`$.

### 4.3 Results

To illustrate the effect oblateness has on a transit lightcurve, we calculate the difference between the lightcurve of an oblate, zero obliquity planet and that of a spherical planet with the same cross-sectional area. For familiarity, we adopt the transit parameter values measured by BCGNB for the HD209458b transit: $`R_p=1.347\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$, $`R_{}=1.146\mathrm{R}_{}`$, and $`c_1=0.640`$. Plots of the oblate-spherical differential as a function of impact parameter are shown in Figure 4.

For nearly central transits, an oblate planet encounters first contact before, and second contact after, the equivalent spherical planet. This situation causes the oblate planet’s transit lightcurve initially to dip below that of the spherical planet. However, near the time when the planet center is covering the limb of the star, each planet blocks the same apparent stellar area and the stellar flux difference is zero. As the two hypothetical transits approach second contact, this trend reverses and the spherical planet starts blocking more light than the oblate one until the oblate planet nearly catches up at second contact. Between second and third contacts, the lightcurve differences are slightly nonzero because the two planets cover areas of the star with differing amounts of limb darkening. The lightcurves are symmetric, such that these effects repeat themselves in reverse upon egress.

At high impact parameters (nearly grazing planet transits) the opposite occurs. First contact for the oblate planet occurs after that for the spherical planet, because the point of first contact on the planet is closer to the pole than to the equator. In this scenario, the oblate planet’s transit flux starts higher than, becomes equivalent to, and then drops below that of the spherical planet before returning to near zero for the times between second and third contact. In the case of a grazing transit, this sequence is truncated because there is no second or third contact.

The boundary between these two regions occurs when the local oblate planet radius at the point of first contact is equal to $`R_{ea}`$, the radius of the equilvalent spherical planet. For planets that are small compared with the sizes of their stars ($`R_pR_{}`$) and that have low oblateness ($`f0.1`$), this transition occurs when $`\theta =\pi /4`$ (from Figure 3) and $`b=\sqrt{2}/2=0.707`$. The flux difference between transits of oblate planets and that for spherical planets, all else being equal, is at a minimum at this point and deviates from zero because the rate of change in stellar area covered is different for the two planets. First, second, third, and fourth contacts all occur at nearly the same time for each planet. However, if all else is not equal, as is usually the case since the stellar parameters are poorly constrained, then this result is misleading and does not represent the detectability of planetary oblatness.

## 5 TRANSIT LIGHTCURVES AND EXOPLANETS

To test whether these flux differences are detectable, we use a Levenberg-Marquardt curve-fitting algorithm adapted from Press et al. (1992) to fit model transits to both the *HST* HD209458b lightcurve and hypothetical model-generated lightcurves by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$. As a test, we fit the *HST* HD209458b transit lightcurve and obtain $`R_{}=1.142\mathrm{R}_{}`$, $`R_p=1.343\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{Jup}}`$, $`i=86.72^o`$ ($`b=0.504`$), $`c_1=0.647`$, and $`c_2=0.065`$ with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ of $`1.05`$, consistent with the values obtained by BCGNB.

In order for planetary oblateness to have a noticeable effect on a transit lightcurve, it must be distinguishable from the lightcurve of a spherical planet. For a spherical planet transit model, the combination of transit parameters that correspond to the lightcurve that best simulates the data from an actual oblate planet transit become the measured values, and these measured quantities may not be similar to the actual values. Therefore to consider the detectability of planetary oblateness, we compare oblate planet transit lightcurves to those of the best-fit spherical planet lightcurve instead of to the lightcurve of a planet that differs from the actual values only in the oblateness parameter (as we did in Section 4.3).

### 5.1 Zero Obliquity

We compare a model transit of an oblate planet ($`f=0.1`$) with zero obliquity, as is the case for a tidally evolved planet, to the transit of the *best-fit* spherical planet in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The oblate planet transit signature is muted in each when compared to Figure 4 due to a degeneracy between the fitted parameters $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, $`b`$, and the oblateness $`f`$. This degeneracy is introduced by the unconstrained nature of the problem: in essence, we are trying to solve for 5 free parameters, $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, $`b`$, $`c_1`$, and $`f`$, given just 4 constraints, $`d`$, $`w`$, $`l`$, and $`\eta `$ assuming (as BCGNB did) knowledge of the stellar mass $`M_{}`$. Without assuming a value for $`M_{}`$, absolute timescales for the problem vanish, yielding a similar conundrum of solving for $`R_p/R_{}`$, $`b`$, $`c_1`$, and $`f`$ given only $`d`$, $`\eta `$, and $`w/l`$. The previous two sentences are intended only to be simplifications, as at higher photometric precision more information about the conditions of the transit is available. Hereafter we assume knowledge of $`M_{}`$, though this analysis could also have been done without this assumption, or with an assumed relation between $`M_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ as proposed by Cody & Sasselov (2002). Changes in $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, and $`b`$ mimic the signal of an oblate planet by altering the ingress and egress times while maintaining the total transit duration by keeping the chord length constant.

For planets transiting at low impact parameter ($`b<0.7`$), an oblate planet’s longer ingress and egress (higher $`w`$ from Figure 3) are fit better using a spherical model with a higher impact parameter than actual, thus lengthening the time between first and second contact. Since for a given star transits at higher impact parameter have shorter overall duration, the best-fit spherical model has a larger $`R_{}`$ than the model used to generate the data to maintain the chord length, and thus a larger $`R_p`$ to maintain the overall transit depth.

Similarly, for simulated lightcurve data from a transiting oblate planet at high impact parameter ($`b>0.7`$), the best-fit spherical model has a lower impact parameter than the simulated planet to increase the duration of ingress and egress. For these planets, the fitted spherical parameters have smaller $`R_{}`$ and $`R_p`$ than the simulated planet to maintain the character of the rest of the lightcurve.

Oblate planets that have impact parameters near the critical value, $`b0.7`$, cannot be as easily fit using a spherical model because changes in the impact parameter of the fit cannot increase the duration of ingress and egress. For these planets, the difference between the oblate planet transit lightcurve and the best-fit spherical planet transit lightcurve is maximized, providing the largest possible photometric signal with which to measure oblateness.

At present, it is necessary to fit for $`R_{}`$ and stellar limb-darkening parameters because of our limited knowledge of these values for the host stars of transiting planets. If $`R_{}`$ were known to sufficient accuracy (less than 1%), then with knowledge of $`M_{}`$ the degeneracy between $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, and $`b`$ would be broken, allowing measurement of planetary oblateness without fitting. However, without assumptions about the stellar mass, knowledge of $`R_{}`$ would only help to constrain $`M_{}`$. Cody & Sasselov (2002) show that, for the star HD209458, current evolutionary models combined with transit data serve to measure the stellar radius to a precision of only 10%.

In Figure 5 we plot the difference between the transit lightcurve of a hypothetical planet with the characteristics of HD209458b but an oblateness $`f=0.1`$, and that planet’s best-fit spherical model fitting for $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, $`b`$, and $`c_1`$. For low values of the impact parameter, $`b0.5`$, the best-fit spherical lightcurve emulates the oblate planet’s ingress and egress while leaving a subtly different transit bottom due to the planet traversing a differently limb-darkened chord across the star. The magnitude of the difference is approximately a factor of $`10`$ smaller than the non-fit difference from Figure 4. Near the critical impact parameter, $`b=0.7`$, the transit lightcurve bottoms are very similar since the best-fit $`b`$ is very similar to the actual oblate planet’s impact parameter; however, the ingress and egress differ in flux by a few parts in $`10^5`$ for $`f=0.1`$. For grazing transits, $`b1.0`$, the best-fit spherical model’s lightcurve is indistinguishable from the oblate planet transit lightcurve even at the $`10^6`$ relative accuracy level.

Figure 6 shows the same differences as in Figure 5, but with a second stellar limb darkening parameter, BCGNB’s $`c_2`$, also left as a free parameter in the fit. Including $`c_2`$ in the fit allows the fitting algorithm to match the transit bottom (the time between second and third contacts) better. This effect leads to excellent fits of oblate planet transits using spherical planet models and reduces the detectable difference to less than one part in $`10^5`$ for $`0.0<b<0.5`$ and $`b>0.9`$ using HD209458 stellar and planetary radii and an oblateness of $`f=0.1`$. For $`b=0.0`$ and $`b=1.0`$ the spherical model emulates an oblate transit particularly well, with the differences between the two being only a few millionths of the stellar flux.

In both the 4- and 5-parameter zero-obliquity models, it is easiest to measure the effects of oblateness on the transit light curve for transits near the critical impact parameter. For HD209458 values with $`f=0.1`$, the oblateness signal then approaches $`3\times 10^5`$ for tens of minutes during ingress and egress and peaks near $`b=0.8`$ instead of the critical value of $`b=0.7`$ due to the finite radius of HD209458b relative to its parent star.

Based on observations of the Sun, Borucki et al. (1997) expect the intrinsic stellar photometric variability on transit timescales to be $`10^5`$. Jenkins (2002) used 5 years of 3 minute resolution SOHO spacecraft data to deduce the noise power spectrum of the Sun. These noise effects are close enough in magnitude to the transit signal so as to affect the detectability of a transiting oblate planet.

Future high-precision space-based photometry missions such as MOST and Kepler may be able to detect the effect for highly oblate transiting extrasolar planets, but the S/N ratio could be so low as to make unambiguous measurements of oblateness diffucult to obtain.

If an observer were to fit photometric timeseries data from a transit of an oblate planet without fitting explicitly for the oblateness $`f`$ (as, for instance, if the precision is insufficient to measure $`f`$), the planet’s oblateness will be manifest as an astrophysical source of systematic error in the determination of the other transit parameters. Figure 7 shows the effect that oblateness has on the stellar radius, planetary radius, impact parameter, and limb darkening coefficient for HD209458b. This variation is a strong function of the planet’s impact parameter. In Figure 8, we show the how this systematic variation changes as a function of the initial impact parameter for the HD209458b system. As a severe but still physical example, an HD209458b-like planet with oblateness $`f=0.1`$ that transits at $`b=0.0`$ would be measured to have radii $`2\%`$ above actual and an impact parameter nearly $`0.3`$ above the real impact parameter.

#### 5.1.1 HD209458b

To illustrate the robustness of the degeneracy between $`R_{}`$, $`R_p`$, $`b`$, and $`f`$ discussed in Section 5.1, we fit the *HST* lightcurve from BCGNB using a planet with a fixed, large oblateness of $`0.3`$(!). The best-fit parameters were $`R_{}=1.08\mathrm{R}_{}`$, $`R_p=1.26R_{Jup}`$, $`b=0.39`$, and $`c_1=0.633`$ with a reduced $`\chi ^2=1.06`$ — indistinguishable in significance from the spherical planet model! Although unlikely, a high actual oblateness for HD209458b could alter the measured value for the planet’s radius into better agreement with theoretical models.

The expected detectability of oblateness for HD209458b is extremely low. During ingress and egress the transit lightcurve for HD209458b should differ from that of the best-fit spherical model by only one part in $`10^6`$ for $`f=0.01`$ and at the level of $`3\times 10^7`$ if $`f=0.003`$. For comparison, the BCGNB *HST* photometric precision is $`1\times 10^4`$.

Although the systematic error in the determination of transit parameters can be important for highly oblate planets, it is not at all significant for HD209458b. Assuming HD209458b has an oblateness of $`f=0.003`$ as calculated in Section 3, the fitted radii are only $`0.05\%`$ above the actual radii, and the fitted impact parameter is $`0.0006`$ above what the actual impact parameter should be.

#### 5.1.2 OGLE-TR-56b

Measuring the oblateness of the new transiting planet OGLE-TR-56b (Konacki et al., 2003), $`f=0.016`$ (see Section 3), would require photometric precision down to at least $`4\times 10^6`$. Since the impact parameter for this object is as yet unconstrained, the above precision corresponds to $`b=0.7`$. For other transit geometries, higher precision photometry would be necessary to measure the oblateness of this object.

### 5.2 Nonzero Obliquity

We plot the detectability of oblateness and obliquity for planets with nonzero obliquity in Figure 9. Here we define the projected obliquity (which we refer to as just obliquity hereafter), or axial tilt $`t`$, as the angle between the orbit angular momentum vector and the rotational angular momentum vector projected into the sky plane, measured clockwise from the angular momentum vector (see Figure 3). The major effect of nonzero obliquity is to introduce an asymmetry into the transit lightcurve (Hui & Seager, 2002).

The plots in Figure 9 are difference plots for planets with different obliquities and impact parameters, yet all have the same shape qualitatively. In trying to fit the asymmetric ingress and egress lightcurves, the best-fit spherical planet splits the difference between them. For planets with $`0<t<\pi /2`$, this process yields a difference curve that initially increases as the spherical planet covers the star at a faster rate than does the oblate planet. Because of the asymmetric nature of the problem, however, the egress of the oblate planet takes longer than the spherical one, causing an initial upturn near third contact. The transit lightcurve difference for planets with $`0>t>\pi /2`$ is equal to the one for $`0<t<\pi /2`$, but reversed in time.

This general shape is the same for the asymmetric component of each transit lightcurve, and it is superimposed on top of the symmetric component studied in Section 5.1. The asymmetric component is maximized near the critical impact parameter ($`b=0.7`$), because the planet crosses the stellar limb with its projected velocity vector at an angle of $`\pi /4`$ with respect to the limb. For transits across the middle of the star, $`b=0`$, the asymmetric component of the lightcurve vanishes as a new symmetry around the planet’s path is introduced, and the local angle between the velocity vector and the limb is $`\pi /2`$. Similarly the asymmetric planet signal formally goes to zero for grazing transits at $`b=1.0`$, but in practice the asymmetric component is still high for Jupiter-sized planets.

Planets with obliquities of zero ($`t=0`$) are symmetric and have no asymmetric lightcurve component (see Section 5.1). Likewise, planets with $`t=\pi /2`$ are also symmetric. The asymmetric component is maximized for planets with $`t=\pi /4`$.

Transiting planets with nonzero obliquity can break the degeneracy between transit parameters discussed in Section 5.1. However, when the obliquity is nonzero a degeneracy between projected obliquity and oblateness is introduced: a measured asymmetric lightcurve component of a given magnitude could be due to a planet with low oblateness but near the maximum detectability obliquity of $`t=\pi /4`$, or it could be the result of a more highly oblate planet with a lower obliquity. In this case only a lower limit to the oblateness can be determined based on the oblateness for an assumed obliquity of $`\pi /4`$. This degeneracy can be broken with measurements precise enough to determine the symmetric lightcurve component. In addition, transit photometry is only able to measure the projected oblateness and obliquity of such objects due to the unknown component of obliquity along the line-of-sight (Hui & Seager, 2002), therefore the true oblateness is never smaller than the measured, projected oblateness.

The asymmetric transit signal of an oblate planet with nonzero obliquity could also be muddled by the presence of other bodies orbiting the planet. Orbiting satellites or rings could both introduce asymmetries into the transit lightcurve that may not be easily distinguishable from the asymmetry resulting from the oblate planet. Satellites around tidally evolved planets are not stable (Barnes & O’Brien, 2002), and rings around these objects may prove to be difficult to sustain as well. However, objects that are not tidally evolved, those farther away from their parent stars, may potentially retain such adornments, and their effects on a transit lightcurve could be difficult to differentiate from oblateness.

Orbital eccentricity can also cause a transit lightcurve to be asymmetric. Although the eccentricity of HD209458b is zero to within measurement uncertainty based on radial velocity measurements, future planets discovered solely by their transits may not have constrained orbital parameters. For these objects with unknown eccentricity, if the eccentricity is very high then under some conditions the velocity change between ingress and egress may be high enough to emulate the oblateness asymmetry discussed in this section. However, we do not explicitly treat that situation in this paper.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

Examining a transiting planet’s precise lightcurve can allow the measurement of the planet’s oblateness and, therefore, rotation rate, beginning the process of characterizing extrasolar planets. To a reasonably close approximation (a few percent), the rotation rate of an extrasolar giant planets is related to the planet’s oblateness by the Darwin-Radau relation. Measurements of a planet’s rotation rate could constrain the tidal dissipation factor $`Q`$ for those planets, as well as possibly shed light on the tidal dissipation mechanism within giant planets based on the spin : orbit ratios of tidally evolved eccentric planets.

The detectable effect of oblateness on the lightcurve of a planet with zero obliquity is at best on the level of a few parts in $`10^5`$. This effect may be discernable from space with ultra high precision photometry, but could prove to be indistinguishable from stellar noise or other confounding effects. Accurate independent measurements of stellar radius can break the degeneracy between the stellar radius, planetary radius, and impact parameter, allowing for much easier measurement of oblateness. Without such measurements, the primary effect of oblateness and zero obliquity when studying transit lightcurves will be to provide an astrophysical source of systematic error in the measurement of transit parameters.

Planets with nonzero obliquity have higher detectabilities (up to $`10^4`$) than planets with no obliquity, but yield nonunique determinations of obliquity and oblateness. In order to obtain unique obliquities and oblatenesses for these objects, precision comparable to that needed for the zero obliquity case is needed.

The detectability of oblateness for transiting planets is maximized for impact parameters near the critical impact parameter of $`b=0.7`$. Many transit searches are currently underway, yielding the potential for the discovery of many transiting planets in coming years. Given the opportunity to attempt to measure oblateness, our analysis suggests that the optimal observational target selection strategy would be to observe planets around bright stars that transit near an impact parameter of $`0.7`$.

The authors wish to acknowledge Bill Hubbard and Fred Ciesla for useful conversations; Wayne Barnes, Robert H. Brown, Christian Schaller, and Paul Withers for manuscript suggestions; and Robert H. Brown for valuble advice.


format: text

text:
# High Redshift X-Ray Selected Quasars: CXOCY J125304.0-090737 joins the clubPartly based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile, under program 68.A-0459

## 1 Introduction

The formation of the first structures in the Universe is one of the most interesting subjects in today’s astronomy. Because quasars are intrinsically very luminous, they can be observed up to very high redshift and can therefore probe early epochs in the universe. Recent observations have found considerable numbers of quasars at high redshift (Anderson et al., 2001; Schneider et al., 2002), with some quasars being at redshifts $`6`$ (Fan et al., 2001b), when the Universe was less than one Gyr old.

The earliest quasar surveys were performed in the radio (e.g., Edge et al. 1959; Bennett 1962; Schmidt 1963) and the optical (e.g., Sandage 1965). While radio surveys have continued (e.g., White et al. 2000), in recent years, greater attention has been placed on optical and X-ray surveys. Optical surveys are efficient finding quasars as they can search large areas of the sky in reasonable amounts of time. At high redshift (in this paper meaning redshifts $`z>4`$), the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) has been very successful identifying quasars and now there are more than 100 SDSS high-redshift quasars known (Anderson et al., 2001). However, most of those quasars have been selected based on their color properties and therefore may be biased against quasars with different photometric properties like heavily obscured ones. Recent studies suggest that this bias may not be too problematic though (Richards et al., 2003).

The other main quasar selection technique is X-ray detection as X-ray emission appears to be a universal characteristic of quasars at all observed redshifts (Kaspi et al., 2000). However, given the relative faintness of the majority of the sources, X-ray surveys need to rely on optical spectroscopy for most of the identifications. The lack of spatial resolution of past X-ray missions made these efforts laborious so far. However, the Chandra X-ray satellite with its superb angular resolution has made the optical identification process much more efficient. The nature of the X-ray emission also ensures that the optical selection biases due to obscuration are strongly reduced (although the X-ray selection may introduce biases of its own). This is especially true at high redshift where the observed X-ray photons were emitted at higher energies and can penetrate even considerably large amounts of obscuring material.

At high redshifts ($`z>4`$), there are only five quasars known selected by their X-ray emission. Three of them were found with the ROSAT satellite (Henry et al., 1994; Zickgraf et al., 1997; Schneider et al., 1998). The other two were detected by Chandra (Silverman et al., 2002; Barger et al., 2002). All of them are radio quiet except one (Zickgraf et al., 1997). There is another active galactic nucleus detected at $`z=4.14`$ in the Chandra Deep Field North (Barger et al., 2002). However, this source is optically faint, $`M_B=21.7+5\times log(h_{65})`$, and therefore it is hard to estimate the contribution of the active nucleus itself and its putative host galaxy to the observed optical luminosity. We therefore exclude this object from further discussions. There is also an optically faint radio loud active galactic nucleus at $`z=4.42`$ in the Chandra Deep Field North (Brandt et al., 2001; Vignali et al., 2002c), but this object was selected in the radio. In total there are 56 active galactic nuclei111Here, AGN are defined in a broad sense including quasars and active galaxies detected in X-rays at $`z>4`$,222See the excellent web page http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/papers/highz-xray-detected.dat maintained by Niel Brandt and Christian Vignali for a list of the high redshift AGN detected in X-rays so far. seven of which are radio-loud quasars, two of which are low-luminosity AGN (one of these is radio-loud) and twelve of which have not appeared in the literature so far. The remaining 36 sources are radio-quiet quasars and will be the sample we will discuss in this paper. Thirty-two were optically selected and four X-ray selected. Twenty-six were detected by Chandra, nine by ROSAT and one by XMM-Newton. These 36 sources have typical absorption corrected X-ray fluxes between $`10^{15}`$ and $`3\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the 0.5-2.0 keV band. The absolute magnitudes of the optically selected quasars range from $`M_B26`$ to $`30+5\times log(h_{65})`$ while the X-ray selected quasars range from $`M_B23`$ to $`27+5\times log(h_{65})`$. Thus, the high redshift X-ray selected quasars sample a different range of the optical luminosity function than the optical selected ones.333Whenever we talk about optical magnitudes or luminosities we do it in a broad sense including optical and ultraviolet. The magnitudes in the observed frame are measured in the optical, however they correspond to rest frame ultraviolet absolute magnitudes or luminosities.

There have been several studies of high redshift optically selected quasars detected in X-rays (e.g., Kaspi et al. 2000; Vignali et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2002a, b; Bechtold et al. 2002; Vignali et al. 2002b, c). The overall properties of the high redshift population are similar to the low redshift quasars (Kaspi et al., 2000; Vignali et al., 2002b). The X-ray spectral slope appears to be similar $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2.0`$ at low and high redshift (e.g., Vignali et al. 2002a, b), although in some high redshift cases it is harder (Bechtold et al., 2002). The optical-to-X-ray spectral index, $`\alpha _{ox}`$, nonetheless, appears to be steeper (optically stronger and/or X-ray weaker) at high redshift than locally (Vignali et al., 2001; Bechtold et al., 2002), although this trend may only be a result of the possible correlation of the optical-to-X-ray spectral index with optical luminosity. Vignali et al. (2002d), studying a sample of SDSS Early Data Release quasars, find that $`\alpha _{ox}`$ is correlated with rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) luminosity but does not depend significantly on redshift. They also find a correlation (with a slope different than unity) between X-ray and rest frame UV luminosities (see also references therein).

Here we present the discovery of CXOCY J125304.0-090737, a $`z=4.179`$ quasar selected in X-rays from Chandra archival images. Optical follow-up images were taken with the CTIO/4-meter telescope and the confirming optical spectrum was obtained with FORS2 on VLT. These observations were taken as part of the Calán-Yale Deep Extragalactic Research (CYDER) Survey (Castander et al., 2003; Treister & Castander, 2003). The CYDER survey is a deep optical and near-infrared imaging and spectroscopic program encompassing several scientific goals. One of the key aims is the characterization of the population of faint X-ray sources. Therefore, some of the fields of the CYDER survey were selected to overlap with deep Chandra pointings.

In §2 we describe the X-ray, optical and near-infrared observations that lead to the discovery of CXOCY J125304.0-090737, presenting the data reduction procedures followed. In §3 we discuss the observed characteristics of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 and compare them to those of the high redshift population of radio quiet quasars. We also discuss the differences between the X-ray and optically selected high redshift QSOs. Finally we present our conclusions in §4.

Throughout, we assume $`H_o=65h_{65}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. We define the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the exponent giving a photon flux density X-ray spectrum $`f(E)E^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in photons cm-2 s-1 keV-1.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

### 2.1 X-ray Data

The first X-ray field studied by the CYDER survey in the Southern Hemisphere was the Chandra pointing towards the Hickson group of galaxies HCG62 centered on (J2000) $`\alpha =12^h53^m05.70^s`$ $`\delta =09^o12^{}20.0^{\prime \prime }`$ (PI: Vrtilek). This field was observed on January 25, 2000 with the ACIS-S detector configuration for a total 49.15 ks. We retrieved this image from the archive and analyzed it using standard techniques with the CIAO package.

We remove bad columns and pixels using the guidelines specified on the ACIS Recipes,444See Clean the Data at http://www.astro.psu.edu/xray/acis/recipes/clean.html, and we remove flaring pixels using the FLAGFLARE routine. We use the full set of standard event grades (0,2,3,4,6) and create two images, one from 0.5 to 2.0 keV and one from 2.0 to 8.0 keV. We then use the WAVDETECT routine from the CIAO package to identify the point sources within these images, checking all wavelet scales from 1 to 16 separated by factors of 2. We detect 30 sources from 0.5-2.0 keV and 19 from 2.0-8.0 keV (with 15 detected in both bands, so that a total of 34 sources are detected) in the S3 ACIS CCD. We then use the PSEXTRACT script to extract spectra for these sources and provide a response matrix. CXOCY J125304.0-090737 was detected in both bands. Figure 2 shows a 30”$`\times `$30” cutout region centered on CXOCY J125304.0-090737 of the total (0.5-8.0 keV) band adaptively smoothed X-ray image. The total number of background subtracted photons detected were $`17.1\pm 4.2`$ in the soft \[0.5-2.0\] keV band and $`8.3\pm 3.0`$ in the hard \[2.0-8.0\] keV band. This analysis will focus on CXOCY J125304.0-090737; the sample as a whole will be discussed in a future work.

We then fit the spectrum for CXOCY J125304.0-090737 in XSPEC 11.0 with a power law model. We find a best fitting photon power law index of $`1.57_{0.33}^{+0.39}`$ with no absorption and of $`1.69_{0.35}^{+0.40}`$ ($`1\sigma `$ errors for the spectral indices) when the Galactic neutral hydrogen column of $`3\times 10^{20}`$ (as calculated using the HEASARC nH tool) is accounted for. These fits are done with three spectral channels from 0.5 to 8.0 keV, which all suffer from statistics too poor for conventional $`\chi ^2`$ fitting and the resulting values of $`\chi ^2`$ are close to zero, indicating that the bins have too few photons. Still the same results are obtained when either the C statistic or the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic are used, so they can be considered as robust as any spectral fits based on less than 30 photons. The 0.5-8.0 keV Galactic absorption corrected observed flux is $`4.9\pm 1.4\times 10^{15}`$ ergs/sec/cm2 with either model. Figure 1 shows the observed cumulative energy distribution.

### 2.2 Optical and Near-Infrared Imaging Data

As part of the CYDER survey we obtained V and I images of this field with the CTIO 4m MOSAIC-II camera. The total integration time was 80 minutes in V and 25 minutes in I under 1.1” seeing conditions. Images were reduced using standard techniques with the IRAF/MSCRED package.555IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. We search for optical counterparts of our X-ray detections in the resulting images. The source matching is relative simple given the good spatial resolution of Chandra. Using the brightest nine point sources in the optical we find an overall offset between the X-rays and the optical (tied to the USNO reference frame) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }RA=0.9^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }DEC=1.0^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Castander et al, in preparation for further details). There is only one detectable optical counterpart within the error circle of the X-ray source CXOCY J125304.0-090737 down to our magnitude limit ($`V<25.8`$ and $`I<23.8`$ at 5$`\sigma `$). The offset between the X-ray and optical centroids are 1.3”. For this object we performed PSF fitting photometry measuring $`V=23.65\pm 0.05`$ and $`I=22.52\pm 0.08`$. Image cut-outs of this object are shown in Fig 2.

Near-infrared data for this field was obtained at LCO using the DuPont 2.5m telescope with the Wide Field InfraRed Camera. The total integration time was 62 minutes in the $`J`$ band and 60 minutes in the $`K_s`$ band, with seeing of 0.7” and 0.6” respectively. We reduced the data with the IRAF DIMSUM package following standard procedures. We barely detect the optical counterpart in the $`J`$ band image at a magnitude of $`J=21.90\pm 0.20`$ but we do not detect it in the $`K_s`$ image which reached a magnitude limit of $`K_s<19.95`$ (5$`\sigma `$).

### 2.3 Optical Spectroscopy

Follow up spectroscopy of this field was obtained at the ESO Cerro Paranal Observatory with the UT4/Yepun telescope using the FORS2/MXU instrument on the 14th February 2002. Three masks were design for the HCG62 field, one of which included a slit for the CXOCY J125304.0-090737 optical counterpart. We took three exposures with this mask for a total integration time of 1 hour 55 minutes in $``$ 0.9” seeing conditions. We used the V300 grism giving a resolution of $`R520`$ (10.5 Å) for our 1” slit. The spectrum was reduced using standard techniques with IRAF and calibrated in wavelength using He-Ar comparison lamps exposures and the night sky lines. We also obtained spectra of the spectrophotometric standards Feige67 and LTT6248, which were used to provide a rough flux calibration of the spectrum.

Figure 3 shows the final spectrum together with the mean spectrum of quasars at $`z>4`$ found in the SDSS. The typical broad emission lines of a quasar are clearly distinguishable and marked in the figure. We measure a mean redshift of $`z=4.179\pm 0.006`$ using all the emission lines but Lyman $`\alpha `$ and NV.

## 3 Discussion

Table 1 presents the observed properties of CXOCY J125304.0-090737. In the optical, CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is a faint quasar with an absolute magnitude, $`M_{1450(1+z)}=23.31+5\times log(h_{65})`$ and $`M_B=23.69+5\times log(h_{65})`$. At this absolute magnitude, one would expect that most of the observed flux is coming from the QSO itself with little contribution from its host galaxy, which is not resolved in our optical images. Its spectrum is typical of a quasar with broad emission lines (Figure 3). We measure a velocity width of $`1500\pm 300`$ km/s using the CIV emission line, which is lower than the one measured in the SDSS composite QSO spectrum ($`2800`$ km/s). On the other hand, the CIV rest-frame equivalent width ($`\mathrm{EW}=43\pm 10`$ Å) is larger than the SDSS QSO composite spectrum ($`24`$ Å) as expected from the Baldwin effect, an anti-correlation between 1450 Å luminosity and CIV EW (Baldwin et al., 1977). The spectrum also presents a strong absorption feature between the Ly$`\alpha `$ and NV emission lines. This feature is at approximately the same wavelength as the \[OI\] 6364 Å sky line and therefore its real strength is difficult to estimate. We are nevertheless confident that the absorption is real and not an artifact of the sky subtraction. We interpret this absorption line as intrinsic absorption of NV. It is approximately at 3000 km/s blue-ward of the emission line. Although the spectrum is noisy, one may tentatively argue that there are also absorption lines blue-ward of CIV and OVI at approximately the same velocity offset. If this were correct, that would imply the existence of material that could obscure the QSO. Another interpretation would be that the Ly$`\alpha `$ emission line is narrow and that we are seeing the trough between emission lines. Although the wide red tail of NV would disfavor this hypothesis. The Ly$`\alpha `$ flux deficit, $`D_A`$, is a measure of the absorbed flux blue-ward of Ly$`\alpha `$ (Oke & Korycansky, 1982; Schneider et al., 1991).We obtain a value of $`D_A0.46`$ for CXOCY J125304.0-090737, which is typical of quasars at this redshift (e.g., Madau 1995). Our measurement is only approximate due to the difficulty of fitting the continuum red-ward of Ly$`\alpha `$ in our poor signal-to-noise spectrum, which translates into a large uncertainty in the extrapolation of the continuum blue-wards to compute $`D_A`$.

Using our photometry, we measure a $`VI=1.13`$ color for CXOCY J125304.0-090737. This value is slightly bluer than the expected $`VI=1.36`$ color obtained redshifting the SDSS composite spectrum (Vanden Berk et al., 2001) and convolving the spectrum with the filter responses. The similarity between these values argues against large amounts of intrinsic reddening (and thus optical extinction) in CXOCY J125304.0-090737. However, this argument is only qualitative and does not exclude small amounts of extinction. Overall, considering the possible relatively weak intrinsic absorption lines in our spectrum of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 and its not very red photometric properties, we conclude that there may be small amounts of extinction in CXOCY J125304.0-090737.

In X-rays, CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is also a faint QSO. The number of detected photon is low, $`17.1\pm 4.2`$ in the soft \[0.5-2.0\] keV band and $`8.3\pm 3.0`$ in the hard \[2.0-8.0\] keV band, and therefore fitting a power-law spectrum to the observed counts is difficult (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, the best photon index slope is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.69_{.35}^{+.40}`$, which is harder than the average radio-quiet QSO X-ray spectrum at low redshift (Yuan et al., 1998; George et al., 2000; Mineo et al., 2000; Reeves & Turner, 2000) (although part of the difference may be due to selection biases) and similar to the value of the X-ray background spectrum, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.4`$ (e.g., Gendreau et al. 1995; Gilli et al. 2001). We have used this value ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.69`$) to convert from observed count rate to X-ray flux. We measure an extinction corrected X-ray flux of $`4.9\pm 0.5\times 10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 in the observed frame \[0.5-8.0\] keV band. This QSO is therefore the second faintest X-ray selected quasar detected so far (see Figure 4) and the fourth X-ray faintest high redshift quasar overall.

For spectra with low number of counts it is customary to characterize the spectral shape with the hardness ratio $`HR=(HS)/(H+S)`$, where $`S`$ are the counts measured in a soft band and $`H`$ are the counts in a hard band. The measured hardness ratio for CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is $`0.35_{0.25}^{+0.28}`$, defining the soft and hard X-ray bands as 0.5-2.0 keV and 2.0-8.0 keV respectively. Although not many high redshift quasars have measured hardness ratios in the literature, the ones measured are typically softer than ours. That is their HR are lower and their $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are higher. Vignali et al. (2002b) measure a typical value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2.0\pm 0.2`$ compared to our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.7`$, emphasizing the relative hardness of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 compared to other optically selected high redshift QSOs.

At redshifts $`z>4`$, the observed Chandra band 0.5-8.0 keV corresponds to a rest frame band of 2.5-40 keV or higher. Any process changing the observed spectral slope is thus occurring at intrinsic higher energies than observed. Strong intrinsic absorption can certainly harden an observed X-ray spectrum. At redshift $`z>4`$, Hydrogen column densities of $`N_H10^{23}`$ are needed to produce noticeable spectral changes. In the case of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 neither the X-ray spectrum (Fig 1) nor the optical one (Fig 3) show any signs of such amounts of absorption. Processes, such as Compton reflection (e.g., Guilbert & Rees 1988) which cause deviations from a power law spectrum at high energies may therefore be important for understanding the X-ray spectral properties of high redshift quasars with hard spectra. The most prominent such features are iron emission lines, typically seen at 6.4 keV (from a neutral accretion disk) or 6.7 keV (from an ionized disk), iron absorption edges seen between 7.0 and 9.0 keV (with the energy again depending on the level of ionization in the disk), and a broad bump typically between 30 and 50 keV due to the Compton down-scattering of the hight energy photons. For typical parameters, the spectrum of a z=4.19 quasar can be hardened by 0.10-0.15 in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to the underlying power law by the reflection component. The effects of reflection components on the X-ray background have been studied in more detail in past work (e.g., Fabian et al. 1990; Zdziarski et al. 1993).

In order to compare the optical and X-ray emission we compute the effective optical-to-X-ray power law spectral slope, $`\alpha _{ox}`$, defined as

$$\alpha _{ox}=\frac{\mathrm{log}[f_\nu (2\mathrm{keV})/f_\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })]}{\mathrm{log}[\nu (2\mathrm{keV})/\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })]}$$
(1)
where $`f_\nu `$ is the flux density and $`\nu `$ is the frequency of the given wavelength or energy. Neither flux density is measured at the given energy and wavelength and extrapolations are needed to compute this quantity. For CXOCY J125304.0-090737 we compute $`\alpha _{ox}=1.35_{0.13}^{+0.11}`$ taking into account the error in the measured quantities and the errors in the extrapolations.

We have also computed $`\alpha _{ox}`$ for all high redshift quasars ($`z>4`$) with measured $`AB_{1450(1+z)}`$ optical magnitudes and observed-frame 0.5-2.0 keV X-ray fluxes available in the literature. Figure 5 plots $`\alpha _{ox}`$ against the optical magnitude $`AB_{1450(1+z)}`$. The $`\alpha _{ox}`$ values of the X-ray selected QSOs are shallower (X-ray stronger and/or optically fainter) than the optically selected ones. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test indicates that the probability of both distribution being drawn from the same parent distribution is less than 0.05%. The distribution of optical absolute magnitudes (or luminosities) is also statistically different in the X-ray and optically selected samples because the X-ray surveys are more sensitive but cover a much smaller area than the optical ones (see Figures 4 and 6). In order to understand the difference in the $`\alpha _{ox}`$ values, we plot the X-ray against the rest frame UV luminosity densities in Figure 6. We find that both observables are correlated with a functional form $`L_{2keV}L_{1450\AA }^{0.55}`$, shown as a dashed line in Figure 6. This slope is somewhat shallower than that found by Vignali et al. (2002d). But taking into account that the faint UV luminosity points, driving a shallower slope, are X-ray selected and assuming that the distribution of X-ray luminosities are the same at faint UV rest frame luminosities than at bright UV luminosities, our data are consistent with the correlation found by Vignali et al. (2002d), thus extending their result to fainter luminosities at high redshift with a larger sample.

CXOCY J125304.0-090737 was discovered in the first Chandra X-ray Southern field studied within the CYDER survey. One can ask how many high redshift QSOs one would expect to detect given the QSO luminosity function. We use Fan et al. (2001a) QSO optical luminosity function (LF), which is consistent with previous estimates (e.g., Kennefick et al. 1995; Schmidt et al. 1995). They compute the optically selected QSO LF in the range $`3.6<z<5.0`$ and $`27.75<M_{1450}5\times log(h_{65})<25.75`$. The optical absolute magnitude of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is considerably fainter. If we extrapolate Fan et al’s power law LF down to the magnitudes reached by our search, the expected number of quasars in the ACIS-S S3 CCD with $`z>4`$ is 0.22. The probability of finding any quasars (one or more) is then 20%. If instead we extrapolate Fan et al’s LF to fainter luminosities using the shape of the optical QSO LF at lower redshifts (Boyle et al., 2000), the expected number of QSOs is even lower. Although, with just one detection these numbers are not significant, they are nevertheless indicative that the faint end slope of the QSO optical LF may be high (at least higher than at low redshift) or that optical surveys miss significant fractions of QSOs that may be obscured. In the case of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is worth pointing out that its colors are typical of low redshift quasars and therefore a multi-wavelength optical survey reaching this magnitude limit should have been able to pick it up.

The number of expected $`z>4`$ quasars can also be computed from the X-ray luminosity function (XLF). Unfortunately, the XLF is poorly determined above $`z=4`$, given the lack of X-ray selected QSOs at these redshifts. Compiling several X-ray surveys, Miyaji et al. (2001) derive an XLF up to $`z=4.6`$, although at their highest redshift their XLF is only valid at the bright end. If we extrapolate their power-law parameterization of their last redshift bin ($`z=2.34.6`$) to the faint end and also assume that the XLF is the same beyond $`z=4.6`$, then we would expect to detect 0.72 quasars at the X-ray flux limit reached in our first CYDER field. If we instead extrapolate Miyaji et al’s XLF with a smooth double power-law to the faint end similar to the one at lower redshifts and also extrapolate this function to higher redshift with a plausible evolutionary model (see Castander et al. in preparation for details), we obtain somewhat lower expectation values. The probability of finding any quasars would then be $`50\%`$. We want to stress nevertheless that these numbers should be taken cautiously. They are only orientative to give a sense of how the faint end of the high redshift quasar luminosity function may behave.

The discovery of CXOCY J125304.0-090737, together with the other X-ray selected high redshift QSOs (Henry et al., 1994; Zickgraf et al., 1997; Schneider et al., 1998; Silverman et al., 2002; Barger et al., 2002), demonstrates the potential of X-ray techniques to detect high redshift QSOs. At redshifts $`z>4`$, X-ray photons observed for example at 1 keV were emitted at energies $`>5`$ keV, where the X-ray photons can penetrate even considerable amounts of extinction and therefore X-ray selected samples should be almost extinction-bias free. Only sources with intrinsic column densities $`N_H10^{23}`$ cm2 should be affected. In particular, Chandra with its superior image quality that allows secure and economical identifications of optical counterparts will permit the completion of follow-up surveys, some of them which are already in progress, like the CYDER survey, that augur a new understanding of the quasar population at high redshift. For example, one can argue that one needs of the order of 100 high redshift quasars to constraint the high redshift LF. This could be achieved with 40-200 Chandra pointings (ACIS-I and ACIS-S) depending on whether the actual QSOs LF at the faint end is as our discovery implies or lower. Although demanding, current on-going X-ray follow up surveys may achieve these numbers. These discoveries will be complemented by deep wide-field multi-band optical surveys to provide a good understanding of the high redshift quasar population and thus the history of the accretion power onto black holes which is thought to be closely related to the galaxy formation and star formation rate history of the universe.

## 4 Conclusions

We present the discovery of CXOCY J125304.0-090737, a new high redshift quasar at $`z=4.179`$ found as part of the CYDER survey. CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is an optically faint quasar ($`M_B=23.69+5\times log(h_{65})`$) with a typical QSO spectrum (Figure 3). In the optical, the quasar seems to be slightly obscured, although the data is also consistent with no extinction. In X-rays, CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is also X-ray faint ($`f_X=1.7\pm 0.4\times 10^{15}`$ ergs s-1 cm-2 in the \[0.5-2.0\] keV band) with a somewhat harder spectrum ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.7`$ or $`HR0.35`$) than typical low redshift or high redshift optically selected quasars. We speculate that a reflection component can slightly harden the spectrum but by no means is this the only mechanism. The spectrum of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 and the other X-ray selected high redshift quasars is X-ray strong (and/or optically weak) compared to high redshift optically selected quasars. Given that both samples have different optical/ultraviolet absolute magnitudes, this result is a manifestation of the correlation between X-ray and rest frame ultraviolet luminosities. Taking into account selection biases, we find a slope for this correlation consistent with the value obtained by Vignali et al. (2002d). We therefore extend their result to lower luminosities at high redshifts using a larger sample.

The quasar space density implied by the discovery of CXOCY J125304.0-090737 is high: a factor $`5`$ larger than reasonable extrapolations of the quasar optical luminosity function at high redshift. Although not statistically significant, this number seems to indicate that the shape of the quasar luminosity is changing with the faint end slope becoming steeper with redshift or that current optical surveys at high redshift are missing considerable amounts of quasars. The space density predicted from the X-ray luminosity function is more a guess than a prediction. Anyway, if on-going and future X-ray surveys corroborate the numbers implied by the first field of the CYDER survey, the X-ray luminosity function will not differ much of its value at lower redshifts, $`z=23`$. The combination of the currently ongoing optical and X-ray surveys with complementary regions of the parameter space sampled will help to determine the quasar luminosity function at high redshift with a better understanding of the biases involved with both selections. The CYDER survey promises to be one of the contributors to a better understanding of the quasar population at high redshift.

The CYDER survey participants and especially FJC and ET acknowledge support from the Fundación Andes. JM acknowledges support from FONDECYT.


text:
# SCIENCE: A Solid Whole

## 1 Human Perception

All the physical objects seem to have finite dimensions and some other measurable properties. The human body is physical material having a limited ability of perception of the outside material world. It has five senses of perception: vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch. To make perception possible, the “electromagnetic-wave” connects the observables to the observer. Nature has granted a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum to our body for perception: a visible band of light and a part of the infra-red region. The window is being broadened by our scientific knowledge: the scientifically detected (known) part of the spectrum extends from a low frequency of power induction to a high frequencies of cosmic rays ($`\lambda 10^5cm10^{13}cm`$). We are not aware of, what lies beyond on either side of the band.

It seems that the electromagnetic spectrum is “eternal and infinite”, and nobody can deny its infinite extensions on the both sides of the known part –large wavelength region and small wavelength region. The scientific knowledge is just uncovering a region of its infinite extensions, step-by-step, and consequently, understanding nature better. It is only the total knowledge of the infinite spectrum which can touch the “ultimate truth” sitting at the heart of nature. The understanding and uncovering of this spectrum up to any finite extension will always be infinitely small as compaired to the infinite whole of it. In this way the efforts of understanding the whole extension of this eternal spectrum, and thereby, to gain the knowledge of universe with life and entire existence are never going to be fulfilled.

The human body –a frame with the five sense organs and a brain– is called by some philosophers as “a limited instrument,” because of its above discussed limitations. So, doing science with such a blemish instrument, one can never discover the infinite whole; the “ultimate reality”. For the systems like weather, earthquakes, rolling dices etc… and human behaviour, of course, it has proved scientifically impossible to describe a state of system accurately for a long time into the future. Instead, probabilities can be derived to describe a state which might happen in future. Science is “unpredictable” . The claim of determinism is a failure in science . In quantum mechanics, the unpredictability of the science has been accepted by postulating “principle of uncertainty”. Albert Einstein, a pioneer scientist of the last century, bothered much with this principle and said: “God does not play dice”. According to this principle, it is impossible to measure every physical variable of a microscopic particle with full accuracy. And the experimental results have proved it. So, recognizing “uncertainty” as a principle, has infered the inability of science to discover the ultimate reality; which is “absolute” and demands the exactness/ perfectness of measurements.

No doubt, the main goal of modern science is to discover the ultimate truth and develop a “Theory Of Everything (TOE)” but there is an essential question, at this difficult stage of science, which every wise man should ask: “Can science explain everything?”… and I have a beautiful answer of a learned scientist –Steven Weinberg : “Clearly not! There certainly always will be accidents that no one will explain, not because they could not be explained if we knew all the precise conditions that led up to them, but because we NEVER will know all these conditions”. It would be better to add here some comments of Albert Einstein, in his old age: “I used to think when I was young that sooner or later all the mysteries of existence would be solved, and I worked hard. But now I can say that the more we know, the more our existence turns out to be mysterious. The more we know, the less we know and the more we become aware of the vastness… Science has failed in de-mystifying existence, on the contrary it has mystified things even more”. It seems that as we are extending the radius of our scientific knowledge, so too have been increasing the circumference of our ignorance.

## 2 Superstitions and Superpositions

Superstitions have been developed through the personal experiences, observations, and beliefs of the people in the olden times. Interestingly, most of them survived for a long time because they worked. If we think rationally and review all the superstitions without any prejudice, we can say that there have been always a probability for each event to happen in a certain way: according to the beliefs of people. This probability have been found higher if a larger number of observers (people) supported happening of the event in that way because there existed a larger confidence level of the observers. In case the event occured in another, way not according to their wishes, they found other solution –make happy their gods– and their wishes have been found to be fulfilled. In other words, finally, the event happened according to their beliefs and wishes. Certainly, this had been something very important to do with the state-of-mind of the people. In fact, the superstition doctrine is still working well among more than 50% people of the globe: through many religions, sects and other practices etc… Predictions of a person of true heart with strong beliefs; strong will power; elation and a sidh-purush have been found to be true most of the times. There is a famous saying that if you pray true to the heart, God will listen you.

Quantum theory is a new paradigm in search of the ultimate reality but playing with the old dices of superstitious human civilizations. The only difference is, the more objectivity in the predictions of the events with a beautiful use of mathematics. In fact, there is no mechanism in theory to select a particular actuality from the multiplicity of superposed possibilities. The superposition, of all the possible states of system, is supposed to represent the final possibility of the event which can appear as a reality. This is nicely explained by the tools of mathematics and the axioms of probability theory. It might have led us further near to the reality but certainly not going to connect with the absolute truth, as the results are probabilistic –a matter of chance– again. We are again at a predicament situation. One cannot say for sure about the final state of the system; then, what we have gained is just a mathematical cleverness to convince ourselves that the mathematics supports the happening of a particular event with such and such chances. Yet, it is not necessary that any sets of laws which are completely consistent mathematically, can surely describe nature as we observe it .

There has been a paradigm shift from superstitions of human beliefs to superpositions of quantum mechanics; from an abstractness to the concrete mathematical equations; from a matter of luck to a matter of chance. The superstitions have been found based on a belief that a supernatural power works, and the superposition is based on a belief that the mathematical power works. In superstitions, one have has no mean how to explain; only the personal belief was enough to tell people and it worked well in that period of history and still working well among most of the common mass. On the other hand, about superposition/ probability theory one can write a book, one can furnish a library; because there is something concrete to show. Now, the reality is being accepted as an objective thing, which can be explained on a plane paper; it is nothing to do with the subjective experience. But, either one of the two is not a complete in itself. They are totally opposite poles of the same magnet (one should say), which certainly has a joint at center. We are talking either about its north pole or about its south pole, which alone does not constitute a total whole of it. Basically, truth does not exist at either of the two poles (superstition or superposition) but at the center; at the union of two pseudo-realities. Now, another paradigm shift is essential; which can unite and dissolve these two schools of thoughts. Indeed, the quantum physics experiments have knocked the door of a new paradigm: At the union, both the apparent realities dissolve into the ultimate one.

## 3 Cosmology: An Interface

As far as the origin and evolution of this universe –cosmology– is concerned, the most popular theory among the scientists is the “big bang theory”. Although this theory has passed some scientific tests, there are still many more trials which it must undergo successfully. Scientific evidence strongly supports that the universe had a definite beginning a finite amount of time ago. According the big bang theory there was nothing before the big bang and all the space-time must have originated there and then. No matter/energy could exist before this bang as there was no space and time for it to be in. In the context of a recent test of this theory, John Bahcall (a learned astrophysicist) says : “I am happy that the big bang theory passed this test, but it would have been more exciting if the theory had failed and we had to start looking for a new model of the evolution of universe”. In fact, there are many domains of mainstream cosmology that are far from being settled.

The biggest problem of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical –perhaps even theological– what was there before the bang? . This stands as an embarrassing situation for the scientists. Robert Jastrow –the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee– himself admitted : “Astonomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind”.

To avoid this initial difficulty the idea of singularity was introduced in which the universe expands from a singular point (a point of infinite density at which the laws of physics break down) and collapses back to the singular point and repeats the cycle indefinitely . The idea was appreciated to avoid the theistic base of the theory but the experimental evidence seems to indicate that this type of oscillating universe is a physical impossibility and facts supports that the universe will expand for ever . The attempts behind this idea to avoid theistic beginning of the universe all fail . The philosophical origin of the big bang cannot be denied.

It has been known for some time that the fundamental constants of physics (particle masses, coupling constants of the various forces etc…) are within a narrow range and fine-tunned for life to exist. In the words of Steven Weinberg : “It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcial outcome of the chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from beginning”. Indeed, the reality that physics addresses is only a part of the total interacting reality which holds the key of the philosophical origin of big bang theory. Arthur S. Eddington –a brilliant astronomer– once said: “The universe no longer looks like a thing but like a thought”. In fact, modern cosmology has an interface with a subtle science: the science of consciousness.

## 4 Modern Science & Human Consciousness

However, the observations encompassed by classical physics excludes the observer from the physical reality; yet, the deep-down understandung of nature –the quantum theory– can not avoid the intrusion of observer into the measurement process. It is well acknowledged that the classical physics is an incomplete understanding of nature. Eventhough, our scientific researches are based upon the prejudice posed by classical physics: keeping the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. A serious flaw is existing in the grass-root level working of science . It will be wise to understand fully the working of this objective method of scientific studies which is only relying upon the limited sense perception of human body. Basically , we are separating the real observer from the observation. To make a perception possible, there must be a subject –consciousness– who can observe a phenomenon or an event with the help of a connecting principle. It is not the physical part of human brain which acts as the observer (the knower) and make the perception possible but there is a subtle playback entity “Mind”, which we donot consider in our scientific theories. The human mind is the doer, the observer which interprets the messages collected from outside by brain with the help of sense organs and instruments. It makes a scientist to recognize or refute the existence of an object or a phenomenon. “Nothing in current science can account for consciousness, yet consciousness is the one thing we can not deny”: a revolutionary futurist, Peter Russell, says .

According to Eugene Wigner –American Physicist, nobel laureate: “The next revolution in physics will occur when the properties of mind will be included in the equations of quantum theory”. The most creative physicists have always emphasized that human consciousness is at the foundation of the scientific method behind physics . Erwin Schrodinger –one of the founders of quantum mechanics– felt deeply that human mind is a sole constructor of all the observations and quoted as: “Our picture of the world is, and always will be, a construct of the mind”. This is the biggest challenge for the scientists, namely to include the human consciousness in their theories. However, it can be proved hard for the scientific community to consider the great importance of human element in doing science but it’s worth-doing and enjoyable. Science is “fun” . The fun starts happening in doing science or any work of day-to-day life, when one accepts the full co-operation of his inner-being. And the climax of fun can be achieved when one accepts this inner-being as an essential part of scientific observations and practice it in the objective world (real life).

A man who has developed a big scientific panorama, it is unbelievable that he himself is non-scientific. Never! He is scientific from his inner-being and only then he could discover science which is always there, the ultimate. Study of inner-being is also called “spirituality”. Spirituality is a pure form of religion –free from sectarian, orthodox and dogmatic idealogy. This is not an utopian theory but a scientific and practical philosophy which can be practised and realised in day-to-day life. A study in the latest edition of “The Medical Journal of Australia” asserts that those who consider the spiritual dimension essential to their lives not only live longer, they are also healthier –with lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol and lower rates of some cancers– and less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. More than 500 scientific studies conducted at 200 independent universities and institutions in 33 countries and published in over 100 leading scientific journals have been documented, which benefits every sphere of life: physiological, psychological, sociological, and ecological .

## 5 Determinism and Free Will

“Science is determinist; it is so a piori; it postulates determinism, because without this postulate science could not exist”, stated by Henri Poincare – a great mathematician and physicist. If there is a scientific law working anywhere in the universe, determinism must be there. According to Pierre Simon Laplace –a French astronomer and mathematician– the entire future course of the universe is laid out as a consequence of two deterministic factors: 1) the laws of nature, and 2) the state of universe at any moment of time. Universe is nothing but a collection of numerous phenomena. Anything happening around us, in the universe, is controlled by a certain set of physical laws. These laws determine the birth, life and death of all the events of universe. So, with the total understanding of these physical laws one can predict the future of an event very well in advance. This is the beauty of science, as Henri Poincare quoted. Everything is deterministic and there is no place for a “free will” to exist.

The principle of determinism may disappear for some time because of our incomplete understanding of the scientific laws; yet, it does not imply that the free will is prevailing. There must be certain hidden variables which are defusing the realisation of the principle of determinism. The conscious mind receives information from the physical world only through eyes and other sense organs that are presumably understandable deterministically. Determinism also implies the objectivity of the phenomena. In principle, there can be nothing subjective in the entire existence. Even the true observer –human mind– is objective in nature. It keeps subjectivity only at its superficial layers. However, the deep-down part of it, is purely objective in nature. This shallow subjectivity is a natural consequence of the inherit genetic codes (informations recorded through the long process of evolution) and the influence of environment; which can be scientifically decoded and understood. So, in this way, human behaviour –which we suppose as the most complex system– is also deterministic. In fact, everything in the entire existence is objective and within the domain of science and the principle of determinism is prevalent everywhere.

A free will can exist only if there is not at all anything else existing in the entire whole. Only a source totally detached from nature (matter) which is the origin and cause of everything –options, thoughts, feelings, etc… that is the existence of an “autonomous mind”, i.e. a principium individuationis … the entity which is “Only One and Supereme” has the privilege to enjoy the glory of free will. As soon as the “One becomes Two”, a boundary appears, laws hold and the free will concept is lost; as now there exists another entity which introduced the physical laws in order to justify its identity– as the number “Two”. As a consequence, the free will is automatically disappeared. As soon as the “One becomes Many”, of coarse, the more complex laws hold and the individual conscious will becomes more constrained. Now the will of the every conscious object is guided by the resultant force of all the natural laws.

Universe is at the stage of “One to Many”, where the complex physical laws hold and the determinism is prevailing everywhere. The free will seems to be prevailing in human behaviour, but this is an illusion. There exists a will, which is not free but constrained – a “constrained will”. Basically, there is always a window of priorities with in which the human-will has to work. This conscious will is manifest through deterministically understandable science. All the thoughts, values, volitions, decisions, acts, are the product of physical, chemical, or physiological and psychological processes going on in the human body. Our will is a result of our past life experiences, the innate genetic codes which have been acquired through the struggle of long time in the process of evolution and the present physiological and psychological states of our body. By the way, it is an essential feature of the constrained will, which makes life interesting and struggleful. A life with a free will is not at all, logically possible. But if somehow it happened to be so, can never be worth-living but all boring and suicidal.

## 6 Conclusions

The observer problem can be evaded in classical physics by excluding the consideration of the mind of observer but this option is certainly unavailable for quantum mechanics. The intrusion problem of observer occurs at the level of the quantum mechanical experiment clearly shows that modern science is incomplete understanding of nature. Our scientific researches are based upon the prejudice posed by classical physics: keeping the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer –human mind. One should not forget that human-being is a part of nature and human mind is an essential component of our observations. Indeed, it is the observer –the knower– which makes perception possible. The working of human mind must be included in our scientific theories. Moreover, limits of human perception (excluding mind) and philosophical base of modern cosmology have disclosed another physical evidence for the existence of a bigger reality and a new paradigm which can encompass the human consciousness and solve all the difficulties that modern science is waging with.

In practice, human behaviour appears un-deterministic and the free will seems to be working there. But this is our ignorance about the scientific laws that holds the key of the subtle dynamics of our inner-being. Basically, there are two kinds of sciences: one, the objective science –“modern science”– that studies the outer –material nature; and two: subjective science, a study of inner-being, super nature –“science of consciousness”. If both are joined for completeness, only “SCIENCE” remains as the ultimate knowledge (wisdom); which can explain everything. Scientist should accept the challenge and start searching for the possibilities to include the human consciousness in the observations and theory. Only this path could explore the real potential of the human being and create a man in the plenitude of wisdom; who can solve the mystery of quantum theory, and thereby, reabilitate the principle of determinism. In principle, that would fulfil his candidature to uncover the vastness of the electromagnetic spectrum and enjoy the ecstasy of the ultimate reality. So, it is only the completeness of science –“SCIENCE”– which is capable of uttering the ultimate answer to the human quest: enabling man to develop the “TOE” and thereby, bringing upon him benign grace of the ultimate truth.