text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This paper completes the phenomenological analysis of the set of experimental data on $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction on protons. The main goal of the analysis was to receive the reliable estimates of some fundamental parameters, first of all the multipole amplitudes of the process. The most direct and statistically justified way is to divide the whole analysis into two stages. The first one is the partial waves analysis of the experimentally measured observables, for example, angular distributions. The contribution of different partial waves can be obtained by linear regression procedure based on linear nonparametric model. Expanding the observables into series, in this case, over the orthogonal Legendre polinomials we can determine the terms significantly different from zero and reveal partial waves participating in the process. Thus, the first stage of analysis give us the number of the linear regression coefficients that provide accordingly statistics the best description of the experimental observables.

## 2 Results of partial wave analisys

The result of the partial wave analysis of the angular distributions measured by three experimental groups  and  was presented in . The main conclusions from this analysis are:
1. One confirms the known fact that in energy region from threshold to about 1GeV $`\eta `$-mesons are produced mainly in $`s`$-state and the process has the resonance character.
2. The contributions of higher partial waves appear only as $`sp`$\- and $`sd`$-interference and their contributions are small compared to $`s`$-wave. Unfortunately the results of three experiments in this respect qualitatively contradict with each other.

We made also the partial wave analysis of angular distribution measured in gamma ray region 0.795 – 1.925 GeV . In this case like the lower energy region the linear model with first three terms in the expansion of the diffential cross section of the process over Legendre polinomials was proved to be also statistically justified. The energy dependence of corresponding regression coefficients $`a_0,a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ is shown of Fig.1 . These figures confirm the dominant role of the $`s`$-wave and presence the $`p`$\- and $`d`$-partial waves by order of magnitude smaller. There is no evidence of resonsnce contribution besides $`S_{11}\left(1535\right)`$, firmly established in energy region between 1 and 2 GeV, and namely $`S_{11}\left(1650\right)`$, $`D_{15}\left(1675\right)`$, $`F_{15}\left(1680\right)`$ and $`P_{13}\left(1720\right)`$ .

Smooth energy behaviour of the regression coefficients $`a_0,a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ seems to indicate that in this energy region the principal role are playing the nonresonans waves.

## 3  Breit–Wigner characteristics of $`S_{11}(1535)`$-resonance and $`E_{0^+}`$-amplitude of $`\eta `$-meson photoproduction on protons

The results of the partial wave analysis of the photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons on protons in the energy region from threshold to about 2 GeV permit the significant simplification of the second part of the phenomenological analysis that is determination of the multipole amplitudes and parameters of $`S_{11}\left(1535\right)`$ resonance. The statistically justified descripton of experimental observables with three terms of the expansion over Legendre polinomials means $`s`$-wave dominance. So in the expression of $`a_0,a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ in terms of multipole amplitudes presented in  we can keep only the terms with $`E_{0^+}.`$ The main contribution of $`s`$-wave contains $`a_0`$:

$$a_0\left(W\right)=\left|E_{0+}\right|^2,$$
(1)
$`W`$ – total energy in CM-system.

Assuming the Breit–Wigner behaviour of the electric dipole amplitude we can use this fact as the parametric statistical model for description of regression coefficient $`a_0\left(W\right)`$ or the total cross section $`\left(k/q\right)\sigma \left(W\right)=4\pi a_0\left(W\right),`$ where $`k`$ and $`q`$ – CM-momenta of gamma quantum and $`\eta `$-meson correspondingly. The relevant formulae that take into account the energy dependence of the resonance width are :

$$\frac{k}{q}\sigma \left(W\right)=4\pi a_0\left(W\right)=\frac{\sigma \left(W_R\right)W_R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2}{\left(W_R^2W^2\right)^2+W_R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(W\right)},$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(W\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\left(b_\eta \frac{q_\eta }{q_{\eta R}}+b_\pi \frac{q_\pi }{q_{\pi R}}+b_{\pi \pi }\right).$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is total width of the resonance, $`b_\eta ,b_\pi ,b_{\pi \pi }`$ are the probabilities of decay to corresponding channels, $`q_\eta ,q_\pi `$ are the momenta $`\eta `$ and $`\pi `$, index R means the value at resonance. There were three fitted parameters: $`\sigma \left(W_R\right),W_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R,`$ which were used to calculate also helisity amplitude:

$$A_{1/2}^2=\frac{W_R}{2m_p}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{b_\eta }\sigma \left(W_R\right),$$
(4)
($`m_p`$ – proton mass) and parameter $`\xi `$ that doesn’t depend on $`b_\eta `$

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{k}{q}\sigma \left(W_R\right)}.$$
(5)
The values of $`b_\eta ,b_\pi ,b_{\pi \pi }`$ were fixed. The results are presented in tables 1-4. Table 1 presents the estimates received by fitting both $`4\pi a_0\left(W\right)`$ and $`\left(k/q\right)\sigma \left(W\right)`$ which agree quite well. But there is the large inconsistency between total width of $`S_{11}\left(1535\right)`$ resonance obtained from the experimental data of paper  and  and experimental data of papers  and .

It shoud be noted that the later estimates agree with values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ obtained from hadron processes and thereby remove the disagreement existed in values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ estimated from photo- and hadroproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons . The differences between total width and other parameters resulting from experimental data of various experiments are illustrating by Breit-Wigner curves fitted with $`b_\eta =0.55,b_\pi =0.35`$ on the figures 2-4.

The large values of criterion $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ per degree of freedom in tables 2 and 4 is due to the considerable deviation of the experimental values relative the fitted curve which significantly exceed the experimental errors. This means that the deviations of points from the Breit–Wigner curve do not follow the normal distribution with zero expectation. In this case the goodness of fit can be estimated by the value of noncentral criterion $`\chi _{\text{nc}}^2`$ with noncentrality parameters $`\delta ^2`$ equal to the sum of expectation squared of individual variables . As an example in Table 5 the differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the values $`4\pi a_0\left(W\right)`$ obtained as a result of partial waves analysis of experimental data  and the Breit–Wigner curve for the case $`b_\eta =0.55,b_\pi =0.35`$ are shown.

These differences were used to estimate the value of noncentrality parameter $`\delta ^2=46.8.`$ The expectation of noncentral value $`\chi _{\text{nc}}^2`$ per degree of freedom turns out to be 1.05 supporting statistical reliability of the result presented in tables 2 and 4. At the same time this item may be considered as some indication of possible biases in experimental data.

Description of energy dependence $`4\pi a_0\left(W\right)`$ by parametric model based on the Breit–Wigner formula allows to find the real and imaginary parts and also the phase of electric dipole amplitude $`E_{0+}`$ responsible for production of $`S_{11}\left(1535\right)`$\- resonance.

As an example on fig.5 the data obtained from the energy dependence $`4\pi a_0\left(W\right)`$ from paper  are shown.

Upper and lower curves were calculated with error matrix of parameters $`W_R,\sigma \left(W_R\right)`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ calculated with $`b_\eta =0.55,b_\pi =0.35`$ from table 2:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.54& 1.23& 4.71\\ 1.23& 2.16& 1.84\\ 4.71& 1.84& 33.20\end{array}\right)$$

Real and imaginary parts of $`E_{0+}`$ transforms the regression coefficients containing $`E_{0+}`$ into linear equations. Unfortunately the regression coefficients of polarization observables have significant errors and are at different energies . This means that up to now there is no possibility to find the reliable estimates of higher multipole. In order to go further and find reliable estimates of $`p`$-, $`d`$\- and higher multipole it is necessary to have more precise and more detailed experimental data on polarization observables including angular distributions of recoiled protons polarization.

## 4  Conclusion

The partial wave analysis of observables of eta photoproduction on protons made in  confirms the dominating role of the s-wave in energy region from threshold up to about 2 GeV and demonstrates its resonance behaving corresponding to production of nucleon resonance $`S_{11}\left(1535\right).`$ The experimental data on differential cross sections don’t show the presence of the partial waves with $`l>2.`$ In all cases the statistically reliable description of experimental data was achieved with keeping only three terms in expansion of differential cross section over Legendre polynomials. Contributions of $`p`$\- and $`d`$-waves appear only through their interference with the resonance $`s`$-wave are small and the results of different experiments contradict with each other. Thus in the energy region up to 2 GeV the experimental data doesn’t show appearence of large number of firmly established resonances .

The separation of $`s`$-wave contribution has allowed to find the energy dependence of amplitude $`E_{0+}`$ and fundamental characteristics of $`S_{11}\left(1535\right)`$ resonance. Unfortunately the data of various experiments in this case are also incompatable.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Clustering in quantum Hall effect: Spin-charge coupling
Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

The effective fractional charges like 17/4 or 19/4 are explained by our angular momentum theory. These fractions do not arise from odd-denominator rule. Due to same spin polarization for both of these along the magnetic field, these states are not the particle-hole conjugates. The idea of clustering first introduced in cond-mat/0303309 has been extended to atomic clusters which explain the oscillations in the kHz range.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-40-2301 0145.Phone: 2301 0811.

1. Introduction

Recently, Cooper et al have obtained signals of frequency varying from about 3 kHz to 25 kHz when the d.c. voltage is increased such that the d.c. current increases beyond a threshold value. The conditions for the plateaus in the quantum Hall effect are obtained at low d.c. voltage. When the d.c. voltage is increased the plateau disappears and a finite resistivity is obtained. The phase change from zero resistivity to finite resistivity by increasing voltage is called the reentrant quantum Hall effect. In the finite resistivity phase there is a kHz signal. Such kHz signals are not obtained in all of the plateaus but are characteristic of only some of the plateaus. In the case of two of the plateaus, where experimental measurements of kHz oscillations have been made, the particle-hole symmetry could not be identified and these two states are not particle-hole conjugates. When some effort is made, the predicted frequencies occur in the range of MHz or GHz whereas the experimental values are of the order of kHz. Therefore, it may be assumed that the origin of the kHz oscillations has not been understood.

In the present letter, we report that the kHz oscillations are caused by “clustering”. We can predict their frequency and their symmetry correctly.

2. Theory

We consider that the sample of the size of a few mm consists of clusters of atoms. Every cluster has a finite number of polarized electrons. Some of the clusters have only one electron and only one atom so that these clusters do not contribute to kHz oscillations but they do exhibit particle-hole symmetry. Therefore, we consider two types of clusters, one with only one atom, and the other with a finite number of atoms. These clusters are inferred from the spin value. For spin=1/2, we have clusters with only one atom and for $`s>1/2`$ we have clusters with a large number of atoms per cluster. First we consider clusters with only one atom per cluster or with spin 1/2 only.

The quantum Hall effect has always been a subject with many different theories. Our theory makes use of the theory of angular momentum\[2-9\]. Recently, Pan et al have reported observation of some of the fractions which could not be obtained by their model. However, our theory explains these values very well, particularly when $`s>1/2`$ has been considered. It was found that Mani and von Klitzing have made a very detailed measurement of fractions which determine the effective charge. We are able to predict all of the 146 measured effective fractional values. Similarly, Smet also reported that the fractions were not the same as those found by their model. These fractions are also predicted by our theory correctly . A study of cyclotron resonance which gave new splitting could not be understood by their model but our theory explains the data very well. The thermoelectric power in between two plateaus is also well predicted by our theory.

The fractional charge derived by us by using the theory of angular momentum is given by,

$$e_{eff}/e=\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}\pm s}{2l+1}$$
(1)
for $`s=\pm 1/2`$, for various values of $`l`$ these predicted values are the same as those measured . The details of derivation are similar to that of Lande’s g-value formula except that Lande used only the + sign in $`j=l\pm s`$, whereas we use both the plus as well as the minus sign. When $`l`$=0, $`s`$=1/2 we get $`e_{eff}/e`$=1 and for $`l`$=1, $`s`$=-1/2, we get 1/3. As long as $`s`$=1/2, there is no clustering or we can say that there is only one electron in a cluster. This also means that there is only one atom in a cluster. For large values of $`s`$, there is a large number of electrons which are polarized in a magnetic field. Similarly, a large number of electrons also means that there are a lot of atoms in a cluster.

We analyse the two fractions and find their symmetry. The fraction 4 + (1/4)=17/4 may be analysed as $`(n+\frac{1}{2})`$17/2 where $`n`$ is the Landau level quantum number. We take $`n`$=0 so that at low temperatures, the fraction is (17/2)(1/2). For $`l`$=0 in the above formula, the effective charge is,

$$\frac{1}{2}\pm s=\frac{17}{2}$$
(2)
for $`s`$=8 and positive sign, we obtain 8+(1/2)=17/2. We consider only the positive sign for only one sign of the fractional charge. The spin, s=8 means 16/2, so that there are atleast 16 electrons in the cluster. Pauli principle will make sure that they are not in one atom. This shows that there are electron clusters. Similarly, 4+(3/4) =19/4 can be written as (1/2)(19/2) so that the effective charge is,

$$\frac{1}{2}\pm s=\frac{19}{2}$$
(3)
so that for positive sign $`s`$=9 which is 18/2 so that there is a cluster of atleast 18 electrons. This shows that there is a cluster. Since for 17/2 as well as for 19/2 we used positive sign, there are no values with negative sign. The negative sign values are the partile-hole symmetric states which are conjugate to those with positive sign. Therefore 19/4 as well as 17/4 are both spin polarized in one and the same direction and there are no conjugate states. Therefore 17/4 is not the conjugate of 19/4.

The $`n`$=0 in $`(n+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ produces only the zero-point frequency with a factor of 1/2 so that 25/4 reduces to 25/2. In the formula (1) we substitute $`l`$=0 so that,

$$\frac{1}{2}\pm s=\frac{25}{2}$$
(4)
or s=12 with positive sign. That is possible only for 24 electrons which form a cluster. Using the negative sign, we can obtain the Kramers conjugate states. For 25/2 the conjugate is -23/2; for 17/2 it is -15/2 and for 19/2 it is -17/2. The conjugate states require the spin-reversed states which are not populated due to strong magnetic field.

For spin 3/2, there are atleast three electrons. Since l=0, three sites are needed. For spin 5/2, five sites are needed but a spin-charge relationship is clearly predicted,

$$\frac{1}{2}=chargespin.$$
(5)
At very low temperatures, the velocity of an atom measures the thermodynamic temperature,

$$\frac{1}{2}mv^2=3k_BT$$
(6)
one each $`k_BT`$ for x, y and z components of the velocity. If the temperature is T=50 mK, $`k_B=1.38\times 10^{16}erg/K`$, the mass of the cluster, $`m=N\times 69.723\times 1.67261\times 10^{24}g`$ with N the number of atoms $`N4\times 10^7`$ for the quantum well of size 30 nm, we obtain,$`v=0.094cm/s`$ and for $`d=30nm`$,

$$\frac{v}{d}=31\times 10^3Hz$$
(7)
which is of the order of kHz. This predicted frequency is of the correct order of magnitude considering the uncertainty in the number of atoms in the cluster. If the resistivity is fluctuating, it is possible that the system may radiate in the kHz region.

3. Conjugate states.

The fractions such as 1/3 and 2/3 belong to $`s=\pm 1/2`$. They do not belong to clusters. The above phenomenon belongs to clusters. Therefore, 1/3, 2/3 do not produce oscillations in the kHz range. However, 17/2 and 19/2 belong to clusters and hence give kHz oscillations. When voltage is varied 19/2 switches from plateau to finite resistivity state but 1/3 does not. That is why 19/2 gives a reentrant quantum Hall effect (RQHE). The states 17/2 and 19/2 both use only the positive sign for spin. Hence these are not the Kramers conjugate states.

4. Conclusions.

The fractions 17/4 and 19/4 represent spin polarized states. These are not the particle-hole conjugates. The fractions like 1/3 represent only one particle whereas 17/4 comes from a cluster. Therefore, 1/3 does not produce noise but 17/4 does. We find that spin and charge are linearly related.

5. References

1. K. B. Cooper, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 226803 (2003).
2. K. N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A 113, 435 (1986).
3. K. N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 13, 1087 (1999).
4. K. N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 14, 1009 (2000).
5. K. N. Shrivastava, in Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 4, B. G. Sidharth and M. V. Altaisky, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub. New York 2001.
6. K. N. Shrivastava, Superconductivity: Elementary Topics, World Scientific, New Jersey, London, Singapore, 2000.
7. K.N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect,
Nova Science Pub. Inc., N. Y. (2002).
8. K. N. Shrivastava, Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. (India) 9, 145 (1986).
9. K. N. Shrivastava, Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. (India) (2003).
10. W. Pan, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 016801 (2003).
11. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0302610.
12. R. Mani and K. von Klitzing, Z. Phys. B 100, 635 (1996).
13. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0303309 and cond-mat/0303621.
14. J. H. Smet, Nature, 422, 391 (2003).
15. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0304269.
16. S. Syed, M. J. Manfra, Y. J. Wang, H. L. Stormer and R. J. Molner, cond-mat/0305358.
17. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0305415.
18. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0305379.
19. H. L. Stormer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 875 (1999).

Note: Ref.7 is available from:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600,
Hauppauge, N. Y.. 11788-3619,
Tel.(631)-231-7269, Fax: (631)-231-8175,
ISBN 1-59033-419-1 US$`\$69`$.
E-mail: novascience@Earthlink.net


text:
# An AST/RO Survey of CO(4-3) in ultracompact HII regions

## 1 Introduction

Most star formation (SF) occurs within the giant molecular cloud phase, and of particular interest is the behavior of the fragmented interiors of these clouds in the stages immediately before, during and after collapse into stellar objects. Both gaseous and dust components play vital roles in all SF models, and this paper presents submillimeter line observations of warm and dense gas near ultracompact HII regions, the ionized gas surrounding early-type stars. To identify the youngest stellar objects, far infrared (FIR) observations from the IRAS satellite’s near all-sky survey have been used (Wood & Churchwell, 1989) and follow-up line studies have successfully detected emission in many (sub)millimeter lines (e.g. Bronfman et al. 1996; Snell et al. 2000; Hatchell et al. 1998). Radio and IR continuum emission originates from ultracompact HII regions, while submillimeter line emission may come from hot molecular cores often found adjacent to one or more ultracompact HII regions. These objects are considered the best current tracer of ongoing SF.

An apparent problem with the understanding of ultracompact HII regions is that their dynamical ages appear to be so short ($`10^4`$ yr) that their numbers overpredict the current rate of SF. However the expected lifetimes depend critically on the local distribution of gas and dust (cf. Hollenbach et al. (1994); de Pree et al. (1995)), of which little is known. Recent interferometric observations (Walsh et al., 1998; Koo et al., 1996; Kurtz et al., 1999) suggest that at least some of the so-called ultracompact HII regions may in fact have larger sizes and predicted ages. Thus a better understanding of the distribution and dynamics of molecular gas and dust around ultracompact HII regions is required. In this paper we present results of a survey of 78 hot cores with the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory. This survey is toward southern (Dec. $`20`$° so as to be observable with AST/RO) sources in the list of Bronfman et al. (1996) with CS($`21`$) emission and associated IRAS luminosity and colours typical of compact HII regions. The sources were further selected to have line profiles indicative of inward or outward motions (e.g., Mardones 1998) or have extended line wings which may indicate the presence of bipolar outflows. This database is likely to be representative of the early stages of massive SF. The results of this survey will be combined with observations of other submillimeter lines and continuum that will be analyzed in more detail in a subsequent paper but will also be of use to the several new southern submillimeter radiotelescopes as potential pointing and calibration sources. Published properties of bright, compact submillimeter sources in the southern sky are extremely sparse.

The observations are described in § 2 and in § 3 the data set is presented in the form of a table of spectral line parameters and as plots of the full spectra. Small maps of the brightest sources are also shown.

## 2 Observations

The observations were performed during the austral winter season of 2002 at the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory (AST/RO; Stark et al., 2001), located at 2847$`\mathrm{m}`$ altitude in Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. This site has very low water vapor, high atmospheric stability and a thin troposphere making it exceptionally good for submillimeter observations (Chamberlin et al., 1997; Lane, 1998). AST/RO is a 1.7$`\mathrm{m}`$ diameter, offset Gregorian telescope capable of observing at wavelengths between 200$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 1.3$`\mathrm{mm}`$ (Stark et al., 1997). The receiver used was a dual-channel SIS waveguide receiver (Walker et al., 1992; Honingh et al., 1997) for simultaneous 461–492$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and 807$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ observations, with double-sideband noise temperatures of 320–390$`\mathrm{K}`$ and 1050–1190$`\mathrm{K}`$, respectively. Telescope efficiency, $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}`$, estimated using moon scans, skydips, and measurements of the beam edge taper, was 81% at 461–492$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and 71% at 807$`\mathrm{GHz}`$. The 807$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ data will be presented, along with observations in several other bands, in a subsequent paper. Atmosphere-corrected system temperatures ranged from 700 to 4000$`\mathrm{K}`$ at 461–492$`\mathrm{GHz}`$.

A beam switching mode was used, with emission-free reference positions chosen at least $`20\mathrm{}`$ from regions of interest, to make a small map of points surrounding each source. These maps were repeated as often as required to achieve suitable signal–to–noise. Emission from the CO $`J=43`$ and CO $`J=76`$ lines at 461.041$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and 806.652$`\mathrm{GHz}`$, (together with the \[$`\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}`$$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{0}^{}`$ and \[$`\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}`$$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{}`$ lines at 492.262$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and 809.342$`\mathrm{GHz}`$), was imaged over the 78 regions with a spacing of a half-beamwidth or less. The beam sizes (FWHM) were $`103`$$`109\mathrm{}`$ at 461–492$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and $`58\mathrm{}`$ at 807$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ (Stark et al., 2001).

Two acousto-optical spectrometers (AOSs; Schieder et al., 1989) were used as backends. The AOSs had 1.07 $`\mathrm{MHz}`$ resolution and 0.75$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ effective bandwidth, resulting in velocity resolution of 0.65$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at 461$`\mathrm{GHz}`$ and 0.37$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at 807$`\mathrm{GHz}`$. The data were smoothed to a uniform velocity resolution of 1$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The high frequency observations were made with the CO $`J=76`$ line in the lower sideband (LSB). Since the intermediate frequency of the AST/RO system is 1.5$`\mathrm{GHz}`$, the \[$`\mathrm{C}\mathrm{I}`$$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{1}^{}`$ line appears in the upper sideband (USB) and is superposed on the observed LSB spectrum. The local oscillator frequency was chosen so that the nominal line centers appear separated by 100$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the double-sideband spectra.

The standard chopper wheel calibration technique was employed, implemented at AST/RO by way of regular (every few minutes) observations of the sky and two blackbody loads of known temperature (Stark et al., 2001). Atmospheric transmission was monitored by regular skydips, and known, bright sources were observed every few hours to further check calibration and pointing. At periodic intervals and after tuning, the receivers were manually calibrated against a liquid-nitrogen-temperature load and the two blackbody loads at ambient temperature and about 100$`\mathrm{K}`$. The latter process also corrects for the dark current of the AOS optical CCDs. The intensity calibration errors became as large as $`\pm 15`$% during poor weather periods.

Once taken, the data in this survey were reduced using the COMB data reduction package. After elimination of scans deemed faulty for various instrumental or weather-related reasons ($`7\%`$ of the total dataset), linear baselines were removed from the spectra in all species by excluding regions where the CS $`J=21`$ spectra of Bronfman et al. (1996) showed emission within twice the FWHM of Gaussian fits to the CS $`J=21`$ line. This allowed known emission to be readily excluded from the baseline fitting procedure.

While the original intent was to make $`T_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ as uniform as possible across all source maps, this was not always possible. For the CO $`J=43`$ transition, $`T_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ in 1$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ wide channels with no spatial smoothing is on average $`0.75\mathrm{K}`$.

## 3 Results

AST/RO’s pointing model (Stark et al., 2001) is currently determined by observing a small number of sources for a 24 hr period so as to obtain full coverage of the sky in azimuth. However these sources do not cover a wide range in elevation. As the residual pointing uncertainty after the application of the pointing model at AST/RO is between one beamwidth in the frequency used to determine the pointing model and one arcminute, it is a major aim of this work to identify a larger sample of compact sources, distributed over the sky, that may be used for pointing calibration. Therefore small images of a few square arcminutes were made of the sample with half-beam spacing. Fig. 1 displays the brightest spectrum observed in the vicinity of each source and Fig. 2 shows the resulting images.

Table 1 lists the results of Gaussian fits to the observed lines shown in Fig. 1. The first column is a shortened name based on the Galactic longitude, column two is the IRAS source name, columns three and four are the equinox J2000 coordinates. Column five is the peak antenna temperature as estimated by the Gaussian fit, with an uncertainty due to the fitting. The actual intensity calibration error of AST/RO is generally larger (§ 2). Columns six to eight are the central velocity, integrated line intensity (in K$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and FWHM of the line as estimated by the Gaussian fitting, respectively. Fig. 1 shows that many of the line profiles can be approximately represented by a Gaussian form, leading to a reasonable estimate of the line strength, width and central velocity. The Gaussians, fit to a range of channels 10$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ either side of the FWHM of the Bronfman et al. (1996) Gaussian fit to the CS $`J=21`$ line, clearly do not provide a precise model of the profiles, and further analysis of the spectra should refer to the original data, available online.

Fig. 1 shows that the great majority, 95%, of the sources are detected in the CO $`J=43`$ line and 86% of them have line strengths brighter than 5 K. Thus the CO $`J=43`$ line is a readily-detectable tracer of molecular material around ultracompact HII regions, and may be used as a kinematic tracer and for distance determination. The profiles are in nearly all cases characterized by a single component, whose $`V_{\mathrm{lsr}}`$ is in all but two cases the same as that of the CS $`J=21`$ line, within the fitting uncertainties. Those sources not detected at a level of several times the RMS noise per channel are indicated in the table as upper limits, the level of which is estimated to be 4.5 times the RMS per channel.

Images of a selection of the brightest sources detected in the CO $`J=43`$ line are shown in Fig. 2. The images were formed by simply summing the emission in channels within the FWHM of the Bronfman et al. (1996) Gaussian fit to the CS $`J=21`$ line. The images have been gridded onto a surface that over-samples the observed pointing centers by a factor of three using a Gaussian smoothing function with FWHM 30% larger than the beam, and weighted using cone interpolation with a similarly-sized interpolation radius. Bright molecular emission in the vicinity of ultracompact HII regions often originates from hot cores, which are expected to be relatively point-like compared with the AST/RO beam, except in those cases where an outflow is seen, where more than one molecular core is present, or if the dense molecular region is genuinely extended. Recent VLA results (Kurtz et al., 1999) show some ultracompact HII regions to lie within larger structures that may also contain extended molecular material. From Fig. 2 it can be seen that at least 50% of the sources in the present sample are unresolved by AST/RO and can potentially be used by single dish telescopes for pointing purposes.

The point-like images shown in fig. 2 can be used to select sub-samples for pointing purposes while extended structures may benefit from future mapping. These data will be combined with and analyzed in the light of measurements made in several other lines with a variety of opacities in a future paper.

I thank K. Brooks and G. Garay for suggesting the sample; K. Xiao, C. Martin and A. Stark for help with the observations; C. Walker and the receiver group at the U. of Arizona for their assistance; R. Schieder, J. Stutzki, and colleagues at U. Köln for their AOSs; J. Kooi and R. Chamberlin of Caltech, G. Wright of PacketStorm Communications, and K. Jacobs of U. Köln for their work on the instrumentation. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement with the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica (CARA), grant number NSF OPP 89-20223. CARA is a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. Support was also provided by NSF grant number OPP-0126090.


text:
# The Most Probable Cause for the High Gamma-Ray Polarization in GRB 021206

## 1. Introduction

The recent detection of a very large linear polarization, $`P=80\%\pm 20\%`$, in the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission of GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs 2003, hereafter CB), establishes synchrotron emission as the dominant radiation mechanism in the prompt GRB. As the prompt GRB is believed to arise from internal shocks within a relativistic outflow (Rees & Mészáros 1994; Sari & Piran 1997), it can provide valuable information on the magnetic field structure in the ejecta, and clues to the nature of the central source. In a recent paper (Granot & Königl 2003, hereafter GK), we suggested that “the radiation from the original ejecta, which includes the prompt GRB and the emission from the reverse shock (the ‘optical flash’ and ‘radio flare’) could potentially exhibit a high degree of polarization (up to $`60\%`$) induced by an ordered transverse magnetic field advected from the central source”. This is perfectly consistent with the polarization measured in GRB 021206. CB also attributed the polarization in this GRB to an ordered magnetic field, and suggested that this implies that magnetic fields drive the GRB explosion. A similar interpretation of this measurement has even been claimed to favor Poynting dominated outflows in GRBs (Lyutikov, Periev & Blandford 2003).

However, Waxman (2003) suggested an alternative explanation: if the GRB outflow is a uniform jet with sharp edges and an opening angle $`\theta _j1/\gamma `$, then our line of sight is likely to be at an angle $`\theta _j<\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}\theta _j+1/\gamma `$ from the jet axis. In this case we should see both a bright GRB (as much of the radiation is still beamed toward us) and a large polarization (e.g. Gruzinov 1999; Granot et al. 2002). This scenario does not require an ordered field and also works for a magnetic field that is generated at the internal shocks (Medvedev & Loeb 1999).

There are therefore two feasible explanations for the large polarization measured in GRB 021206, where only one of them requires a magnetic field ordered on angular scales $`1/\gamma `$. This undermines the possible theoretical implications of an ordered magnetic field in the GRB ejecta. In this Letter we critically examine these two scenarios, and estimate their ability to explain the high observed polarization. In §2 we calculate the polarization from an ordered magnetic field. The maximal polarization for a narrow jet with a shock-produced magnetic field is calculated in §3. In §4 we apply our results to GRB 021206 and discuss the conclusions.

## 2. An Ordered Magnetic Field

Here we calculate the linear polarization for synchrotron emission from a thin spherical shell with an ordered transverse magnetic field, $`B_{\mathrm{ord}}`$, moving radially outward with $`\gamma 1`$. We integrate over the emission from the shell at a fixed radius and do not follow the different photon arrival times from different angles $`\theta `$ from the line of sight (l.o.s.). This calculation is relevant to the prompt GRB, the reverse shock (the ‘optical flash’ and ‘radio flare’) and the afterglow, provided the magnetic field is ordered over an angle $`1/\gamma `$ around the l.o.s.

Following GK, the polarization position angle, measured from $`\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{ord}}`$, is given by $`\theta _p=\varphi +\mathrm{arctan}(\frac{1y}{1+y}\mathrm{cot}\varphi )`$ in the limit $`\gamma 1`$, where $`y(\gamma \theta )^2`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle. We have $`I_\nu =I_\nu ^{}^{}(\nu /\nu ^{})^3`$, with111 Here $`\chi ^{}`$ is the angle between $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{B}^{}`$, which is also the pitch angle between the electron’s velocity and $`\widehat{B}^{}`$. For the optically thin part of the spectrum that is considered in this work, and as long as the electron energy distribution (taking into account electron cooling) is independent of the pitch angle $`\chi ^{}`$ (which is most natural for a random field, and is also reasonable to expect, at least approximately, for an ordered field as well), we find $`ϵ=1+\alpha `$. $`I_\nu ^{}^{}(\nu ^{})^\alpha (\mathrm{sin}\chi ^{})^ϵ(\nu ^{})^\alpha [1(\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{ord}}^{})^2]^{ϵ/2}`$, where $`\nu /\nu ^{}2\gamma /(1+y)`$, $`1(\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{ord}}^{})^2[(1y)/(1+y)]^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ and $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ is the direction in the local frame of a photon that reaches the observer. The Stokes parameters are given by

$$\frac{\left\{\begin{array}{c}U\\ Q\end{array}\right\}}{IP_{\mathrm{max}}}=\frac{\frac{dy}{(1+y)^a}𝑑\varphi \left[\left(\frac{1y}{1+y}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \right]^{ϵ/2}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _p\\ \mathrm{cos}2\theta _p\end{array}\right\}}{\frac{dy}{(1+y)^a}𝑑\varphi \left[\left(\frac{1y}{1+y}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \right]^{ϵ/2}},$$
(1)
where $`a=3+\alpha `$ for the instantaneous emission (relevant for the afterglow) and $`a=2+\alpha `$ for the time integrated emission (relevant for the prompt GRB when integrated over a time larger than the duration of a single pulse, as in GRB 021206). For a uniform jet, the limits of integration should include only regions within the jet. This is important only if $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}+1/\gamma \theta _j`$, which is expected to be rare for the prompt GRB, but usually occurs during the afterglow. When the edge of the jet is at $`y>y_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}`$, the limits of integration may be taken as $`_0^{y_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑y_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi `$. In this case $`U=0`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}=Q/I=|Q|/I`$. For internal shocks, each pulse in the GRB light curve is from a collision between two shells. The emission near the peak of the pulse is mainly from $`\theta 1/\gamma `$ ($`y1`$), and may be approximated by taking $`y_{\mathrm{max}}=1`$. The emission from $`y1`$ contributes mainly to the tail of the pulse. If the latter is included in the temporal integration used for measuring $`P`$, and is not below the background, then we can take $`y_{\mathrm{max}}1`$ (the asymptotic limit is reached at $`y_{\mathrm{max}}`$a few).

Figure 1 shows $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}/P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and222Here $`P_{\mathrm{max}}=(\alpha +1)/(\alpha +5/3)=(p_{\mathrm{eff}}+1)/(p_{\mathrm{eff}}+7/3)`$, where it is useful to define $`p_{\mathrm{eff}}2\alpha +1`$. For optically thin synchrotron emission, $`\alpha 1/3`$, and hence $`P_{\mathrm{max}}1/2`$. This lower limit on $`P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ arises since $`P=1/2`$ is simply the low frequency ($`\nu \nu _{\mathrm{syn}}`$) polarization of the synchrotron emission from each electron, and therefore $`P_{\mathrm{max}}=1/2`$ in PLSs D,E (see Table 1). For PLSs F, G and H, $`P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is determined by $`p_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ ($`=2`$, $`p`$, and $`p+1`$, respectively), where for these PLSs, $`p_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective power law index of the electron distribution. $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ for $`ϵ=1+\alpha `$ (e.g. footnote 1), and Table 1 summarizes the results for the relevant (optically thin) power law segments (PLSs) of the spectrum.333 The most relevant case for GRB 021206 is $`y_{\mathrm{max}}1`$ and $`a=2+\alpha `$, for which the approximate formula $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}(\alpha )=0.016\alpha ^40.052\alpha ^30.013\alpha ^2+0.335\alpha +0.276`$, provides a relative accuracy of better than $`0.25\%`$ for $`1/3\alpha 3/2`$.

## 3. A Very Narrow Jet Viewed from Just Outside its edge

In this section we calculate the polarization from a narrow jet, of opening angle $`\theta _j1/\gamma `$, viewed at an angle $`\theta _j\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}\theta _j+1/\gamma `$ from its axis.444It is assumed here that the jet has sharp edges, i.e. the emissivity drops sharply over an angular interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1/\gamma `$ around $`\theta =\theta _j`$. A smoother edge, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1/\gamma `$, would considerably reduce the polarization. In contrast to §2, here the magnetic field is assumed to be produced at the shock itself, and therefore has symmetry around the direction normal to the shock, $`\widehat{n}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$. Since the more isotropic the magnetic field configuration behind the shock, the lower the resulting polarization, we consider two extreme cases where the field is most anisotropic: 1. a random field that lies strictly within the plane of the shock ($`B=B_{}`$, $`P=P_{}`$), 2. a completely ordered field in the direction of $`\widehat{n}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ ($`B=B_{}`$, $`P=P_{}`$).

Following Ghisellini & Lazzati (1999), we generalize their formula so that it would hold for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}>\theta _j`$,

$$P=\frac{\frac{1}{2\pi }_{|\theta _j\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}|}^{\theta _j+\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}\theta 𝑑\theta I_\nu (\theta )P(\theta )\mathrm{sin}[2\psi _1(\theta )]}{\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _j\theta _{\mathrm{obs}})_0^{\theta _j\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}\theta 𝑑\theta I_\nu (\theta )+_{|\theta _j\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}|}^{\theta _j+\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}}\theta 𝑑\theta \frac{\pi \psi _1(\theta )}{\pi }I_\nu (\theta )},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\psi _1=(\theta _j^2\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}^2\theta ^2)/2\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function. For $`B_{}`$ we simply have $`P_{}(\theta )=P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{B}^{}=\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{r}=\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\frac{1y}{1+y}`$, so that $`I_\nu y^{ϵ/2}/(1+y)^{3+\alpha +ϵ}`$. However, for $`B_{}`$ we must average over the possible field orientations within the plane of the shock:555Here $`P<0`$ ($`P>0`$) implies $`\widehat{P}`$ along (perpendicular to) the plane containing $`\widehat{n}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`\widehat{n}^{}`$.

$$\frac{P_{}(y)}{P_{\mathrm{max}}}=\frac{_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi \left[1\frac{4y\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{(1+y)^2}\right]^{(ϵ2)/2}\left[\left(\frac{1y}{1+y}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi \right]}{_0^\pi 𝑑\varphi \left[1\frac{4y\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{(1+y)^2}\right]^{ϵ/2}},$$
(3)
and $`I_\nu (1+y)^{3\alpha }`$ times the denominator of Eq. (3). For $`ϵ=2`$ and $`0`$, $`P_{}(\theta ^{})/P_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{2y}{1+y^2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{min}(y,1/y)`$, respectively. Fig. 2 shows $`P_{}(\theta ^{})/P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for several values of $`ϵ`$. A larger $`ϵ`$ implies a larger $`|P(\theta ^{})|`$, as it suppresses $`I_\nu `$ at $`(\widehat{n}^{}\widehat{B}^{})^21`$ where there is a positive contribution to $`P_{}(\theta ^{})`$. The global polarization from the whole jet is given by666Here, $`P<0`$ ($`P>0`$) means $`\widehat{P}`$ along (perpendicular to) the direction from our l.o.s. to the jet axis.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{P_{\mathrm{max}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2\pi }_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{y^{ϵ/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+ϵ}}\mathrm{sin}\left[2\psi _1(y)\right]}{\mathrm{\Theta }(1q)_0^{y_1}\frac{y^{ϵ/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+ϵ}}+_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{y^{ϵ/2}dy}{(1+y)^{a+ϵ}}\frac{\left[\pi \psi _1(y)\right]}{\pi }}},`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{P_{\mathrm{max}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2\pi }_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{dy\mathrm{sin}\left[2\psi _1(y)\right]}{(1+y)^a}g(y,ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Theta }(1q)_0^{y_1}\frac{f(y,ϵ)dy}{(1+y)^a}+_{y_1}^{y_2}\frac{f(y,ϵ)dy}{(1+y)^a}\frac{\left[\pi \psi _1(y)\right]}{\pi }}},`$ (5)
$`f(y,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{4y\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }{(1+y)^2}}\right]^{ϵ/2},`$ (6)
$`g(y,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{(1y)^2(1+y)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{\left[14y(1+y)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \right]^{(2ϵ)/2}}},`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\psi _1=[(1q^2)y_jy]/(2q\sqrt{y_jy})`$, $`q\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}/\theta _j`$, $`y_j=(\gamma \theta _j)^2`$, $`y_1=(1q)^2y_j`$, $`y_2=(1+q)^2y_j`$.

Figures 3 and 4 show $`P_{}(q)`$ and $`P_{}(q)`$, respectively, for several values of $`\alpha `$ and $`y_j`$, using the relation $`ϵ=1+\alpha `$. For $`q<1`$, $`|P_{}|/P_{\mathrm{max}}0.2`$, while $`|P_{}|`$ rises sharply above $`q=1`$ (the larger $`y_j`$, the sharper the rise), and peaks at $`q1+1/\sqrt{y_j}`$ ($`q1.71.8`$ for $`y_j=1`$), which is $`q`$ just above $`1`$ for $`y_j1`$, but at $`q1/\sqrt{y_j}1`$ for $`y_j1`$. The width of the peak is $`1/\sqrt{y_j}`$, so that the peak is wider (as well as higher) for smaller $`y_j`$. At larger values of $`q`$, $`|P_{}|`$ decreases since for $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}(23)\mathrm{max}(\theta _j,1/\gamma )`$ \[i.e. $`q(23)\mathrm{max}(1,1/\sqrt{y_j})`$\], the jet may be approximated as a point source, and as $`q`$ increases, the emission in the local frame is almost straight backward (i.e. $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ approaches $`\widehat{n}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ approaches $`\pi `$), thus suppressing $`P_{}(\theta ^{})`$ (see Fig. 2). However, in sharp contrast with $`B_{}`$, for $`B_{}`$ even if $`\theta ^{}`$ is only slightly different from $`\pi `$, still $`P_{}(\theta ^{})=P_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and $`P_{}`$ approaches $`P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for $`q2`$. The transition between $`P_{}(q2)P_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`P_{}(q=0)=0`$ is very gradual for $`y_j1`$ and very sharp for $`y_j1`$ (for which the transition occurs at $`|q1|y_j^{1/2}1`$). For $`y_j>1`$, $`P_{}(q<1)/P_{\mathrm{max}}0.3`$, which is a little higher than $`|P_{}|`$, while for $`y_j<1`$, $`P_{}(q<1)/P_{\mathrm{max}}0.6`$. For $`y_j1`$ ($`\theta _j1/\gamma `$) the edge of the jet is hardly visible from the interior of the jet and $`P(q<11/\sqrt{y_j})0`$ (for both $`B_{}`$ and $`B_{}`$).

The above expressions for $`P_{}(q,y_j,ϵ,a)`$ or $`P_{}(q,y_j,ϵ,a)`$ can produce afterglow polarization light curves, by using $`a=3+\alpha `$, $`ϵ=1+\alpha `$ and $`P_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{\alpha +1}{\alpha +5/3}`$, and adding a model for the time evolution of $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`\theta _j(t)`$, which determine $`q(t)=\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}/\theta _j(t)`$ and $`y_j(t)=[\gamma (t)\theta _j(t)]^2`$. One simple model is to assume $`q(t<t_j),y_j(t>t_j)=\mathrm{const}`$, where $`t_j`$ is the jet break time.777Ghisselini & Lazzati (1999) simply assumed $`\theta _j,\alpha =\mathrm{const}`$, and implicitly assumed $`ϵ=2`$ since they used $`P(\theta ^{})/P_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}/(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{})`$. However, they did not take into account the fact that $`I_\nu ^{}^{}(\mathrm{sin}\chi ^{})^ϵ[1(\widehat{B}^{}\widehat{n}^{})^2]^{ϵ/2}`$, which effects the polarization light curves. Note that at a fixed observed time, $`P`$ remains constant within each PLS, but changes across spectral breaks.

## 4. Application to GRB 021206 and Discussion

In the prompt GRB the spectral index is usually in the range $`1/2\alpha 5/4`$, for which the time integrated polarization ($`a=2+\alpha `$, $`y_{\mathrm{max}}1`$) from an ordered transverse magnetic field ($`B_{\mathrm{ord}}`$) is $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}4361\%`$ (e.g. Table 1, Fig. 1, footnote 3). This is reasonably consistent with the value of $`P=80\%\pm 20\%`$ that was measured for GRB 021206 (CB). Furthermore, this requires a magnetic field that is ordered over angles $`1/\gamma `$ which can still be $`\theta _j`$.

We now turn to the narrow jet scenario (Waxman 2003). For $`\theta _{\mathrm{obs}}>\theta _j+1/\gamma `$ the observed flux from the GRB drops considerably. Therefore, a bright GRB like 021206 requires $`q1+1/\sqrt{y_j}`$. As it is hard to collimate a jet to $`\theta _j<1/\gamma `$, it is reasonable to assume $`y_j1`$ and therefore $`q2`$. Furthermore, for $`y_j1`$ that is usually inferred from afterglow observations (Panaitescu & Kumar 2002), the peak of the polarization is at $`q1+1/\sqrt{y_j}1`$ and has a width $`\mathrm{\Delta }q1/\sqrt{y_j}1`$ which covers a fraction $`1/\sqrt{y_j}1`$ of the solid angle from which the GRB is beamed toward us, and therefore a high polarization is very unlikely. Hence, we require $`y_j2`$. The fact that GRB 021206 was extraordinarily bright, together with the correlation found by Frail et al. (2001), might suggest a very narrow jet, so that $`y_j2`$ is not so far fetched (Waxman 2003). Altogether we expect $`1y_j2`$ and $`1q2`$.

In this parameter range, and for $`1/2\alpha 5/4`$, $`P_{}`$ peaks at $`P_{,\mathrm{max}}(0.550.7)P_{\mathrm{max}}3854\%`$. However, the Lorentz factor of the shocked fluid in the internal shocks is expected to vary with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma \gamma `$ between different shell collisions within the same GRB.888If $`B_{\mathrm{ord}}`$ is ordered on angles $`1/\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, which are still $`0.01`$, and $`\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{ord}}`$ does not change significantly (i.e. by $`0.5`$radians) between the different shells, then this should not effect $`P_{\mathrm{ord}}`$ significantly; $`P_{}`$ should also not be strongly effected. This implies a reasonably large variation in $`y_j\gamma ^2`$, while $`q=\mathrm{const}`$, so that our l.o.s. will not be near the peak of $`P_{}`$ for all the pulses in the GRB light curve. Furthermore, the observed flux at $`q1+1/\sqrt{y_j}`$, where $`P_{}`$ peaks, is smaller than near the edge of the jet ($`q1`$), due to relativistic beaming effects, so that the brightest pulses would tend to be relatively weakly polarized, thus further reducing the average polarization over the whole GRB. Therefore, while for a single pulse in the GRB light curve $`P_{}`$ can approach $`P_{,\mathrm{max}}`$, the average over many pulses (as in GRB 021206) will be $`P_{}P_{,\mathrm{max}}/21927\%`$.

For $`B_{}`$ we find $`P_{}(0.30.9)P_{\mathrm{max}}2070\%`$ for a single pulse, and expect $`P_{}(0.50.8)P_{\mathrm{max}}3562\%`$ for the average over many pulses, which is consistent with the value measured for GRB 021206. In fact, $`B_{}`$ is an ordered magnetic field, just that unlike $`B_{\mathrm{ord}}`$ which was considered in §2, it can in principle be generated at the shock itself, as $`\widehat{n}_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ is a preferred direction that is determined locally by the shock front. Current models for the production of magnetic fields at collisionless relativistic shocks (Medvedev & Loeb 1999) suggest $`B=B_{}`$ rather than $`B_{}`$. However the amplification mechanism of the magnetic field and its configuration in relativistic shocks is still largely an open question, so that it is hard to rule out $`BB_{}`$ on purely theoretical grounds. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that we considered two extreme cases for the magnetic field configuration behind the shock, in which it is most anisotropic. The relatively low values of $`P3\%`$ measured in GRB afterglows999except for a possible sharp spike with $`P10\%`$ in the polarization light curve of GRB 020405 (Bersier et al. 2003)., compared to the expected values of $`P20\%`$ (Sari 1999; Ghisellini & Lazzati 1999; GK), suggest that the magnetic field created behind relativistic shocks is more isotropic than the extreme cases we considered, implying $`P`$ values lower by a factor of $`23`$ (e.g. GK). Therefore, although $`P_{}3562\%`$, a more isotropic magnetic field configuration that is suggested by afterglow observations would imply101010The same argument should reduce $`P_{}1927\%`$ to $`P713\%`$, making it even harder to reconcile with the value measured in GRB 021206. $`P1530\%`$.

We therefore conclude that $`P50\%`$ is most naturally produced by an ordered magnetic field that is carried out with the ejecta from the central source (as was recently proposed by GK). This is therefore the most likely explanation for the value of $`P=80\%\pm 20\%`$ (CB) measured in GRB 021206. A magnetic field that is generated at the shock itself is less likely to produce a sufficiently large polarization. However, if either 1) the systematic uncertainty in the quoted value was for some reason underestimated, and $`P2030\%`$ is acceptable, or 2) the internal shocks for some reason produce a magnetic field much more anisotropic than in the afterglow shock, then $`P_{}`$ may still be a viable option. Both points are required in order for $`P_{}`$ to work well.

I thank Davide Lazzati, Arieh Königl, Ehud Nakar and Eli Waxman for useful discussions. This research was supported by the Institute for Advanced Study, funds for natural sciences.


text:
# Ultra-fast propagation of Schrödinger waves in absorbing media

## Abstract

We identify the characteristic times of the evolution of a quantum wave generated by a point source with a sharp onset in an absorbing medium. The “traversal” or “Büttiker-Landauer” time (which grows linearly with the distance to the source) for the Hermitian, non-absorbing case is substituted by three different characteristic quantities. One of them describes the arrival of a maximum of the density calculated with respect to position, but the maximum with respect to time for a given position becomes independent of the distance to the source and is given by the particle’s “survival time” in the medium. This later effect, unlike the Hartman effect, occurs for injection frequencies under or above the cut-off, and for arbitrarily large distances. A possible physical realization is proposed by illuminating a two-level atom with a detuned laser.

As it was well understood by Brillouin and Sommerfeld long ago, certain wave features may travel at velocities exceeding $`c`$ in systems described by relativistic equations, without violating Einstein’s causality SB . In non-relativistic equations one may similarly find “ultrafast” phenomena which are subject to non-relativistic causality conditions MEDD02 . In particular, the Hartman effect Hartman62  has been studied thoroughly theoretically and experimentally both for non-relativistic and relativistic equations HS89 ; LA90 ; Nimtz ; LM94 ; BSM94 ; Chiao98 ; Ghose99 ; TQM ; MEDD02 : the peak of the transmitted packet in a collision of a particle with a square barrier emerges from the barrier edge at a time independent of the barrier width $`d`$ when the incident (average) energy is below the barrier energy, and provided that the barrier is neither too thin nor too opaque. This later large-$`d`$ limitation occurs because, for very opaque conditions, the wave packet components above the barrier dominate and lead to a linear-with-$`d`$ behaviour of the time of the peak Hartman62 ; BSM94 . For the barrier lengths where the Hartman effect holds one could in principle transmit a peak in a waveguide in such a way that it arrives simultaneously to receivers located at different distances. We describe in this letter an even stronger effect for the Schrödinger equation: if the particles are sent by a point source with a sharp onset, or by a sudden opening of a shutter, to a region with an effective absorbing potential, the temporal maximum arrives at equal times at arbitrarily large positions, i.e., without the limitation of the Hartman effect to moderately opaque conditions. Also at variance with the Hartman effect, this ultra-fast propagation of a wave feature due to absorption also holds for injection energies above the potential threshold.

Consider, for $`x0`$, the following Schrödinger equation with “source” boundary conditions (all quantities are dimensionless unless stated otherwise),

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi }{x^2}}+(1iV_1)\psi `$ (1)
$`\psi (x=0,t)=e^{i\omega _0t}\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$
$`\psi (x,t)=0x>0,t<0.`$
where $`\omega _0`$ is the injection frequency. This is a non-Hermitian generalization of the source with a sharp onset studied by several authors before Stevens ; Moretti ; RMA91 ; BT ; MB00 ; GVDM02 . The imaginary potential $`iV_1`$ models the passage from the incident channel to other channels which are not represented explicitly (a physical example is provided below). The dispersion relation corresponding to Eq. (1) is

$$k=\sqrt{\omega 1+iV_1},\mathrm{Im}(k)0,$$
(2)
and the solution to Eq. (1) is given by

$$\psi (x,t)=\frac{i}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{e^{ikxi\omega t}}{\omega \omega _0+i0},$$
(3)
or, in the $`k`$-complex plane, as

$`\psi (x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{ie^{iVt}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}}𝑑kk{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikxik^2t}}{k^2k_0^2}},`$ (4)
where

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`1iV_1,`$ (5)
$`k_0`$ $`=`$ $`k(\omega _0)=\sqrt{\omega _01+iV_1},\mathrm{Im}(k_0)0,`$ (6)
and the countour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ passing above all singularities. Introducing a new integration variable

$$u=\frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{t}\left(k\frac{x}{2t}\right),$$
(7)
Eq. (4) takes the form

$$\psi (x,t)=\frac{ie^{iVt+ix^2/4t}}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_u}𝑑ue^{u^2}\left(\frac{1}{uu_0}+\frac{1}{uu_0^{}}\right),$$
(8)
where

$`u_0={\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{t}\left(k_0{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2t}}\right),`$ (9)
$`u_0^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{t}\left(k_0{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2t}}\right),`$ (10)
and the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_u`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ passing above the two simple poles. Using the integral definition of the $`w`$functions AS ; MB00 , Eq. (8) is finally given by

$$\psi (x,t)=\frac{e^{iVt}e^{ix^2/4t}}{2}\left[w(u_0)+w(u_0^{})\right].$$
(11)
To interpret this exact solution in simple terms it is useful to find approximations. In particular, the contour may be deformed along the steepest descent path from the saddle at $`x/2t`$ in the $`k`$-plane (the origin in the $`u`$-plane). The path crosses the pole at $`k_0`$ at a time

$$\tau _cx/2[\mathrm{Re}(k_0)+\mathrm{Im}(k_0)].$$
(12)
Eq. (8) can be written as the sum of contributions from the saddle point and the pole,

$`\psi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _p(x,t)+\psi _s(x,t)`$ (13)
$`\psi _p(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega _0t+ik_0x}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t\tau _c\right)`$ (14)
$`\psi _s(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iVt}e^{i\frac{x^2}{4t}}}{2i\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_0^{}}}\right)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iVt}e^{i\frac{x^2}{4t}}\tau (t/\pi )^{1/2}}{(1+i)k_0(\tau ^2+t^2)}},`$ (16)
where

$$\tau \frac{x}{2ik_0}.$$
(17)
Alternatively, Eq. (13) may be obtained from the asymptotic expansion of the $`w`$’s for large values of the modulus of their arguments $`|u_0|`$ and $`|u_0^{}|`$. They become large for large $`|k_0|,x`$ or $`t`$, and also for very small $`t`$. Both have minima at $`t=|\tau |`$, with minimum values $`\{x[|k_0|\pm \mathrm{Re}(k_0)]\}^{1/2}`$. (A scale for the validity of the saddle plus pole approximation for all $`t`$ is thus $`x>[|k_0|\mathrm{Re}(k_0)]^1`$). For injection frequencies below the cut-off the saddle contribution dominates up to exponentially large times as in the Hermitian case MB00 , so that $`\tau _c`$ is not of much significance whereas, above threshold, $`\tau _c`$ is a good scale for the arrival of the main signal. The discussion hereafter refers to the case $`\omega _0<1`$ (injection below cut-off) unless stated otherwise.

In Figure 1 we can see the formation of the forerunner in a sequence of three snapshots of the density at three different instants and for a fixed value of $`V_1`$. (For increasing values of $`V_1`$ the spatial peak appears at larger $`x`$ and it also takes a longer time to be formed.) From $`d|\psi (t,x)|^2/dx=0`$ we may obtain the position $`x(t)`$ of the “spatial” maximum at time $`t`$. This also defines (by inverting $`x(t)`$) a function $`\tau _S(x)`$, namely, the time when this spatial maximum arrives at $`x`$. One finds from Eq. (15) that the spatial maximum in the large-$`x`$ region is given by

$$\tau _S=|\tau |,$$
(18)
a role played by the real $`\tau `$ in the absence of absorption VRS02 .

A single real quantity $`\tau (V_1=0)`$ in the Hermitian case has been substituted, for a non-zero $`V_1`$, by three different quantities: the time for pole-cutting $`\tau _c`$, a complex $`\tau `$, and its modulus $`|\tau |`$, all of which tend to the “Büttiker-Landauer” traversal time $`\tau (V_1=0)`$ without absorption BL82 .

Similarly, we may fix $`x`$, calculate $`d|\psi (x,t)|^2/dt=0`$, and solve for $`t`$ to obtain a “temporal” maximum, $`\tau _T(x)`$.

In Figure 2 we have plotted the density, $`|\psi |^2`$, versus time for a large $`x`$, so that, in the scale used, the exact solution and the saddle aproximation $`\psi _s`$ are undistinguishable. One clear effect of the complex potential is the decrease of the amplitude; also, the peak arrives earlier when $`V_1`$ increases. At variance with the Hermitian case, the time of arrival of the maximum is not proportional to $`\tau `$ ($`\tau _T=\tau /\sqrt{3}`$ when $`V_1=0`$). The equation $`d|\psi _s|^2/dt=0`$ cannot be solved analytically for $`V_10`$ in a generic case, so there is no explicit formula for $`\tau _T`$. Nevertheless, if $`x2^{1/2}|k_0|/V_1`$, one finds

$$\tau _T\frac{1}{2V_1},$$
(19)
i.e., the temporal maximum coincides with the mean survival time of a particle immersed in the absorbing potential, and it is independent of $`x`$ and $`\omega _0`$, which is the most important result of this work. A time-frequency analysis Cohen95 ; MB00  shows that the maximum is not tunnelling but it is dominated by frequencies above the cut-off, in particular by the frequency $`1+(xV_1)^2`$ corresponding to the “classical” velocity required to arrive at $`x`$ at time $`\tau _T(x)`$. In fact, this effect is also present for injection frequencies above the cut-off. It has, nevertheless, no purely classical explanation, in the sense that any classical ensemble of particles injected at a constant rate into the absorbing medium with an arbitrary momentum distribution from $`t=0`$ on, would lead, for fixed $`x`$, to a monotonous increase of the density up to the asymptotic, stationary value.

The important difference between temporal and spatial maxima may be understood from the scaling satisfied by the saddle term,

$$|\psi _s(\eta x,\eta t)|^2=\frac{e^{2tV_1(\eta 1)}}{\eta }|\psi _s(x,t)|^2.$$
(20)
Since the exponential depends on $`t`$, but not on $`x`$, the spatial maximum travels at constant velocity whereas, the temporal maximum does not, except for $`V_1=0`$.

Some recent works have examined the time of arrival of the maximum at a given position for the source problem without absorption also for small values of $`x`$, where the pole-saddle approximation is not valid GVDM02 ; DMRGV . For small $`x`$, $`\tau _T(x)`$ presents in that case a basin with a minimum. In Fig. 3a we have plotted this quantity versus $`x`$ for differents values of the absorbing potential $`V_1`$. Note that the basin dissappears by increasing the absorption. The most prominent feature of the curves though is their constant value $`1/2V_1`$ for large enough $`x`$, instead of the linear dependence found without absorption. Unlike the Hartman effect, the arrival of the temporal peak in an absorbing medium stays constant for arbitrarily large $`x`$.

The effect is also present for other boundary conditions, in particular for the “Moshinsky shutter” boundary condition Moshinsky  corresponding to the initial, truncated-plane-wave state

$$\psi (x,t=0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{ik_0x}\mathrm{\Theta }(x),$$
(21)
and the potential

$$V(x)=(1iV_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(x).$$
(22)
Using the same techniques applied in DCM02 , we may calculate $`\psi (x,t)`$. The corresponding density is shown in Fig. 3b, where the same characteristic time $`1/2V_1`$ which describes the arrival of the peak at large $`x`$ is found.

A close physical realization of the Moshinki shutter problem with absorption may be based on a fluoresecence experiment where an atom is first prepared according to a truncated plane wave in an internal state $`|1`$, and then let evolve after a sudden shutter opening at $`x=t=0`$. The “external” region, $`x>0`$, is illuminated with a perpendicular laser. Let us assume a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$configuration for three relevant atomic levels such that the laser couples levels $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ whereas $`|2`$ decays irreversibly by spontaneous photon emission to a ground state $`|0`$. According to the quantum jump technique Hegerfeldt92  the amplitudes for levels $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ obey an effective Schrödinger equation with Hamiltonian (all quantities are now dimensional) DEHM02 ; NEMH03 ; DEHM03

$$H=\widehat{p}^2/2m+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{X})}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{X})}{2\mathrm{\Delta }i\gamma }\right),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the detuning between the laser frequency and the transition frequency $`\omega _{12}`$, $`\gamma `$ is the inverse life time of $`|2`$, and $`\widehat{p}`$ the momentum operator for the initial atomic direction $`X`$. For large detuning, $`|2\mathrm{\Delta }+i\gamma |>>\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a further reduction is possible to an even simpler effective Schrödinger equation for the amplitude of level 1 with potential ChY91 ; OABSZ96 ; optim

$$V(X)=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Theta }(X)}{4\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2}i\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Theta }(X)/2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\gamma ^2},$$
(24)
which can be transformed by appropriate scaling to the form of Eq. (22). We have solved numerically the full two-channel Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian of Eq. (23) and the initial state of Eq. (21) for the $`|1`$component. We have found $`\tau _T(x)=1/2V_1`$ for arbitrarily large distances to the shutter, in full agreement with the solution of the one-channel equation with absorbing potential, Eq. (1).

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to I. L. Egusquiza, J. A. Damborenea, B. Navarro and G. C. Hegerfeldt for many discussions, and acknowledge support by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (BFM2000-0816-C03-03), and UPV-EHU (00039.310-13507/2001); AR also acknowledges a fellowship within the Postdoc-Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).