format: text

text:
# Is there a Dichotomy in the Radio Loudness Distribution of Quasars ?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The origin of radio loudness of quasars is a long debated issue. Radio observations of optically selected quasar samples showed only 10-40 % of the objects to be powerful radio sources (Sramek & Weedman 1980; Condon et al. 1981; Marshall 1987; Miller, Peacock & Mead 1990; Kellermann et al. 1989). More interestingly, these early studies suggested that quasars could be divided into the two populations of “Radio-Loud” (RL) and “Radio-Quiet” (RQ) on the basis of their radio emission. Furthermore, Kellermann et al. (1989) found that the radio-to-optical ratios, $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ 111Throughout this paper, we will refer to the radio-to-optical ratio as that between radio (1.4 GHz) and optical (B band) rest frame luminosities, of these objects presented a bimodal distribution. Miller, Peacock & Mead (1990) also found a dichotomy in the quasar population, although this time radio luminosity was used as the parameter to define the level of radio loudness.

In the last decade, our ability of collecting large samples of quasars with faint radio fluxes has grown enormously, in particular thanks to the FIRST (Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty centimeters) Survey at VLA (Becker, White & Helfand 1995). However, despite the recent efforts, radio loudness still remains an issue under debate. Works based on data from the FIRST survey (White et al. 2000; Hewett et al. 2001) suggest that the found RL/RQ dichotomy could be due to selection effects caused by the brighter radio and optical limits of the previous studies. On the contrary, Ivezic et al. (2002) seem to find evidence for bimodality in a sample drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. More recently Cirasuolo et al. (2002) (hereafter paper I) – analyzing a new sample obtained by matching together the FIRST and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey – ruled out the classical RL/RQ dichotomy in which the distributions of radio-to-optical ratios and/or radio luminosities show a deficit of sources, suggesting instead a smoother transition between the RL and the RQ regimes.

Also from the interpretational point of view, the physical mechanism(s) responsible for radio emission in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) is still debated. At least for RL quasars it is generally accepted to be related to the process of accretion onto a central black hole (BH) – the engine responsible for the optical-UV emission – via the formation of relativistic jets which can be directly imaged in nearby objects. The connection between the optical (accretion) and radio (jet) emission is however unclear. Phenomenologically there is indication in RL objects of correlations between radio emission and luminosity in narrow emission lines, produced by gas presumably photoionized by the nuclear optical–UV continuum (e.g. Rawlings & Saunders 1991). Results from paper I show that, for a given optical luminosity, the scatter in radio power is more than three orders of magnitude. Note that if quasars are AGN accreting near the Eddington limit, this result tends to exclude the mass of the central BH as the chief quantity controlling the level of radio activity (see also Woo & Urry 2002), although we cannot conclude anything on the possible presence of a threshold effect, whereby RL AGN would be associated to the more massive BH ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}>15\times 10^9M_{}`$, Laor 2000, Dunlop et al. 2002, but see also Woo & Urry 2002 for a dissenting view). On the other hand, although controversial, there is some evidence for the fraction of RL quasars to increase with increasing optical luminosity (Padovani 1993; La Franca et al. 1994; Hooper et al. 1995; Goldschmidt et al. 1999; paper I; but see also Ivezic et al. 2002 for a different view).

Clearly, the uncertainties on the presence of a dichotomy, the character of radio loudness and the consequent poor knowledge of its origin (dependence on BH mass, optical luminosity etc.) are due to the analysis of different samples, often very inhomogeneous because of selection effects both in the optical and radio bands, i.e. the lack of a single sample covering all the ranges of optical and radio properties of quasars.

Therefore, in order to shed light on this issue, we adopted the alternative approach of starting from simple assumptions on the intrinsic properties of the quasar population as a whole – namely an optical quasar luminosity function and a prescription to associate a radio power to each object - and, through Monte Carlo simulations, generate unbiased quasar samples. By applying observational limits in redshift, apparent magnitude and radio flux we can then compare the results of the simulations with the properties of observed samples. The aim of this approach is of course twofold: constrain the initial hypothesis on the intrinsic nature of quasars, by requiring properties of the simulated samples – such as $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions, fraction of radio detections etc. – to be in agreement with the observed ones; test the effects of the observational biases on each sample by simply changing the observational limits.

The layout of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we briefly present the samples used to constrain the models, while in Section 3 we describe the procedures adopted to generate simulated samples. In Section 4 results of the simulations and comparisons of the properties of the observed and simulated samples are shown. We discuss the physical meaning of these results and summarize our conclusions in Section 5. Throughout this work we will adopt $`H_0=`$ 50 km s-1 Mpc-1, $`q_0=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

## 2 The Datasets

As there is not (yet) a single sample able to cover, with enough statistics and completeness, the total range of known radio activity (e.g. the distribution of radio-to-optical ratios and/or radio powers), we have to consider various samples to constrain - as completely as possible - the properties of our simulated samples. We choose three samples of optically selected quasars, namely the 2dF Quasar Redshift Survey (2dF), the Large Bright Quasar Survey (LBQS) and the Palomar Bright Quasar Survey (PBQS). These have in fact a high completeness level and are quite homogeneous since all of them are optically selected in the blue band and have a similar radio cut. The 2dF and LBQS have been cross-correlated with the FIRST survey with a limiting flux at 1.4 GHz of 1 mJy, while the PBQS has been observed at 5 GHz down to a limiting flux of 0.25 mJy, which is comparable to the 1 mJy flux limit at 1.4 GHz, for a typical radio spectral index $`\alpha _\mathrm{R}=0.8`$ 222Throughout this work we define the radio spectral index as $`S_\nu \nu ^{\alpha _\mathrm{R}}.`$. Equally crucial for our work is the fact that these samples produce a very large coverage of the optical luminosity-redshift plane and provide information on different regimes of radio activity (see Fig.1).

Here we briefly describe the main characteristics of the three samples. In order to have complete homogeneity and favour the comparison with simulations, for each sample we have only considered the ranges in redshift, apparent magnitude and radio flux with the highest completeness. We have also selected sources with $`M_\mathrm{B}23`$ to avoid contaminations from the host galaxy light (Croom et al. 2001; paper I) and we have applied a mean correction of 0.07 mag to convert $`b_\mathrm{J}`$ to B magnitudes (see paper I), on the basis of the composite quasar spectrum compiled by Brotherton et al. (2001). The same composite spectrum has also been used to compute the k-correction in the B band.

### 2.1 2dF Quasar Redshift Survey

We have used the first public release of the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey, the so called 2QZ 10k catalogue. Here we briefly recall its main properties, while a complete description can be found in Croom et al. (2001). QSO candidates with $`18.25b_\mathrm{J}20.85`$ were selected from the APM catalogue (Irwin, McMahon & Maddox 1994) in two $`75^{}\times 5^{}`$ declination strips centered on $`\delta =30^{}`$ and $`\delta =0^{}`$, with colour selection criteria $`(ub_\mathrm{j})0.36`$; $`(ub_\mathrm{j})<0.120.8(b_\mathrm{j}r)`$; $`(b_\mathrm{j}r)<0.05`$. Such a selection guarantees a large photometric completeness ($`>90`$ per cent) for quasars within the redshift range $`0.3z2.2`$. The final catalogue contains $`21,000`$ objects with reliable spectral and redshift determinations, out of which $`11,000`$ are quasars ($`53`$ per cent of the sample).

As extensively described in paper I, this sample has been cross-correlated with the FIRST survey (Becker et al. 1995). The overlapping region between the FIRST and 2dF Quasar Redshift Surveys is confined to the equatorial plane: $`9^h\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}50}^m\mathrm{RA}(2000)14^h\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}50}^m`$ and $`2.8^{}\mathrm{dec}(2000)2.2^{}`$. For the matching procedure a searching radius of 5 arcsec and an algorithm to collapse multiple-component radio sources (jets and/or hot-spots) into single objects were used. (Magliocchetti et al. 1998). The resulting sample is constituted by 113 objects, with optical magnitudes $`18.25b_\mathrm{j}20.85`$ and radio fluxes at 1.4 GHz $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}1`$ mJy, over an effective area of 122.4 square degrees. In the following we consider the sub-sample (hereafter called the FIRST-2dF sample) containing 89 objects with absolute magnitudes brighter than $`M_\mathrm{B}23`$ spanning in the redshift range $`0.35z2.1`$.

### 2.2 Large Bright Quasar Survey

The Large Bright Quasar Survey (LBQS) comes as the natural extension to brighter magnitudes of the 2dF sample since it has been derived with the same selection criteria. A detailed description of this survey can be found in Hewett et al. (1995). It consists of quasars optically selected from the APM catalogue (Irwin et al. 1994) at bright ($`b_\mathrm{j}<19`$) apparent magnitudes. Redshift measurements were subsequently derived for 1055 of them over an effective area of 483.8 square degrees. Due to the selection criteria of the survey, quasars were detected over a wide redshift range ($`0.2z3.4`$), with a degree of completeness estimated to be at the $`90`$ per cent level.
More recently, this sample was cross-correlated with the FIRST survey (Hewett et al. 2001) by using a searching radius of 2.1 arcsec over an area of the sky of 270 square degrees. This procedure yielded a total of 77 quasars with radio fluxes $`S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}1`$ mJy, magnitudes in the range $`16<b_\mathrm{j}<19`$ and with a fractional incompleteness of $`10`$ per cent. For homogeneity with the FIRST-2dF, out of this sample we have only considered 58 sources with apparent magnitudes $`16b_\mathrm{j}18.8`$ and redshifts $`0.2z2.2`$, all of them with $`M_\mathrm{B}23`$ (hereafter called the FIRST-LBQS sample).

### 2.3 Palomar Bright Quasar Survey

We have also considered the Palomar Bright Quasar Survey (Schmidt & Green 1983), which represents one of the historical and most studied sample of quasars, in order to cover the very bright end of the absolute magnitude distribution. It contains 114 objects brighter than an effective limiting magnitude $`B=16.16`$, selected over an area of 10,714 square degrees using the UV excess technique. Such quasars have been observed using the VLA at 5 GHz with 18 arcsec resolution, down to a flux limit of 0.25 mJy ($`4\sigma `$) (Kellermann et al. 1989). In order to reduce, as much as possible, the contamination due to the host galaxy, we have chosen not to consider the very local sources with redshift $`z<0.1`$. Our choice is also justified by the fact that all these objects are classified as “galaxy” in the NED archive (NASA/Ipac Extragalactic Database), indicating that the host galaxy is clearly visible. Again, for homogeneity with the former datatsets, from this sample we have only selected objects with $`13B16.16`$, in the redshift range $`0.1z1.5`$, with $`M_\mathrm{B}23`$ and radio flux $`S_{5\mathrm{G}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}}0.25`$ mJy, ending up with a sub-sample of 48 radio sources (hereafter called the PG sample).

## 3 Monte Carlo Simulations

As already mentioned, as selection effects both in the optical and in the radio bands bias each of the samples introduced in Section 2 with respect to the quasar radio properties, our approach is to start from simple assumptions on the intrinsic features of the quasar population and test them by comparing results from simulated samples – generated through Monte Carlo realizations – with those of the observed samples. We decided to assume as the two fundamental ingredients to describe the quasar population a well defined Optical Luminosity Function (OLF) \- from which to obtain redshift and optical magnitude for the sources - and a distribution of radio-to-optical ratios which provides each source with a radio luminosity.
Here we briefly specify these assumptions and describe the procedure applied in our Monte Carlo simulations.

### 3.1 Optical Luminosity Function

The best determined OLF for the whole quasar population currently available is the one obtained from the 2dF Quasar Redshift Survey (Boyle et al. 2000; Croom et al. 2001), based on $`11,000`$ sources. This can be described as a broken power-law (Croom et al. 2001)

$$\varphi (M_\mathrm{B},z)=\frac{\varphi ^{}}{10^{0.4[C(z)(\alpha +1)]}+10^{0.4[C(z)(\beta +1)]}},$$
(1)
with $`\alpha =3.28`$, $`\beta =1.08`$, $`C(z)=M_\mathrm{B}M_\mathrm{B}^{}(z)`$, where sources undergo a pure luminosity evolution parametrized by the expression

$$M_\mathrm{B}^{}(z)=M_\mathrm{B}^{}(0)2.5(k_1z+k_2z^2),$$
(2)
with $`k_1=1.41`$, $`k_2=0.29`$ and $`M_\mathrm{B}^{}(0)=21.45`$. One of the main advantages of using this luminosity function is that it has been obtained in the B band and over the wide redshift range $`0.35z2.2`$, therefore reducing the need for extrapolations, which would add further uncertainties. Some extrapolation is instead needed for the bright end of the luminosity function ($`M_B<27`$), which is not well sampled by the available data. Adopting the above OLF we have then randomly generated sources, over redshift and apparent magnitude ranges necessary to compare them with each of the three samples.

Note that, we have used the Optical LF as a description of the key quasar properties and number density mainly because we are going to compare our results with samples of optically selected quasars. In a more general picture one should also include the contribution to the quasar population given by the obscured (type II) QSO. To this aim it would be plausibly more appropriate to use a hard X-ray LF, which however so far has only been computed for type I objects (La Franca et al. 2002) and which thus results to be similar in shape and evolution to the one determined in the soft X-ray band (Miyaji et al 2000). We stress that, since the radio emission is not affected by obscuration, the contribution of type II quasars would affect our results (e.g. the distribution of radio-to-optical ratios) only if there was a dependence of the obscuration level on the quasar optical luminosity. However, as recent results (La Franca et al. 2002; Tozzi et al. 2001; Giacconi et al. 2002; Rosati et al. 2002) seem to suggest, the fraction of these obscured quasars is expected to be small when compared to the unobscured ones. The above conclusion implies that the presence of type II quasars should not significantly affect our findings and therefore we have decided to neglect their (uncertain) contribution.

### 3.2 Radio vs Optical Luminosity

The other ingredient needed for our analysis is a relation between optical and radio luminosities. As already concluded in paper I, although present, this shows a wide spread: Figure 2 illustrates – for the objects in the three samples considered in this work – how sources with a particular optical luminosity can be endowed with radio powers spanning up to three orders of magnitude.

We have thus taken into account two (simple) different scenarios. The first one assumes a relation between radio and optical luminosity, although with a large scatter (Model A); in this case we use a distribution in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_{1.4}^{})`$ and compute the radio power as $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(R_{1.4}^{})+\mathrm{log}_{10}(L_{\mathrm{opt}})`$. The second case describes the possibility for the radio luminosity to be completely unrelated to the optical one, and assume a distribution in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(L_{\mathrm{radio}})`$ for any given optical luminosity (Model B). For Models A and B respectively, we then consider different shapes for the distribution of radio-to-optical ratios and radio luminosities: a) the simplest case of a flat uniform distribution over the whole range of radio-to-optical ratios or radio powers; b) a single Gaussian distribution, in which the RL regime could simply represent its tail; c) two Gaussians, the first peaked in the RL regime and the second in the RQ one, in order to allow for a more flexible shape of the distributions and test the hypothesis of bimodality.

As a final step, radio flux densities have been computed from radio powers by assuming 80 per cent of these sources to be steep spectrum ($`\alpha _\mathrm{R}=0.8`$), while the others to be flat spectrum ($`\alpha _\mathrm{R}=0`$) objects. These fractions have been chosen according to the results found in paper I: although for the FIRST-2dF sample we only managed to compute the radio spectral index for the ten most luminous objects, roughly finding the same fraction of steep and flat spectra, the remaining sources do not have any counterpart at radio frequencies $`>1.4`$ GHz, suggesting that most of the quasars have a steep spectrum. These assumed fractions are also in agreement with that of steep spectrum sources observed in the PG sample.

It must be noticed that in these associations of a radio luminosity to each optical quasar there is a strong implicit assumption on the evolution, namely that radio and optical luminosities evolve in the same way. Even though we have no direct evidence, some hints supporting this hypothesis can be bound from the data. On one side in paper I it has been shown that the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ distribution, both for sources in the FIRST-2dF and in the FIRST-LBQS, is completely independent of redshift. This is not expected if radio and optical luminosities had significantly different evolutions. On the other side, an independent indication of such hypothesis is obtained from the $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ test, which we applied separately to radio detected objects (from the FIRST-2dF) and to quasars representative of the population as a whole (from the total 2dF). For objects in the radio sample we computed $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ by using the maximum redshift at which a source could have been included both in the radio and in the optical datasets, given the radio flux and optical magnitude limits. We considered three redshift bins and the results 333The errors on the mean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ have been computed as $`(\sqrt{12N})^1`$, where N is the number of objects in each bin. are reported in Table 1. The values of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ for the two populations are perfectly compatible in all redshift bins, even though the errors for the radio sample are larger due to the smaller number of objects. This again suggests the evolutionary behaviour of the radio detected and total populations to be similar, justifying our assumption.

### 3.3 Constraints from the data

Adopting each of the six models described in the previous section and applying the observational limits (reported for clarity in Table 2), we have simulated samples of radio emitting quasars. Comparisons with the FIRST-2dF, FIRST-LBQS and PG samples provide several constraints. In particular the simulated populations must reproduce the observed:

* distributions of radio-to-optical ratios and radio powers. The three samples identify different levels of radio activity: while the FIRST-2dF – which is the optically faintest – well traces the RL regime for $`R_{1.4}^{}>50`$, the FIRST-LBQS is sensible to the RL-RQ transition and the PG is particularly suited to constrain the RQ regime (see Figure 1).
* fraction of radio detections. As shown in Figure 3, this fraction depends on the optical limiting magnitude of the survey: from $`3`$ per cent for the optically faint sources (FIRST-2dF), to $`20`$ per cent for objects with $`B17`$ (FIRST-LBQS) and up to 70 per cent or more at the brightest magnitudes (PG).
Note that a similar dependence is also followed by the intrinsic luminosity, as the fraction of radio detections grows from $`<3`$ per cent at $`M_\mathrm{B}24`$ up to 20-30 per cent for the brightest $`M_\mathrm{B}28`$ objects (paper I; Padovani 1993; La Franca et al. 1994; Hooper et al. 1995; Goldschmidt et al. 1999).
* number counts, both in the radio and in the optical band.
* redshift and absolute magnitude distributions.

## 4 Results

Monte Carlo simulations have been run exploring the widest range of values for the free parameters – which describe the distributions of radio-to-optical ratios (Model A) or radio powers (Model B) – in order to find all the sets of values able to reproduce the data. We have used simulated samples with a hundred times more objects than the original datasets and the realizations have been repeated with different initial seeds, in order to minimize the errors on the simulated quantities. We tested the validity of each model by comparing the properties of simulated and observed samples through statistical tests: a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions, and a $`\chi ^2`$ test for the fraction of radio detections as a function of apparent and absolute magnitude, and also for the optical and radio number counts.

### 4.1 Results for flat and single Gaussian distributions

We find that the simplest model, a flat distribution, is totally inconsistent with the data and rejected by the statistical tests, both for Model A and B. In particular it is unable to reproduce the observed number counts for the three samples simultaneously: the data, in fact, require the number of RL quasars to be less than the RQ ones, while this distribution spreads objects uniformly.
We then tested the single Gaussian distribution, which also fails, for both Model A and B, mainly because it is unable to simultaneously reproduce the observed distribution of $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ in the RL regime and the total number of objects in the three samples.

### 4.2 Results for the two-Gaussian distribution

Given the above difficulties, we considered the more flexible model of two Gaussians, respectively centered in the RL and RQ regions. As said, each one of the considered samples traces different radio regimes: in particular the FIRST-2dF sample well constrains the shape of the distribution at high $`R_{1.4}^{}`$, and also – through the number counts – well determines the fraction of objects with high levels of radio emission. As a consequence, the parameters of the first Gaussian (center $`x_1`$ and dispersion $`\sigma _1`$) and the relative fraction of objects in the two Gaussians are mainly determined by this sample. The other two samples constrain parameters of the second Gaussian in the RQ regime: the PG sample mainly determines its peak position; the FIRST-LBQS sample – which traces the transition region between RL and RQ – constrains quite well the shape of the wing of the second Gaussian and its overlap with the first one.

* Model B. In this case, i.e. radio luminosity completely unrelated to the optical one, no set of parameters has been found able to satisfy the statistical tests for all the observed quantities. In particular, this model is not able to predict the growing fraction of radio detections as a function of both apparent and absolute magnitudes, and to reproduce in a satisfactory way the shapes of the radio-to-optical ratio distributions simultaneously in the case of FIRST-2dF and FIRST-LBQS.
* Model A. A promising solution has been found in this case, namely by assuming radio and optical luminosities to be related even though with a large scatter. The radio-to-optical ratio and radio power distributions corresponding to this solution are displayed in Figure 4 and the model parameters are given in Table 3. A comparison between the properties of observed and simulated samples is shown in Figures 5 and 6. We find a good agreement with the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions of the FIRST-2dF and FIRST-LBQS samples (high KS probabilities, from 0.2 up to 0.9, for the distributions in Figure 5). The simulated datatset is also able to reproduce the observed fraction of radio detections, both as a function of apparent and absolute magnitudes (with a significance level for the $`\chi ^2`$ test $`>0.05`$ see Figure 6) and the number counts, except for a tendency – compatible within the errors – to over-estimate the FIRST-2dF and correspondingly under-estimate the FIRST-LBQS counts.
However, substantial disagreement is found for the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions when compared to the observed quantities in the PG sample (KS probabilities $`<10^2`$). The discrepancy is mainly due to the presence in this sample of $`10`$ objects with high values of $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ ($`>100`$), which also determine the different shape of the radio number counts (see Figure 6). We stress that we found no solution compatible with both the PG and the other two samples: the excess of RL sources in the PG dataset is in fact inconsistent with the both FIRST-2dF and FIRST-LBQS samples. We therefore investigated in more details the properties of these $`10`$ PG sources, by looking at their radio and optical-to-X-ray spectral indices and the compactness of the radio emission. We found the properties of these quasars to be completely indistinguishable from those of other objects in the PG sample, except for a slightly different redshift distribution (these RL quasars are mainly concentrated in the range $`0.3z0.5`$) and (by definition) their high $`R_{1.4}^{}`$. We notice however that it has been shown that the PG sample is incomplete (Goldschmidt et al. 1992) and it has also been suggested this incompleteness not to be random with respect to the radio properties (Miller, Rawlings & Saunders 1993; Goldschmidt et al. 1999). Because of this we are more confident that the FIRST-2dF and FIRST-LBQS are better suited to represent the shape of the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ distribution, at least in the RL regime. Due to these problems with the PG sample, we have therefore not considered the constraints on the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions for this sample, converging to the same best fit model as discussed before.

As a further test we have looked at the redshift and absolute magnitude distributions. The comparison between data and model predictions is shown in Figure 7, which reveals an excellent agreement in the case of the FIRST-2dF sample. A worse accordance has been found for the other datasets, even though the simulated vs. observed distributions are still compatible within the errors. The simulated samples (in these two cases) reveal a tendency to overproduce objects at bright ($`M_B<27`$) absolute magnitudes, probably due to the extrapolation of the bright end of the luminosity function (see Section 3.1). However, we want to stress that this effect cannot explain the disagreement in the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions found for the PG sample. In fact, those RL sources found to be in excess with respect to the expectations – and clearly visible in the redshift bin at $`z0.4`$ – have absolute magnitudes $`25<M_B<26`$, a range in which the OLF is well defined.

Note that the above results have been obtained by relaxing the constraints for the PG sample only on the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions, while still considering in the analysis the observed total number of objects and the fraction of radio detections: in fact, by completely eliminating this sample we would loose important and robust constraints on the RQ regime.

Finally we evaluate the ranges of acceptable parameters by varying their best fit values until one of the constraints (e.g. $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ and radio power distributions, fraction of radio detections, etc.) was no longer satisfied with respect to the KS and/or $`\chi ^2`$ tests. We adopted, as acceptable limits, a probability of 0.1 for the KS test and a confidence level of 0.05 for the $`\chi ^2`$ test. In this way we obtained a reference error estimate on the parameters which is given in Table 3.

## 5 Discussion

The first point worth stressing is the “uniqueness” of the solution found. The combination of all the observational constraints is very cogent and thus, despite large errors on each constraint, we find that only one solution in the whole is able to simultaneously reproduce measurements from the three surveys. Furthermore, the uncertainties associated to the various parameters are in this case relatively small (see Table 3).
It is also intriguing to notice that a simple prescription for the distribution of the radio-to-optical ratios is able to well reproduce all of the available observational constraints given by three different samples. It is important to remark here that in order to reproduce the data we need a dependence of the radio luminosity on the optical one, even though with a large scatter. This is proved by the fact that Model B – where the two luminosities are completely unrelated – is rejected by the statistical tests. In particular, the successful model accounts for the dependence of the observed fractions of radio detected quasars on apparent and absolute optical magnitudes, as due to selection effects: going to optically fainter magnitudes (at a fixed radio flux limit) corresponds to selecting increasingly more RL objects. According to the model the intrinsic fraction of RL is small ($`<5`$ per cent) when compared to the total population, and this e.g. explains the small fraction of radio detected quasars observed in the 2dF sample. Since the shape of the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ distribution (see Figure 4) is steep for $`1<R_{1.4}^{}<10`$, surveys with brighter optical limiting magnitudes which select smaller values of $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ (at a given radio flux) will then result in more and more radio detections. Similarly, the radio-optical dependence accounts for the flattening of the faint end of the optical luminosity function of RL quasars with respect to that of the whole population (La Franca 1994; Padovani 1993).

Given the uniqueness of the solution, the main result of this work is indeed the fact that we can put rather tight constraints on the intrinsic radio properties of quasars. The distributions shown in Figure 4 could then describe the unbiased view of the properties of the whole quasar population and this might possibly help us to understand the physical mechanism(s) responsible for the radio emission. First of all, in the $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ distribution we note no lack or deficit of sources between the RL and RQ regimes: the distribution has a peak at $`R_{1.4}^{}0.3`$ and decreases monotonically with a small fraction ($`<5`$ per cent) of objects which are into the RL regime and represent a long tail of the total distribution. This result contrasts (see also paper I) the view of a RL/RQ dichotomy where a gap separates the two populations. Nevertheless we can still talk about a “dichotomy” in the sense that the data are compatible with an asymmetric distribution, with a steep transition region and with only a small fraction of sources having high values of $`R_{1.4}^{}`$.

Then the basic questions are still open: do all sources belong to the same population? Or better: is there a single mechanism producing the radio emission in quasars or two different processes dominate in the bulk of the population and in the high $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ tail? While it is believed that the radio emission in powerful radio quasars is produced in well collimated jets (related to accretion processes), it is not clear what is its origin in radio weaker and RQ sources. Let us then consider some of the possible interpretations.

First of all it is known that, because of relativistic beaming, the orientation of the source plays a leading role at least in the RL regime – although this could not account for the lack of large scale radio structures in RQ sources. In fact, relativistic boosting could push up by typically a factor of $`10^310^4`$ the observed radio emission (and correspondingly $`R_{1.4}^{}`$ if the optical emission is dominated by thermal radiation). In this case we would expect at least the extreme RL sources to be flat spectrum, which is not supported by observations. A large fraction of the RL sources in the PG sample have a steep spectrum, and the same behaviour has been suggested for RL objects from the FIRST-2dF sample (paper I). Also well studied datasets of radio selected quasars, from the 2-Jy (Wall & Peacock 1985) and the 1-Jy samples (Stickel et al. 1994), show the distribution of radio-to-optical ratios to be the same for flat and steep spectrum radio quasars. However, this result could be affected by variability because of the non simultaneous radio flux measurements at different frequencies.

It has been proposed that the radio emission in RQ quasars is supplied by “starburst” phenomena, i.e. thermal emission from supernova remnants in a very dense environment (Terlevich et al. 1992). Alternatively, the radio flux could be associated to non-thermal emission from jets/outflows. In both cases we could reduce the presence of a dichotomy to the capability of the central engine to create a powerful/collimated jet. This in turn translates into the quest for identifying the parameter(s)/physical condition(s) responsible for its presence in only a few per cent of the sources.

As already mentioned, recent studies suggest the mass of the central BH not to be tightly related to the radio emission (paper I; Woo & Urry 2002), except for a possible threshold effect (Dunlop et al. 2002) which however has been recently questioned (Woo & Urry 2002). Also, radio loudness does not seem related to the properties of the host galaxy and of the environment (Dunlop et al. 2002), even though the latter claim is still debated. A further key physical parameter for the nuclear activity is the mass accretion rate: however it appears reasonable to assume that this is close to the Eddington limit for all powerful optical quasars. Still open possibilities instead include the hypothesis that the creation of a jet is related to a certain threshold in the BH spin or to the intensity and configuration of the magnetic field in the nuclear regions.

A clue on the origin of radio emission comes from the radio imaging at high resolution (pc scales) of RQ quasars, which revealed the presence of non–thermal emission from jet-like structures, even for objects with low ($`R_{1.4}^{}1`$) radio loudness (Kukula et al. 1998; Blundell & Beasley 1998). In many objects have been resolved double or triple radio structures on scales of a few kiloparsecs. Moreover, the inferred high brightess temperatures ($`T_B>10^6K`$) suggest that the radio emission cannot be produced by a starburst. Then jets could be a common feature in quasars and the radio power level could be due to distributions in some of the jet properties, which however have to present a ‘threshold’ effect to reproduce the fast RQ/RL transition and RL tail. These properties could of course include the jet power or the efficiency of conversion of the jet energy into radiation. It has been suggested (Rawlings & Saunders 1991) that in powerful radio sources the power released into the jet is comparable to the accretion one. This would imply a radiative efficiency (in the radio band) of only about 0.1 - 1 per cent for RL quasars – and even less in RQ ones (Elvis et al. 1994). As a final remark we notice that also time dependence/evolution could play an important role: different ignition and duration times for the mechanisms responsible for the optical and radio emission could explain the observed distribution of radio-to-optical ratios. We are currently quantitatively comparing our results against these possible scenarios and the findings will be the subject of a forthcoming paper.

## Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Stefano Cristiani and Gianni Zamorani for helpful discussions and we thank the referee for useful comments. We acknowledge the Italian MIUR and ASI for financial support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

With attosecond lasers (1 as $`=10^{18}`$ s) physicist and engineers are now close to controlling the motion of electrons on a timescale that is substantially shorter than the oscillation period of visible light. It is also possible with attosecond laser pulse to rip an electron wave-packet from the core of an atom and set it free with similar temporal precision.

Since we know that there is an absolute velocity, velocity of light it is sufficient to define the smallest time interval (e.g. 1 as) and the unit of length is a derivative quantity ($`310^{10}\mathrm{m}=0.3\mathrm{nm}=`$ Bohr radius).

After the standards of time and space are defined the laws of classical physics relating such parameters as distance, time, velocity, temperature are assumed to be independent of accuracy with which these parameters can be measured. It should be noted that this assumption does not enter explicitly into the formulation of the classical physics. This means that together with the assumption of the existence of the objective reality independent of any measurements (in classical physics) it was tacitly assumed that there is a possibility of unlimited increase of measurements accuracy. Bearing in mind the atomicity of time i.e. considering the smallest time period, Planck time the above statement is obviously not true. With attosecond laser pulses we are at the limit of laser time resolution.

With attosecond laser pulses we enter new Nano World where size become comparable to atomic dimension, where transport phenomena follows different laws than in macro world. This means the end of first step miniaturization (from $`10^3`$ m to $`10^6`$ m) and the beginning new one (from $`10^6`$ to $`10^9`$). Nano World is a quantum world with all predicable and nonpredicable (yet) features.

In this paper we develop and solve the quantum relativistic heat transport equation for Nano World transport phenomena when external forces exist. This is the generalization of the results of paper  in which quantum relativistic hyperbolic equation was proposed and solved.

## 2 Relativistic hyperbolic heat transport equation

In paper  relativistic hyperbolic transport equation (RHT) was formulated:

$$\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2T}{t^2}+\frac{m_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{t}=^2T.$$
(1)
In equation (1) $`v`$ is the velocity of heat waves, $`m_0`$ is the mass of heat carrier and $`\gamma `$ – the Lorentz factor $`\gamma =(1\frac{v^2}{c^2})^{1/2}`$. As was shown in paper  the heat energy (heaton temperature) $`T_h`$ can be defined as follows:

$$T_h=m_0\gamma v^2.$$
(2)
Considering that $`v`$, thermal wave velocity equals

$$v=\alpha c,$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ is the coupling constant for the interactions which generate the thermal wave ($`\alpha =1/137`$ and $`\alpha =0.15`$ for electromagnetic and strong force respectively) heaton temperature equals

$$T_h=\frac{m_0\alpha ^2c^2}{\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}}.$$
(4)
From formula (4) one concludes that heaton temperature is the linear function of the mass $`m_0`$ of the heat carrier. It is quite interesting to observe that the proportionality of $`T_h`$ and heat carrier mass $`m_0`$ was the first time observed in ultrahigh energy heavy ion reactions measured at CERN . In paper  it was shown that temperature of pions, kaons and protons produced in Pb+Pb, S+S reactions are proportional to the mass of particles. Recently at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) the VULCAN laser was used to produce the elementary particles: electrons and pions .

In the present paper the forced relativistic heat transport equation will be studied and solved. In paper  the damped thermal wave equation was developed:

$$\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2T}{t^2}+\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{t}+\frac{2Vm}{\mathrm{}^2}T^2T=0.$$
(5)
The relativistic generalization of equation (5) is quite obvious:

$$\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2T}{t^2}+\frac{m_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{t}+\frac{2Vm_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}^2}T^2T=0.$$
(6)
It is worthwhile to note that in order to obtain nonrelativistic equation we put $`\gamma =1`$.

If the nucleus contains $`Z`$ protons than we have for electron temperature in atom

$$T_h^Z(\mathrm{atom})=m_e(Z\alpha )^2c^2.$$
(7)
Equation (7) also tell us the magnitude of the temperature of the ionization of the atom:

$$T_h^Z(\mathrm{ionization})=\frac{1}{2}m_ec^2\left(Z\alpha \right)^2\left(1+\frac{m_e}{m_p}\right)^1Z^210^5\mathrm{K}.$$

The motion of electron in the atom is equivalent to the flow of an electric current in a loop of wire. With attosecond laser pulses we will be able to influence the current in the atomic “wire”. This opens quite new perspective for the Nano World technology or nanotechnology. The new equation (6) is the natural candidate for the master equation which can be used in nanotechnology.

When external force is present $`F(x,t)`$ the forced damped heat transport is obtained instead of equation (6) (in one dimensional case):

$$\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2T}{t^2}+\frac{m_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{t}+\frac{2Vm_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}^2}T\frac{^2T}{x^2}=F(x,t).$$
(8)
The hyperbolic relativistic quantum heat transport equation (RQHT), formula (8), describes the forced motion of heat carriers which undergo the scatterings $`(\frac{m_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}}\frac{T}{t}\mathrm{term})`$ and are influenced by potential $`(\frac{2Vm_0\gamma }{\mathrm{}^2}T\mathrm{term})`$.

The solution of equation can be written as

$$T(x,t)=e^{t/2\tau }u(x,t),$$
(9)
where $`\tau =\mathrm{}/(mv^2)`$ is the relaxation time. After substituting formula (9) to the equation (8) we obtain new equation

$$\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2u}{t^2}\frac{^2u}{x^2}+qu(x,t)=e^{\frac{t}{2\tau }}F(x,t),$$
(10)
and

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Vm}{\mathrm{}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{mv}{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2,`$ (11)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\gamma .`$
Equation (10) can be written as:

$$\frac{^2u}{t^2}v^2\frac{^2u}{x^2}+qv^2u(x,t)=G(x,t),$$
(12)
where

$$G(x,t)=v^2e^{\frac{t}{2\tau }}F(x,t).$$

When $`q>0`$ equation (12) is the forced Klein-Gordon (K-G) equation. The solution of the forced Klein-Gordon equation for the initial conditions:

$$u(x,0)=f(x)u_t(x,0)=g(x)$$
(13)
has the form:

$`u(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(xvt)+f(x+vt)}{2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{xvt}{\overset{x+vt}{}}}g(\zeta )J_0\left[q\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]𝑑\zeta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q}vt}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{xvt}{\overset{x+vt}{}}}f(\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{J_1\left[q\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]}{\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}}}𝑑\zeta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xv(tt^{})}{\overset{x+v(tt^{})}{}}}G(\zeta ,t^{})J_0\left[q\sqrt{v^2(tt^{})^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]𝑑t^{}𝑑\zeta .`$
When $`q<0`$ equation (12) is the forced modified Heaviside (telegraph) equation with the solution:

$`u(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(xvt)+f(x+vt)}{2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{xvt}{\overset{x+vt}{}}}g(\zeta )I_0\left[q\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]𝑑\zeta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{v\sqrt{q}t}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{xvt}{\overset{x+vt}{}}}f(\zeta ){\displaystyle \frac{I_1\left[q\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]}{\sqrt{v^2t^2(x\zeta )^2}}}𝑑\zeta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t^{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xv(tt^{})}{\overset{x+v(tt^{})}{}}}G(\zeta ,t^{})I_0\left[q\sqrt{v^2(tt^{})^2(x\zeta )^2}\right]𝑑\zeta 𝑑t^{}.`$
When $`q=0`$ equation (12) is the forced thermal equation .

$$\frac{^2u}{t^2}v^2\frac{^2u}{x^2}=G(x,t).$$
(16)
On the other hand one can say that equation (16) is the distortionless hyperbolic equation. The condition $`q=0`$ can be rewrite as:

$$V\tau =\frac{\mathrm{}}{8}.$$
(17)
The equation (17) is the analogous to the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. Considering formula (2) equation (17) can be written as:

$$V=\frac{T_h}{8},V<T_h.$$
(18)
One can say that the distortionless waves can be generated only if $`T_h>V`$. For $`T_h<V`$, i.e. when the “Heisenberg rule” is broken, the shape of the thermal waves is changed.

We consider the initial and boundary value problem for the inhomogenous thermal wave equation in semi-infinite interval : that is

$$\frac{^2u}{t^2}v^2\frac{^2u}{x^2}=G(x,t),0<x<\mathrm{},t>0,$$
(19)
with initial condition:

$$u(x,0)=f(x),\frac{u(x,0)}{t}=g(x),0<x<\mathrm{},$$

and boundary condition

$$au(0,t)b\frac{u(0,t)}{x}=B(t),t>0,$$
(20)
where $`a0,b0,a+b>0`$ (with $`a`$ and $`b`$ both equal to constants) and $`F,f,g`$ and $`B`$ are given functions. The solution of equation (19) is of the form :

$`u(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[f(xvt)+f(x+vt)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{xvt}{\overset{x+vt}{}}}g(s)𝑑s`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{xv(tt^{})}{\overset{x+v(tt^{})}{}}}F(s,t^{})𝑑s𝑑t^{}.`$
In the special case where $`f=g=F=0`$ we obtain the following solution of the initial and boundary value problem (1920):

$`u(x,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & & x>vt,\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{v}{b}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t\frac{x}{v}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{va}{b}}\left(yt+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{v}}\right)\right]B(t)𝑑t,\hfill & & 0<x<vt,\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
if $`b0`$. If $`a=0`$ and $`b=1`$, we have:

$`u(x,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & & x>vt,\hfill \\ v{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t\frac{x}{v}}{}}}B(y)𝑑y,\hfill & & 0<x<vt,\hfill \end{array}`$
whereas if $`b=0`$ and $`a=1`$, we obtain:

$`u(x,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & & x>vt,\hfill \\ B\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{x}{v}}\right),\hfill & & 0<x<vt.\hfill \end{array}`$
It can be concluded that the boundary condition (20) gives rise to a wave of the form $`K(t\frac{x}{v})`$ that travels to the right with speed $`v`$. For this reason the foregoing problem is often referred to as a signaling problem for the thermal waves.

## 3 Looking into Nano World

With attosecond laser pulses we expect to be able to track the motion of an electron within a femtosecond. We could also follow the relaxation of the remaining bound electrons to their new equilibrium states. Once we can generate attosecond pulses with much higher energies we will be able to use them as both pumps and probes in pump-probe spectroscopy on the atomic level.

Up to now the pump-probe method allows the investigation of the heat transport on the bulk scale. The experiments triggered by Brorson paper  disclosed the finite velocity of the heat transport i.e. the hyperbolicity of heat transport equation.

Accordingly with attosecond pump-probe method we will be able the study of heat transport in the Nano World. As was shown in  one can define the electron temperature (heaton temperature) in ground state hydrogen like atom:

$$T_h(\mathrm{atom})=m_e\alpha ^2c^2,$$
(27)
and in hydrogen like molecule

$$T_h(\mathrm{molecule})=\alpha ^2\frac{m_e}{m_p}m_ec^2.$$
(28)
## 4 Conclusion

In this paper damped forced thermal wave equation was proposed and solved. For Cauchy boundary initial condition the solution of the equation was presented. It was shown that the new equation, depending on the relation between scattering and potential motion, is of the form of the forced thermal Klein-Gordon equation or the forced modified Heaviside (telegraph) equation. For the thermal Heisenberg type relation $`V\tau \mathrm{}/8`$ the new equation is the distortionless forced wave equation. In the context of the forced wave equation the  signaling solution was obtained.


text:
# A New String Model: NEXUS 3

## 1 Problems with the String Model Approach

How are string models realized? One may present the particle production from strings via chains of quark lines  as shown in fig. 1.

It turns out that the two string picture is not enough to explain for example the large multiplicity fluctuations in proton-proton scattering at collider energies: more strings are needed, one adds therefore one or more pairs of quark-antiquark strings, as shown in fig. 2.

The variables $`x_i`$ refer to the longitudinal momentum fractions given to the string ends. Energy-momentum conservation implies $`x_i=1.`$

What are the probabilities for different string numbers? Here, Gribov-Regge theory comes at help, which tells us that the probability for a configuration with $`n`$ elementary interactions is proportional to $`\chi ^n/n!`$, see fig. 3.

where $`\chi `$ is a function of energy and impact parameter. Here, a dashed vertical line represents an elementary interaction (referred to as Pomeron).

Now one identifies the elementary interactions (Pomerons) from Gribov-Regge theory with the pairs of strings (chains) in the string model, and one uses the above-mentioned probability for $`n`$ Pomerons to be the probability for configurations with $`n`$ string pairs. Unfortunately this is not at all consistent, for two reasons:

1. Whereas in the string picture the first and the subsequent pairs are of different nature, in the Gribov-Regge model all the Pomerons are identical.
2. Whereas in the string (chain) model the energy is properly shared among the strings, in the Grivov-Regge approach does not consider energy sharing at all (the $`\chi `$ is a function of the total energy only)

These problems have to be solved in order to make reliable predictions.

## 2 NEXUS

NEXUS is a self-consistent multiple scattering approach to proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus scattering at high energies. The basic feature is the fact that several elementary interaction, referred to as Pomerons, may happen in parallel. We use the language of Gribov-Regge theory to calculate probabilities of collision configurations (characterized by the number of Pomerons involved, and their energy) and the language of strings to treat particle production. We treat both aspects, probability calculations and particle production, in a consistent fashion: *In both cases energy sharing is considered in a rigorous way**, and in both cases all Pomerons are identical.* This is one new feature of our approach. Another new aspect is the necessity to introduce remnants: The spectators of each baryon form a remnant. They will play an important role on particle production in the fragmentation region and at low energies ($`E_{Lab}=`$40-200 GeV). In the following we discuss the details of our approach.

We first consider inelastic proton-proton scattering. We imagine an arbitrary number of elementary interactions to happen in parallel, where an interaction may be elastic or inelastic, see fig. 4. The inelastic amplitude is the sum of all such contributions in with at least one inelastic elementary interaction is involved.

To calculate cross sections, we need to square the amplitude, which leads to many interference terms, as the one shown in fig. 5(a), which represents interference between the first and the second diagram of fig. 4. We use the usual convention to plot an amplitude to the left, and the complex conjugate of an amplitude to the right of some imaginary “cut line” (dashed vertical line). The left part of the diagram is a cut elementary diagram, conveniently plotted as a dashed line, see fig. 5(b). The amplitude squared is now the sum over many such terms represented by solid and dashed lines.

Summing appropriate classes of interference terms, we obtain probabilities of having $`m`$ inelastic interactions with light cone momenta $`x_1^+`$..$`x_{2m}^+`$,$`x_1^{}`$$`x_{2m}^{}`$ at a given impact parameter. Integrating over impact parameter provides the corresponding cross section. By this we obtain a probability distribution for the number of elementary interactions (number of Pomerons) and the momenta of these Pomerons.

How to form strings from Pomerons? No matter whether single-Pomeron or multiple-Pomeron exchange happens in a proton-proton scattering, all Pomerons are treated identically. Each Pomeron is identified with two strings.

The string ends are quarks and antiquarks from the sea. This differs from traditional string models, where all the string ends are valence quarks. Due to the large number of Pomerons this is impossible in our approach. The valence quarks stay in remnants. Being formed from see quarks, string ends from cut Pomerons have complete flavor symmetry and produce particles and antiparticles in equal amounts.

Remnants are new objects, compared to other string models, see fig.6.

A remnant contains three valence quarks and the corresponding antiparticles of the partons representing the string ends. We parametrize the mass distribution of the remnant mass as $`P(m^2)(m^2)^\alpha `$, where $`m`$ is taken within the interval $`[m_{\mathrm{min}}^2,x^+s]`$, with $`s`$ being the squared total energy in the center of mass system, $`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ being the minimum mass of hadrons to be made from the remnant’s quarks and antiquarks, and $`x^+`$ being the light-cone momentum fraction of the remnant. Through fitting the data at 158 GeV, we determine the parameter $`\alpha =2.25`$. Remnants decay into hadrons according to n-body phase space.

The most simple and most frequent collision configuration has two remnants and only one cut Pomeron, represented by two $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ strings as in Fig.7(a). Besides the three valence quarks, each remnant has in addition a quark and an antiquark to compensate the flavor.

We assume that an antiquark $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ from a string end may be replaced by a diquark $`\mathrm{qq}`$, with a small probability $`P_{qq}`$. In this way, we get quark-diquark ($`\mathrm{q}\mathrm{qq}`$) strings from cut Pomerons. The qqq Pomeron end (the sum of the two corresponding string ends) has to be compensated by the three corresponding antiquarks in the remnant, as in Fig.7(b). The (3q3$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$) remnant decays according to phase space, so mainly into three mesons (3M), and only with a very small probability into a baryon and an anti-baryon (B+$`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$). For symmetry reasons, the q string end is replaced by an antidiquark $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ with the same probability $`P_{\mathrm{qq}}`$. This yields a $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ string and a (6q) remnant, as shown in Fig.7(c). The (6q) remnant decays into two baryons. Since q-qq strings and $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ strings have the same probability to appear from cut Pomerons, baryons and antibaryons are produced in the string fragmentation with the same probability. However, from remnant decay, baryon production is favored due to the initial valence quarks.

With decreasing energy the relative importance for the particle production from the strings as compared to the remnants decreases, because the energy of the strings is lowered as well. If the mass of a string is lower than the cutoff, it will be discarded. However, the fact that an interaction has taken place is taken into account by the excitation of the remnant, which follows still the above mentioned distribution.

## 3 Results

Fig. 8 shows the rapidity spectra for pp at 158 GeV. We included the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ spectra, which have been published earlier .

Where data from the NA49 collaboration are available, we have included them in the plot. The yield gives the calculated average multiplicity of the particle species in 4$`\pi `$. We see that the experimental data are reasonable described. The non strange baryons as well as those which contain one strange quark show a double hump structure, the others are peaked at mid rapidity. This is a consequence of the three source structure (two remnants and Pomerons) in our approach. The leading baryon has still the quantum number of the incoming baryon but is moderately excited. Therefore it may disintegrate into baryons whose quantum numbers differ not too much.

We observe in particular more $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, as seen in experiment . This is a consequence of the modification of NEXUS 3, explained in , as compared to the original NEXUS 2 version  (and many other string models), which yields more $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ due to the string topology .


text:
# Optical telecom networks as weak quantum measurements with post-selection

## Abstract

We show that weak measurements with post-selection, proposed in the context of the quantum theory of measurement, naturally appear in the everyday physics of fiber optics telecom networks through polarization-mode dispersion (PMD) and polarization-dependent losses (PDL). Specifically, the PMD leads to a time-resolved discrimination of polarization; the post-selection is done in the most natural way: one post-selects those photons that have not been lost because of the PDL. The quantum formalism is shown to simplify the calculation of optical networks in the telecom limit of weak PMD.

Several times in the history of science, different people working on different fields and with different motivations happened to discover the same thing, or to introduce the same concepts. Think to the connection between differential geometry and general relativity: physics received a convenient mathematical tool for its predictions, mathematics gained in popularity and interest because, apart from its intrinsic beauty, it proved useful. In this paper, we point out a connection which should help to bring together two very different communities: quantum theorists and telecom engineers. The physical degree of freedom that supports this connection is the polarization of light; we show that the quantum formalism of weak measurements and post-selection  applies to the description of polarization effects in optical networks . The structure of the paper is as follows: we give first a qualitative description of the announced connection. Then, we introduce the mathematical formalism, and show that the connection does indeed hold down to the detailed formulae; in particular, the knowledge of the ”quantum” formalism can simplify some ”telecom” calculations.

A modern optical network is composed of different devices connected through optical fibers. With respect to polarization, two main physical effects are present. The first one is polarization-mode dispersion (PMD): due to birefringency, different polarization modes (P-modes in the following) propagate with different velocities; in particular, the fastest and the slowest polarization modes are orthogonal. PMD is the most important polarization effect in the fibers. The second effect is polarization-dependent loss (PDL), that is, different P-modes are differently attenuated. PDL is negligible in fibers, but is important in devices like amplifiers, wavelength-division multiplexing couplers, isolators, circulators etc. In particular, a perfect polarizer is an element with infinite PDL, since it attenuates completely a P-mode. Thus, an optical network can be described by a concatenation of trunks, alternating PMD and PDL elements. Combined effects of PMD and PDL elements have been studied in Ref. ; in particular, interesting phenomena like anomalous dispersion have been shown to arise even in simple concatenations, namely a PDL element sandwiched between two PMD elements.

The first piece of the connection we want to point out is the following: a PMD element performs a measurement of polarization on light pulses (Fig. 1). In fact, PMD leads to the separation of two orthogonal P-modes in time; this separation is called differential group delay (DGD), noted $`\delta \tau `$. If $`\delta \tau `$ is larger than the pulse width, the measurement of the time of arrival is equivalent to the measurement of polarization — PMD acts then as a ”temporal polarizing beam-splitter”. However, in the usual telecom regime $`\delta \tau `$ is much smaller than the pulse width. In this case, the time of arrival does not achieve a complete discrimination between two orthogonal P-modes anymore; but still, some information about the polarization of the input pulse is encoded in the modified temporal shape of the output pulse. We are in a regime of weak measurement of the polarization; we are going to show later that we recover indeed the notion of weak measurement of the quantum theorists, by measuring the mean time of arrival (that is, the ”center of mass” of the output pulse).

The second piece of the connection defines the role of PDL: a PDL element performs a post-selection of some polarization modes. Far from being an artificial ingredient, post-selection of some modes is the most natural situation in the presence of losses: one does always post-select those photons that have not been lost! This would be trivial physics if the losses were independent of any degree of freedom, just like random scattering; but in the case of PDL, the amount of losses depends on the meaningful degree of freedom, polarization. An infinite PDL, as we said above, would correspond to the post-selection of a precise P-mode (a pure state, in the quantum language); a finite PDL corresponds to post-selecting different P-modes with different probabilities (a mixed quantum state).

In summary: by tuning the PMD, we can move from weak to strong measurements of polarization; by tuning the PDL, we can study the post-selection of a pure or of a mixed state of polarization. This is the main result of this paper, that we are now going to present in mathematical terms.

It is convenient to use the formalism of two-dimensional Jones vectors, in which the description of classical polarization is identical to the quantum description of the spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ . Thus e.g. the three typical pairs of orthogonal polarizations — horizontal-vertical linear, diagonal linear, left-right circular — are described respectively by the eigenvectors of the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _z`$, $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _y`$. In this paper, we shall only need to define the eigenvectors of $`\sigma _z`$: $`\sigma _z|H=|H`$, $`\sigma _z|V=|V`$. Any pure polarization state can be described as a superposition of these vectors, with complex coefficients, the state corresponding to the point $`\widehat{n}=(\theta ,\phi )`$ on the Poincaré sphere being $`|+\widehat{n}=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}|H+\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{i\phi }|V`$.

On a monochromatic wave of frequency $`\omega `$, a PMD that separates the eigenvectors of $`\sigma _z`$ for a birefringency $`b`$ is represented by the operator

PMD: $`U(b\omega ,\widehat{z})=e^{ib\omega \sigma _z/2}=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{b\omega }{2}}\text{11}+i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{b\omega }{2}}\sigma _z.`$ (1)
This is a unitary operation that describes a global rotation of the state of polarization around the $`z`$ axis of the Poincaré sphere. As for PDL: since the most and least attenuated states are always orthogonal, they can be written as the eigenstates of $`\sigma _n=\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, where the direction $`\widehat{n}`$ has a priori no link with the direction $`\widehat{z}`$ of the birefringency axis. Neglecting a global attenuation, the PDL is represented by the operator

PDL: $`F(\mu ,\widehat{n})=e^{\mu \sigma _n/2}=\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\text{11}+\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _n.`$ (2)
This is a non-unitary operator, sometimes called a filter; in the quantum theory, it appears also in the unambiguous discrimination of non-orthogonal quantum states . It has been shown in Ref.  that any optical network can be modelled by an effective PMD followed by an effective PDL, that is, by an operator of the form $`F(\mu ,\widehat{n})U(b,\widehat{m})`$. However, the study of the general case is involved because the effective parameters $`\mu `$, $`\widehat{n}`$, $`b`$ and $`\widehat{m}`$ depend of the optical frequency $`\omega `$ in a non-trivial way, leading to deformations in the shape of the light pulse. Thus, we focus initially on the simplest optical network, namely a PMD fiber followed by a PDL element.

The input state is a gaussian (Fourier-transform limited) light pulse of coherence time $`t_c`$, of central frequency $`\omega _0`$, prepared in a pure polarization state $`|\psi _0`$:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜e^{\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^2}e^{i\omega _0t}(\alpha |H+\beta |V)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`g(t)|\psi _0,`$ (4)
with $`𝒜=\left(\sqrt{2\pi }t_c\right)^{1/2}`$ so that $`G(t)|g(t)|^2`$ is a probability distribution . To compute the state of the light at the output of the PMD fiber, we must Fourier-transform $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{in}`$ into the frequency domain, apply (1) to any monochromatic component, and integrate back to the time domain. This gives

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{PMD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega e^{i\omega t}\stackrel{~}{g}(\omega \omega _0)U(b\omega ,\widehat{z})|\psi _0}=`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }g_{}(t)|H+\stackrel{~}{\beta }g_+(t)|V`$ (6)
where $`g_\pm (t)g(t\pm \frac{\delta \tau }{2})`$ with $`\delta \tau =b`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\alpha e^{ib\omega _0/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta e^{ib\omega _0/2}`$. We see that, in addition to the global rotation around the birefringency axis at the frequency $`\omega _0`$, the PMD has delayed the $`V`$ polarization with respect to the $`H`$ polarization, as announced. According to whether the delay $`\delta \tau `$ is much larger or much smaller than the width $`t_c`$ of the input pulse, the recording of the time of arrival will provide us with a strong or a weak measurement . For further reference, let us define the polarization state

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`U(b\omega _0,\widehat{z})|\psi _0=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|H+\stackrel{~}{\beta }|V`$ (7)
obtained by retaining only the global rotation, that is, in the limit of continuous light $`\delta \tau /t_c0`$.

Now, we should apply the PDL operator (2) to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{PMD}`$. Before presenting the general case, to become familiar with the concepts, we study the case of post-selection of a pure state: the PDL element is then a polarizer that projects onto a polarization state $`|\psi _1=\mu |H+\nu |V`$. Thus, at the output of the optical network we have

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\overline{\mu }g_{}(t)+\stackrel{~}{\beta }\overline{\nu }g_+(t)\right]|\psi _1F(t)|\psi _1,`$ (8)
where $`\overline{z}`$ is the conjugate of a complex number $`z`$. Clearly $`F(t)`$ is the temporal shape of the selected component of the field. Now we measure the intensity $`I(t)=|F(t)|^2`$; with $`A=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\overline{\mu }`$ and $`B=\stackrel{~}{\beta }\overline{\nu }`$, we have

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|A|^2G_{}(t)+|B|^2G_+(t)+2\text{Re}(\overline{A}B)g_{}(t)g_+(t).`$ (9)
In the limit of strong measurement, $`\delta \tau >>t_c`$, the overlap $`g_{}g_+`$ is essentially 0, so the detected intensity corresponds to two well-separated gaussians: $`I(t)=|\alpha \mu |^2G_{}(t)+|\beta \nu |^2G_+(t)`$. A detection in $`G_{}`$ corresponds to the $`H`$ polarization, so the probability that the polarization was $`|H`$ given the preparation and post-selection is simply the integral of the gaussian $`G_{}`$, normalized to the total intensity: $`P(H)=\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}I(t)𝑑t\right)/\left(_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}I(t)𝑑t\right)=\frac{|\alpha \mu |^2}{|\alpha \mu |^2+|\beta \nu |^2}`$. But $`|\alpha |^2`$ is the probability $`P(H|\psi _0)`$ of finding a photon polarized along $`|H`$ given that the state is $`|\psi _0`$; using similar notations for $`|\beta |^2`$, $`|\mu |^2`$ and $`|\nu |^2`$, we have found

$`P(H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\psi _1|H)P(H|\psi _0)}{_{K=H,V}P(\psi _1|K)P(K|\psi _0)}}.`$ (10)
This is the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule , which corresponds to the classical rule for the probability of sequential events.

Since we have access to both $`P(H)`$ and $`P(V)`$, we can compute $`\sigma _z=P(H)P(V)`$. Moreover, the mean time-of-arrival, defined as usual by $`t=\left(tI(t)𝑑t\right)/\left(I(t)𝑑t\right)`$, is here $`P(H)\frac{\delta \tau }{2}+P(V)\left(\frac{\delta \tau }{2}\right)`$. So, for the case of strong measurement, we have derived the relation

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \tau }{2}}\sigma _z.`$ (11)
This is the relation, that appears in any measurement theory, between the pointer or meter (here, the mean time of arrival) and physical quantity to be measured (here, $`\sigma _z`$). Even though it has been derived from more intuitive grounds in the regime of strong measurements, the relation (11) is the fundamental relation of a measurement process in which the coupling between the pointer and the observable quantity is made by the PMD . In particular, contrary to $`P(H)`$ and $`P(V)`$, $`t`$ can be defined and measured for any $`I(t)`$. We shall then take (11) as the definition of the mean value of $`\sigma _z`$ when measured by the PMD. With this, we can remove the assumption of strong measurement.

For $`F(t)`$ defined in (8), $`t`$ can be calculated analytically. In fact, starting with $`I(t)`$ given by (9), a straightforward calculation and the relation (11) yield

$`\sigma _z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|A|^2|B|^2}{|A|^2+|B|^2+2Re(\overline{A}B)e^{\frac{1}{2}(\delta \tau /2t_c)^2}}}.`$ (12)
Note that the dependance in the strength of the measurement (i.e. in $`\delta \tau /2t_c`$) is very explicit in (12). In the limit of strong measurement, $`\delta \tau /2t_c\mathrm{}`$, we recover the above results. In the opposite limit, $`e^{\frac{1}{2}(\delta \tau /2t_c)^2}=1O(\delta \tau /2t_c)`$, corresponding to a weak measurement, we have $`\sigma _z_w=\text{Re}\left(\frac{AB}{A+B}\right)`$. Noticing that

$`A\pm B=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\overline{\mu }\pm \stackrel{~}{\beta }\overline{\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _1|\psi \hfill \\ \psi _1|\sigma _z|\psi \hfill \end{array}`$ (15)
with $`|\psi `$ given in (7), we find

$$\sigma _z_w=\text{Re}\left(\frac{\psi _1|\sigma _z|\psi }{\psi _1|\psi }\right).$$
(16)
This is exactly the formula for the weak value of $`\sigma _z`$ when the post-selection is done on a pure state $`|\psi _1`$ as given by the quantum theorists . Note in particular that $`\sigma _z_w`$ can reach arbitrarily large values, leading to an apparently paradoxical situation since the eigenvalues of $`\sigma _z`$ are $`\pm 1`$. But there is no paradox at all: $`\sigma _z_w>1`$ simply means $`t>\frac{\delta \tau }{2}`$, and this situation is reached by post-selecting a state $`|\psi _1`$ that is almost orthogonal to $`|\psi `$; these are very rare events, the shape $`F(t)`$ of the pulse is strongly distorted, and it is not astonishing that its ”center of mass” could be found far away from its expected position in the absence of post-selection.

We can now examine the case of a finite value of the PDL after the PMD fiber. For conciseness, we write $`F(\mu ,\widehat{n})F`$ for the PDL operator (2). At the output of the PMD-PDL trunk, the state is

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{out}`$ $`=`$ $`F|\mathrm{\Psi }_{PMD}=A(t)|H+B(t)|V`$ (17)
where

$`A(t)`$ $`=`$ $`H|F|H\stackrel{~}{\alpha }g_{}(t)+H|F|V\stackrel{~}{\beta }g_+(t)=`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left(C+n_zS\right)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }g_{}(t)+Sn_{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }g_+(t)`$ (19)
$`B(t)`$ $`=`$ $`V|F|V\stackrel{~}{\beta }g_+(t)+V|F|H\stackrel{~}{\alpha }g_{}(t)=`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\left(Cn_zS\right)\stackrel{~}{\beta }g_+(t)+Sn_+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }g_{}(t)`$ (21)
with $`C\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\mu }{2}`$, $`S\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\mu }{2}`$ and $`n_\pm =n_x\pm in_y`$. We can then calculate the detected intensity $`I(t)=|A(t)|^2+|B(t)|^2=|\alpha |^2(\mathrm{cosh}\mu +n_z\mathrm{sinh}\mu )G_{}+|\beta |^2(\mathrm{cosh}\mu n_z\mathrm{sinh}\mu )G_++\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{sinh}\mu g_+g_{}`$ with $`=\text{Re}\left(\alpha \overline{\beta }n_+e^{ib\omega _0}\right)`$. The mean time of arrival is then calculated; with $`\gamma =\mathrm{tanh}\mu `$, the result is

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \tau }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^2|\beta |^2+\gamma n_z}{1+\gamma \left[n_z(|\alpha |^2|\beta |^2)+2e^{\frac{1}{2}(\delta \tau /2t_c)^2}\right]}}.`$ (22)
Again, in the limit of weak measurement and using (11), we find

$`\sigma _z_w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _z_\psi +\gamma n_z}{1+\gamma \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_\psi }}=\text{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{}F\sigma _z_\psi }{F^{}F_\psi }}\right)`$ (23)
with $`|\psi `$ given by (7) as before. The r.h.s. is the weak value obtained by post-selection on the mixed state $`\rho =\frac{1}{\text{Tr}(F^{}F)}F^{}F`$ . The limiting case $`\gamma =0`$ means $`\mu =0`$, thence $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\text{11}`$: if there is no PDL, $`\sigma _z_w=\sigma _z_\psi `$ as it should. At the other extreme, $`\gamma =1`$ means $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ thence $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}(\text{11}+\sigma _n)`$, and we recover the formula (16) for the post-selection of the pure state $`|\psi _1=|+\widehat{n}`$. Finally, we stress that the principal states of polarization of the PMD-PDL network, as defined e.g. in Ref. , are $`F|H`$ and $`F|V`$ .

We have then demonstrated our claims: an optical PMD-PDL network is an everyday realization of the abstract notions of weak measurement and post-selection introduced in the theory of quantum measurement. We had also said that telecom engineers would benefit by learning some quantum formalism, were it only because it could simplify their calculations. Indeed, consider a more complicated optical network, composed of three trunks: PMD-PDL-PMD, represented by the operator $`T=U(b_2\omega ,\widehat{m})F(\mu ,\widehat{n})U(b_1\omega ,\widehat{z})`$. As we noticed above, this simple network is sufficiently complex to yield anomalous dispersion. The calculation can of course be done following the same steps as above, but it is heavy and not really instructive. Another approach, that is moreover scalable to any network consisting of $`2N+1`$ trunks alternating PMD and PDL, is possible if the two PMD’s are weak, that is, in the telecom limit where the DGD’s $`\delta \tau _k=b_k`$ are much smaller than the width $`t_c`$ of the pulse; for conciseness, we write $`\epsilon =\tau _k/t_c`$. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{g}(\omega _0+x)`$ is significantly different from zero only for $`|x|\frac{1}{t_c}`$, that is, $`b_kx=O(\epsilon )`$. So we can expand all the PMD operators (1) as

$`U(b\omega ,\widehat{m})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\text{11}+i(bx/2)\sigma _m+O(\epsilon ^2)\right]U(b\omega _0,\widehat{m}).`$ (24)
Let us then calculate the three-trunk network:

$`T(x)`$ $``$ $`+ix\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2}}\sigma _z+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{2}}\sigma _m\right)+O(\epsilon ^2)`$ (25)
with $`=U(b_2\omega _0,\widehat{m})FU(b_1\omega _0,\widehat{z})`$. In what follows, we define the two orthogonal states of polarization $`|\psi _F=|\psi _0/\sqrt{^{}_{\psi _0}}`$ and $`|\psi _F^{}`$, and we systematically omit global attenuations. We have:

$`T(x)|\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _F|T|\psi _0|\psi _F+\psi _F^{}|T|\psi _0|\psi _F^{}`$ (26)
$``$ $`\left(1+ixW\right)|\psi _F+xC|\psi _F^{}+O(\epsilon ^2),`$ (27)
where $`W=\psi _0|^{}\left(\frac{b_1}{2}\sigma _z+\frac{b_2}{2}\sigma _m\right)|\psi _0/^{}_{\psi _0}`$ and $`xCO(\epsilon )`$. The passage from the Fourier to the time domain yields

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{i(x+\omega _0)t}\stackrel{~}{g}(x)T(x)|\psi _0}`$ (28)
$``$ $`g\left(t\text{Re}(W)\right)e^{i\omega _0t}|\psi _F+h(t)|\psi _F^{}`$ (29)
where we used $`1+ixW=e^{ixW}+O(\epsilon ^2)`$ and where $`h(t)O(\epsilon )`$. The measurement of the intensity of the light pulse $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ gives $`I(t)G\left(t\text{Re}(W)\right)+O(\epsilon ^2)`$: the center of the pulse is now in

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}(W)={\displaystyle \frac{b_1}{2}}w_1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{2}}w_2`$ (30)
with $`w_1`$ given by (23) and $`w_2=\psi _F|\sigma _m|\psi _F`$. This result is intuitively clear: the first term is the weak value obtained by forgetting the second PMD element; the second term is just the mean value of $`\sigma _m`$ on the filtered state obtained by forgetting the first PMD element. For the case of any network composed of $`2N+1`$ trunks alternating PMD and PDL elements, the result generalizes immediately as $`t=_k\frac{\delta \tau _k}{2}w_k`$, with $`w_k`$ the suitable weak values . This example shows how the formalism of weak measurements simplifies some calculations of networks combining PMD and PDL, adding an intuitive meaning to the formulae.

In conclusion, we have shown that the quantum theoretical formalism of weak measurements and post-selection, often thought of as a weirdness of theorists, describes important effects in the physics of telecom fibers. In particular, the notion of post-selection appears naturally, since the telecom engineers select only those photons that are not lost in the fiber.

Just a final remark, to say that, with this investigation, we close a loop of analogies. On the one hand, in Ref. , Gisin and Go stressed the analogy between the PMD-PDL effects in optical networks and the mixing and decay of kaons. On the other hand, in Ref.  it was shown that adiabatic measurements in metastable systems are a kind of weak measurement, and point out that kaons provide experimental examples of this. By showing the link between PMD-PDL and weak measurements with post-selection, this work closes the loop.


text:
# Radiation from hot bare strange stars

## 1 Introduction

Strange stars made entirely of deconfined quarks have long been proposed as a possible alternative to neutron stars (e.g., Witten 1984; Alcock, Farhi, & Olinto 1986a; Haensel, Zdunik, & Schaeffer 1986). Because strange quark matter (SQM) at the surface of a bare strange star is bound by strong interactions, not by gravity, such a star can radiate with luminosities greatly exceeding the Eddington limit. Luminosities as high as $`10^{52}`$ ergs s-1 can be radiated briefly after the formation of the star, when the surface temperature is $`T_\mathrm{S}10^{11}`$ K (Alcock et al. 1986a; Chmaj, Haensel, & Slomiński 1991; Usov 1998, 2001a). Some 10 seconds after formation, $`T_\mathrm{S}`$ drops to less than $`10^{10}`$ K (Page & Usov 2002). At such temperatures–which may also prevail later in the life of the star due to episodes of reheating–electron-positron ($`e^\pm `$) pairs created by the Coulomb barrier at the surface take up most of the thermal emission from the SQM surface (Usov 2001a). Some of these pairs annihilate into photons, thus forming a pair-photon wind that flows away from the star.

For the typical radius of a strange star ($`10^6`$ cm), a temperature of $`T_\mathrm{S}10^910^{10}`$ K gives an energy injection rate in pairs $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}10^{43}10^{49}`$ ergs s-1 (Usov 2001a). For such powerful winds the pair density near the surface is very high, and the outflowing pairs and photons are very nearly in thermal equilibrium almost up to the wind photosphere (e.g., Paczyński 1990). The outflow may then be described fairly well by relativistic hydrodynamics (Paczyński 1986, 1990; Goodman 1986; Grimsrud & Wasserman 1998; Iwamoto & Takahara 2002). The emerging emission consists mostly of photons, so $`L_\gamma \dot{\mathrm{E}}`$. The photon spectrum is roughly a black body with a temperature of $`10^{10}(\dot{\mathrm{E}}/10^{49}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1)^{1/4}`$ K. The emerging luminosity in $`e^\pm `$ pairs is very small, $`L_e=\dot{\mathrm{E}}L_\gamma 10^6L_\gamma L_\gamma `$. All this applies roughly down to $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}10^{42}10^{43}`$ ergs s-1.

In contradistinction, for $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}<10^{42}`$ ergs s-1 ($`T_\mathrm{S}<9\times 10^8`$ K), which is the region we explore, the thermalization time for the pairs and photons is longer than the escape time, and pairs and photons are not in thermal equilibrium. In this Letter, we describe (for the first time to our knowledge) the results of numerical calculations of the characteristics of the emerging emission in pairs and photons in stationary winds with energy injection rates $`\dot{\mathrm{E}}=10^{35}10^{42}`$ ergs s-1. The details of the set-up, code, processes included, and the results for the wind structure, will be described elsewhere (Aksenov, Milgrom, & Usov 2003). Here we give a brief account.

## 2 Formulation of the problem

At the moment of formation of a strange star, the temperature in the stellar interior is expected to be a few times $`10^{11}`$ K (Haensel, Paczyński, & Amsterdamski 1991; Cheng & Dai 2001). The neutrino luminosity of such a hot strange star is up to $`10^{54}`$ ergs s-1. The rate of neutrino-induced ejection of normal matter, which may be present at the SQM surface (Alcock et al. 1986a; Glendenning & Weber 1992), is very high (e.g., Woosley & Baron 1992; Levinson & Eichler 1993). Most probably, in a few seconds after the star forms, the normal-matter envelope is blown away completely (Usov 2001a). The SQM surface remains exposed so as long as the surface temperature is higher than $`3\times 10^7`$ K (Usov 1997). From the thermal evolution of young bare strange stars it follows that this may be the case for at least a few hundred years after formation, and perhaps a few orders longer, depending on the phase of SQM, convection, etc. (Page & Usov 2002)

We consider an $`e^\pm `$ pair wind that flows away from a hot, bare, unmagnetized, strange star with a radius of $`R=10^6`$ cm. Pairs are injected from time $`t=0`$ at a constant rate into the wind, which is assumed spherical. This results in a time-dependent wind which eventually becomes stationary.

We solve numerically the coupled, relativistic Boltzmann equations for the pairs and photons (e.g., Mezzacappa & Bruenn 1993; Aksenov et al. 2003)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_i}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(r^2\beta _iE_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}\left[(1\mu ^2)\beta _iE_i\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left[\eta _i^q\chi _i^qE_i\right],`$ (1)
where $`E_i(ϵ,\mu ,r,t)=2\pi ϵ^3\beta _if_i/c^3`$ are the $`\{𝐫,\mu ϵ\}`$-phase-space energy densities of $`e^\pm `$ pairs ($`i=e`$) and photons ($`i=\gamma `$) ($`f_i`$ being the distribution functions); $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`1\mu 1`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the radius-vector $`𝐫`$ and the particle momentum $`𝐩`$; $`\beta _\gamma =1`$, $`\beta _e=v_e/c=\sqrt{1(m_ec^2/ϵ_e)^2}`$; $`ϵ`$ is the particle energy; $`\eta _i^q`$ is the emission coefficient for the energy production by a particle of type $`i`$ via the physical process labelled by $`q`$; and, $`\chi _i^q`$ is the corresponding absorption coefficient. The summation runs over all considered physical processes. Gravity is neglected \[but will be included in our more detailed calculations (Aksenov et al. 2003)\]. This is a good approximation for the energy injection rates we explore, because $`L10^{35}`$ ergs s-1 is the Eddington luminosity for the pair plasma, and above it, radiation-pressure forces dominate over gravity.

At the internal boundary, $`r=R`$, the input pair number flux depends on the temperature $`T_\mathrm{S}`$ at the stellar surface alone, and is taken as (Usov 2001a)

$`F_e=10^{39}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{S}}{10^9\text{K}}}\right)^3\mathrm{exp}\left[11.9\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\mathrm{S}}{10^9\text{K}}}\right)^1\right]`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^3\mathrm{ln}(1+2\zeta ^1)}{3(1+0.074\zeta )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^5\zeta ^4}{6(13.9+\zeta )^4}}\right]\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (2)
where $`\zeta =20(T_\mathrm{S}/10^9\mathrm{K})^1`$. Their energy spectrum is thermal with temperature $`T_\mathrm{S}`$, and their angular distribution is isotropic for $`0\mu 1`$. The energy injection rate in $`e^\pm `$ pairs is then

$$\dot{\mathrm{E}}=4\pi R^2[m_ec^2+(3/2)k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{S}]F_e,$$
(3)
where $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ is the Boltzmann constant.

The stellar surface is assumed to be a perfect mirror for both $`e^\pm `$ pairs and photons. At the external boundary ($`r=r_{\mathrm{ext}}`$), the pairs and photons escape freely from the studied region.

The thermal emission of pairs used in our simulations \[eq. (2)\] is that expected in the normal, unpaired, phase of SQM. However, it has been argued that SQM is a color superconductor with a critical temperature of $`10^{11}10^{12}`$ K (for a review, see Alford, Bowers, & Rajagopal 2001; Rajagopal & Wilczek 2001). It is expected that at density much higher than the mean nuclear density, $`\rho _\mathrm{n}(23)\times 10^{14}`$ g cm-3, the color superconductor is in the “Color-Flavor-Locked” (CFL) phase, in which quarks of all three flavors and three colors are paired in a single condensate. If the density is only slightly higher than $`\rho _\mathrm{n}`$, SQM may be in the “2 color-flavor Superconductor” (2SC) phase in which only up and down quarks of two colors are paired while the ones of the third color and the strange quarks of all three colors are unpaired. In the CFL phase, SQM is electrically neutral and no electrons are present. So, if at the surface the SQM is in the CFL phase, there is no supercritical electric field and no $`e^\pm `$ pair emission. In the 2SC phase, electrons are present, and the thermal emission of $`e^\pm `$ pairs from the surface is practically the same as for normal SQM. Therefore, our simulations pertain only to the last two cases.

Although the injected pair plasma contains no radiation, as the plasma moves outwards, photons are produced by pair annihilation. Other two body processes that we include in our simulations are Møller ($`e^+e^+e^+e^+`$ and $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}`$) and Bhaba ($`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$) scattering, Comptom scattering ($`\gamma e\gamma e`$), and photon-photon pair production ($`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$). Two body processes do not change the total number of particles in a system and thus cannot, in themselves, lead to thermal equilibrium. For this reason, we include bremsstrahlung ($`eeee\gamma `$), double Compton scattering ($`\gamma e\gamma e\gamma `$), and three quantum annihilation ($`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma \gamma `$), which change the particle number, even though their cross-sections are $`\alpha ^110^2`$ times smaller than those of the two body processes ($`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant).

## 3 Numerical results

We give here the results for the properties of the emerging radiation after stationarity is achieved, so the total wind luminosity is equal to the energy injections rate: $`L=L_e+L_\gamma =\dot{\mathrm{E}}`$. We present results for different values of $`L`$, which is the only free parameter. The corresponding surface temperature $`T_\mathrm{S}`$ is found from equations (2) and (3). Figure 1 shows the luminosity fractions in pairs and photons. We see that for $`L>L_{}2\times 10^{35}`$ ergs s-1, the emerging emission consists mostly of photons, while $`e^\pm `$ pairs dominate for $`L<L_{}`$. This simply reflects the fact that for $`L<L_{}`$, the pair-annihilation time is longer than the escape time, and the injected pairs remain mostly intact. At higher luminosities, most pairs annihilate before escape, and reconversion into pairs is inefficient, as the mean energy of photons at the photosphere is rather below the pair-creation threshold.

Figures 2 and 3 present the energy spectra of the emerging photons and pairs for different values of $`L`$. At low luminosities, $`L10^{35}10^{37}`$ ergs s-1, photons that form in annihilation of $`e^\pm `$ pairs escape from the vicinity of the strange star more or less freely, and the photon spectra resembles a very wide annihilation line. The small decrease in mean photon energy $`ϵ_\gamma `$ from $`500`$ keV at $`L10^{35}`$ ergs s-1 to $`400`$ keV at $`L10^{37}`$ ergs s-1 occurs because of the energy transfer from annihilation photons to $`e^\pm `$ pairs via Compton scattering (see Fig. 4). As a result of this transfer, the emerging $`e^\pm `$ pairs are heated up to the mean energy $`ϵ_e400`$ keV at $`L10^{37}`$ ergs s-1. For $`L>10^{37}`$ ergs s-1, changes in the particle number due to three body processes are essential, and their role in thermalization of the outflowing plasma increases with the increase of $`L`$. We see in Figure 2 that, for $`L=10^{42}`$ ergs s-1, the photon spectrum is near blackbody, except for the presence of a high-energy tail at $`ϵ_\gamma >100`$ keV. At this luminosity, the mean energy of the emerging photons is $`40`$ keV, while the mean energy of the blackbody photons is $`30`$ keV (see Fig. 4). (The energy resolution in our simulations is $`20`$ keV.)

For $`L10^{42}`$ ergs s-1, the emerging pair energy spectrum is close to a Maxwellian , while for $`L<10^{40}`$ ergs s-1 it deviates significantly from it (see Fig. 3)

## 4 Discussion

We have identified certain characteristics of the expected radiation from hot, bare, strange stars that we hope will help identify such stars, if they exist. The spectrum, we find, is rather hard for the studied luminosity range. This makes such stars amenable to detection and study by sensitive, high energy instruments, such as INTEGRAL (e.g., Schoenfelder 2001), which is more sensitive in this range than previous detectors.

As super-Eddington luminosities and, as we find, hard X-ray spectra characterize the emission from bare, strange stars, soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters (SGRs), which are the sources of short bursts of hard X-rays with super-Eddington luminosities (up to $`10^{42}10^{45}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$), are reasonable candidates for strange stars (e.g., Alcock, Farhi, & Olinto 1986b; Cheng & Dai 1998; Usov 2001b). The bursting activity of SGRs may be explained by fast heating of the stellar surface up to the temperature of $`(12)\times 10^9`$ K and its subsequent thermal emission (Usov 2001b,c). The heating mechanism may be either impacts of comets onto bare strange stars (Zhang, Xu, & Qiao 2000; Usov 2001b) or fast decay of superstrong ($`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G) magnetic fields (Usov 1984; Thompson & Duncan 1995; Heyl & Kulkarni 1998). For typical luminosities of SGRs ($`L10^{41}10^{42}`$ ergs s-1), the mean photons energy we find is $`40`$ keV (see Fig. 4), which is consistent with observations of SGRs (Hurley 2000).

Another important idiosyncrasy that we find is a strong anti-correlation between spectral hardness and luminosity. While at very high luminosities ($`L>10^{42}10^{43}`$ ergs s-1) the spectral temperature increases with luminosity as in blackbody radiation, in the range of luminosities we studied, where thermal equilibrium is not achieved, the expected correlation is opposite (see Fig. 4). Such anti-correlations were, indeed, observed for SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14 where the burst statistic is high enough (e.g., Feroci et al. 2001; Gogus et al. 2001; Ibrahim et al. 2001). This is encouraging, but a direct comparison of this data with results such as ours will require a more detailed analysis. In particular, the effects of strong magnetic fields have to be included. The observed periodic variations may be due to a rotation of a star with non-uniform surface temperature, while our result apply for isotropic emission. We hope to deal with this elsewhere.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.