text:
# The Angular Momentum of Gas in Proto-Galaxies: II – The Impact of Preheating

## 1 Introduction

Angular momentum plays a crucial role in the formation and structuring of galaxies. This is most evident for disk galaxies, whose structure and dynamics are clearly governed by their angular momentum content. In current models for disk galaxy formation, set forth by White & Rees (1978) and Fall & Efstathiou (1980), it is supposed that a disk forms out of gas that cools inside a dark matter halo while conserving its specific angular momentum acquired from cosmological torques. Under the additional assumption that the gas and dark matter acquire the same quantities of specific angular momentum (generally expressed though the dimensionless spin parameter $`\lambda `$), this model can successfully explain the observed distribution of disk scale-lengths (e.g., Mo, Mao & White 1998; de Jong & Lacey 2000).

Nevertheless, a proper understanding of the structure and formation of disk galaxies in terms of the origin and evolution of their angular momentum distributions has proved extremely challenging. Foremost, hydrodynamical simulations of disk formation that include cooling indicate that, contrary to the standard assumption, the specific angular momentum distribution of the gas is not conserved. Instead, the gas looses a large fraction of its angular momentum to the dark matter (Navarro & Benz 1991; Navarro & White 1994), yielding disks that are an order of magnitude too small. This problem has become known as the “angular momentum catastrophe”, and is typically associated with the well-known “over-cooling problem” in CDM cosmologies (White & Rees 1978; White & Frenk 1991). At early-times gas cooling is very efficient, leading to the formation of dense gas clumps which loose their orbital angular momentum to the surrounding dark matter haloes through dynamical friction, before eventually merging to form the central disk. Therefore, some mechanism is required to prevent or delay the cooling of the gas, so that it can preserve a larger fraction of its angular momentum. Indeed, simulations in which gas cooling is artificially suppressed until $`z=1`$ yield larger, more realistic disks (Weil, Eke & Efstathiou 1998; Eke, Efstathiou & Wright 2000).

The outstanding challenge is to identify what mechanism can accomplish this required delay, and yet be consistent with observations of galaxies and quasars at high redshift. Initial studies focussed on heating from the extragalactic ionising background. Although these studies have shown that an ionising background can have a non-negligible impact on the formation of (mainly small) galaxies, the impact on the angular momenta of disk galaxies was found to be either unimportant (Vedel, Hellsten & Sommer-Larsen 1994) or exacerbated the problem (Navarro & Steinmetz 1997).

More promising results have been obtained with localised feedback from supernova explosions. Simulations that model this type of feedback typically reveal a significantly reduced, though not entirely nullified, angular momentum loss (Sommer-Larsen et al. 1999; Sommer-Larsen, Götz & Portinari 2002; Thacker & Couchman 2000, 2001). However, the implications of these results are still somewhat unclear, in view of the difficulty of modeling the physical properties of star-forming gas in a cosmological context. In their recent study of cosmic star formation (Springel & Hernquist 2003a), Springel & Hernquist (2003b) developed a multiphase description of the interstellar medium and showed that one consequence of feedback is to pressurise the gas, altering its equation of state at high densities. Their idealised models of disk formation in dark matter haloes indicate that this process is highly sensitive to the form of the equation of state of star-forming gas, which may help to reconcile the earlier simulations with observations.

Furthermore, pressure forces associated with galactic winds may significantly affect the baryonic mass fractions (Scannapieco, Ferrara & Broadhurst 2000) and/or angular momenta (Abel, Croft & Hernquist 2001) of neighbouring proto-galaxies, making the impact less localised than typically assumed. A related form of feedback is preheating (or rather ‘reheating’) of the intergalactic medium (IGM) during an early epoch of vigorous star formation and/or AGN activity. Characteristic of preheating is that the entropy of the IGM is increased substantially before the main epoch of galaxy formation; i.e. before the majority of the gas has undergone gravitational collapse. This can significantly delay cooling (i.e., Mo & Mao 2002) and therefore alleviate the angular momentum catastrophe (Sommer-Larsen et al. 1999).

However, even if feedback can prevent the angular momentum catastrophe, an important discrepancy between the angular momenta of dark matter haloes and disk galaxies remains. If the standard picture is correct, the angular momentum distribution of disk galaxies should be identical to that of dark matter haloes. However, the universal angular momentum distribution of dark matter haloes (Bullock et al. 2001), contains far more low-angular momentum material than is typically present in disk galaxies (van den Bosch 2001; van den Bosch, Burkert & Swaters 2001). In a recent paper, Maller & Dekel (2002; hereafter MD02) proposed a toy model which indicates that the same feedback that may solve the angular momentum catastrophe can also explain this apparent mismatch of angular momentum profiles. Although angular momentum is commonly thought to arise from cosmological torques (Hoyle 1953; Peebles 1969; White 1984), the MD02 model is based on an alternate, though related picture put forward by Vitvitska et al. (2002) and Maller, Dekel & Somerville (2002), in which the final angular momentum of a dark matter halo is simply the vector sum of the orbital angular momenta of all its progenitor haloes. In this model, most of a halo’s final angular momentum owes to the last major merger, while the low-angular momentum material originates from the many small satellites accreted from largely uncorrelated directions. If, within this picture, low mass galaxies are largely devoid of baryonic material (because of feedback processes), the angular momentum of the final disk material may have a substantially smaller fraction of low angular momentum material than the corresponding dark matter halo. This would explain the deficit of low angular momentum material in observed dwarf galaxies, and, according to MD02, may even result in systems in which the baryons have a larger spin parameter than the dark matter.

In an ongoing attempt to improve our understanding of the origin and evolution of the angular momentum of baryons, we have performed a number of simulations of structure formation in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology without cooling. While unrealistic, the absence of cooling allows us to better focus attention on the impact of gravity and (shock) heating on the angular momentum of the baryons. Therefore, such simulations are a logical preliminary step to investigate the build-up of angular momentum in proto-galaxies. In the first paper in this series (van den Bosch et al. 2002; hereafter Paper I), we used a non-radiative111We use the term “non-radiative’, rather than the commonly used term “adiabatic”, to emphasise that the simulation does include non-adiabatic shocks., hydrodynamic $`N`$-body simulation to investigate whether the gas and dark matter acquire identical angular momentum distributions. Although this is the general assumption, based on the fact that the gas and dark matter experience the same cosmological torques, gas and dark matter suffer different relaxation mechanisms during halo collapse. Whereas the dark matter undergoes collisionless virialisation through violent relaxation, gas achieves hydrostatic equilibrium by shocking. In principle, this could decouple the angular momentum distribution of the gas from that of the dark matter, possibly explaining the mismatch of angular momentum profiles discussed above without the need for feedback. However, we found that the “initial” (i.e., prior to cooling) angular momentum distributions of gas and dark matter are remarkably similar. This indicates that shock heating does not lead to a decoupling of the angular momenta of gas and dark matter and it thus confirms one of the two main assumptions underlying the theory of disk galaxy formation. However, we found that the angular momentum directions of the gas and dark matter are poorly aligned, and that large mass fractions of the gas (and dark matter) have negative specific angular momentum with respect to the total angular momentum vector (see also Chen & Jing 2002). This indicates that disk galaxy formation cannot occur under detailed angular momentum conservation, in violation of the second main assumption underlying the theory of disk galaxy formation.

Yoshida et al. (2003) also report a misalignment between gas and dark matter total angular momenta at high redshifts in simulations with $`2\times 288^3`$ particles and in volumes 600 comoving kpc on a side. The pressure forces in their calculations stem from the inherent IGM pressure relevant at the low mass scales of first structure formation. Their very high resolution calculation validates our conclusions of Paper I and illustrates the importance of pressure forces for the angular momentum properties of gas with respect to dark matter.

In this paper we present a similar simulation as in Paper I, but this time include a model for preheating. We analyse the angular momentum distributions of the gas and dark matter, which we compare to one another and to results without preheating. The main goals of this paper are: (i) to investigate the impact of preheating on the angular momentum of the baryons (again in the limit without cooling), and (ii) to test various predictions of the MD02 model.

This paper is organised as follows. In Section 3 we describe the numerical simulations and the analysis. Section 2 presents the results, and discusses the implications for the formation of disk galaxies in a preheated intergalactic medium. Finally, we summarise our findings in Section 5.

## 2 The Impact of Preheating

Preheating of the intergalactic medium was originally introduced to explain the observed X-ray properties of clusters of galaxies (Evrard & Henry 1991; Kaiser 1991) and is still considered one of the most likely explanations for the observed $`L_X`$$`T`$ relation of groups and clusters of galaxies (e.g., Balogh, Babul & Patton 1999; Bower et al. 2001; Tozzi & Norman 2001; Borgani et al. 2002; Tornatore et al. 2003). Preheating also has a number of effects on the formation of galaxies. Foremost, due to the pressure increase, baryons can unbind themselves from their dark matter haloes, an effect that is larger for less massive haloes. In addition, the hot gas in hydrostatic equilibrium inside dark matter haloes has much shallower density distributions than without preheating, which causes cooling to be more gradual and more simultaneous (Mo & Mao 2002). This (partially) decouples the gas from the hierarchical, bottom-up structure formation, which may explain why the colour-magnitude relations of galaxies are “inverted” with respect to simple, hierarchical expectations (Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993; Baugh, Cole & Frenk 1996; Cole et al. 2000; van den Bosch 2002). A potential problem, however, is that too much preheating, or at a too early stage, can delay star-formation to unrealistically low redshifts (Tornatore et al. 2002). Preheating has also been advocated as a means to alleviate the X-ray halo problem (White & Frenk 1991; Pen 1999; Benson et al. 2000). However, detailed simulations by Toft et al. (2002) indicate that simple cooling flow models overpredict X-ray luminosities and that no X-ray halo problem exists. Furthermore, the work by Tornatore et al. (2002) indicates that, contrary to naive expectations, preheating can actually increase the X-ray emissivity.

Preheating is also expected to impact on the angular momentum of (proto)-galaxies. First of all, since preheating alleviates the overcooling problem, it is to be expected that it also helps in reducing/solving the angular momentum catastrophe. Second, preheating increases the internal pressure of the gas, which causes the baryonic proto-galaxy during the pre-collapse era to be larger (which tends to increase the angular momentum because it enlarges the torquing arm) and more spherical (which tends to lower the angular momentum because the moment of inertia is reduced). Finally, after collapse and virialisation, only a small fraction of the baryons have remained bound to the system. Since the outer parts (which become unbound) typically contain most of the high angular momentum material, this reduction of the baryonic mass fraction is most likely associated with a reduction of the total specific angular momentum. Furthermore, if the MD02 picture for angular momentum acquisition is correct, preheating might result in lower mass fractions of low angular momentum material because low mass satellites will have lower baryonic mass fractions than their more massive counterparts. The main goal of this paper is to establish which of these various effects dominates, and to investigate in detail what the final outcome of preheating is on the angular momentum content of the baryons.

Despite the large number of studies related to preheating, the actual energy source responsible for the heating is highly speculative. Some constraints can be placed however. First of all, the observed presence of the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest indicates that preheating can not have occured uniformly over the entire IGM. This rules exotic preheating-candidates, such as decaying dark matter, unlikely. Furthermore, if preheating is mainly due to Type II supernovae, the IGM would be enriched to oxygen-abundances that are only consistent with observations in the central parts of nearby galaxy clusters (see discussion in Sommer-Larsen et al. 1999). Since, at early times, vigorous star formation (and AGN activity) occurs predominantly in (proto)-groups and clusters, this may simply be another argument for a certain amount of non-uniformity in the preheating. Despite these constraints, until the energy source is known and understood, the epoch, amount, and (non)-uniformity of preheating are largely to be considered free model parameters.

## 3 Numerical Simulation

To illustrate the effects of preheating on the angular momentum of the gas in proto-galaxies, we perform the same numerical simulation as described in Paper I, but modified to include the effects of preheating. The simulation computes the evolution of an initial Gaussian random field of dark matter particles and non-radiative baryons in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and with a baryon density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.021h^2`$ with $`h=H_0/(100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1)=0.67`$. We use the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code GADGET (Springel, Yoshida & White 2001) to evolve the density field inside a box of $`10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (comoving) from redshift $`z=59`$ down to $`z=3`$. The initial density field is realised adopting identical power-spectra for baryons and dark matter normalised to $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. We use $`128^3`$ (2.1 million) gas and dark matter particles each, with particle masses of $`m_{\mathrm{gas}}=6.26\times 10^6h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{DM}}=3.34\times 10^7h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, respectively. The gravitational softening lengths for both the gas and the dark matter are $`4\mathrm{kpc}`$ (comoving). All results presented below correspond to the final output at $`z=3`$.

The gas has an initial entropy corresponding to a temperature of $`2\times 10^4\mathrm{K}`$ for a mean molecular weight of one proton mass. At redshift $`z=7`$ we reset the temperature of the gas particles to $`4\times 10^6\mathrm{K}`$ (again for a mean molecular weight of one proton mass) to mimic the effects of preheating. Although this is a fairly ad–hoc method, especially in terms of the abruptness and spatial uniformity of the preheating, it is adequate to illustrate the type of changes that preheating may have on the final angular momentum distribution of the gas in galaxy sized haloes. To place the magnitude of this preheating model in a broader context, we follow Mo & Mao (2002), and define the entropy of the gas as $`𝒮=T/n_e^{2/3}`$, with $`T`$ the temperature and $`n_e`$ the electron density (assuming a completely ionised gas). For a cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.021h^2`$ and $`h=0.67`$, as adopted here, the entropy in units of $`100\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at an overdensity $`\delta `$ and a redshift $`z`$ can be written as

$$𝒮_{100}=\left(\frac{T}{4\times 10^4\mathrm{K}}\right)(1+\delta )^{2/3}(1+z)^2$$
(1)
(Mo & Mao 2002). Thus, a temperature of $`T=4\times 10^6\mathrm{K}`$ at $`z=7`$ corresponds to $`𝒮_{100}=1.6(1+\delta )^{2/3}`$, which is comparable to the observed entropy excess in clusters and groups (Ponman, Cannon & Navarro 1999; Lloyd-Davies, Ponman & Cannon 2000), and does not violate constraints from the CMB (e.g. Springel et al. 2001). Note that the simulation does not include radiative cooling, and that we can thus not investigate whether preheating indeed helps to solve the angular momentum catastrophe (but see Sommer-Larsen et al. 1999).

### 3.1 Halo Identification

As detailed in Paper I, groups of particles are identified with the HOP group finder (Eisenstein & Hut 1998). In each group we identify the densest particle, and we determine the virial radius $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ of the spherical volume, centered on this densest particle, inside of which the average dark matter density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$ times the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(z)`$. For our adopted cosmology and at the redshift of the output analysed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}=174.7`$ (Bryan & Norman 1998). Next, we compute the center-of-mass of all dark matter particles inside this spherical volume which we associate with the new center of the halo. We compute the new $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ around this new halo center, as well as the associated new center-of-mass. This procedure is iterated until the distance between the center-of-mass and the adopted halo center is less than one percent of the virial radius $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Typically, this requires of order 2 to 5 iteration steps.

All dark matter and gas particles inside the resulting spherical volume with radius $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are considered halo members. Although our iterative method ensures that the center-of-mass of the dark matter component is similar to the adopted halo center, the same is not necessarily true for the gas component. We therefore remove all haloes from our sample for which the distance between the halo center and the center-of-mass of the gas particles is larger than $`10`$ percent of $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (see Paper I for details). In addition, if any two haloes overlap, i.e., if the distance between the halo centers is less than the sum of their virial radii, we remove the least massive halo from our sample. In order to allow sufficiently accurate measurements of the angular momentum vectors of the gas and dark matter, we accept only haloes that have more than $`100`$ gas particles and more than $`100`$ dark matter particles. This leaves a total of (only) 68 haloes. For comparison, in the simulation without preheating described and analysed in Paper I, we obtained a sample of 378 haloes (using exactly the same halo identification and sample selection). The reason why so far fewer haloes make it into the sample with preheating is that the average number of gas particles per halo is significantly reduced (see below).

### 3.2 Analysis

Spin parameters and mis-alignment angles between gas and dark matter components are computed in the standard way, as described in detail in Paper I. The spin parameters of the dark matter and the gas are defined by

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{DM}}=\frac{|𝐣_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{DM}}|}{\sqrt{2}R_{\mathrm{vir}}V_{\mathrm{vir}}},$$
(2)
where $`𝐣_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`𝐣_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ are the specific angular momenta of the gas and dark matter, respectively, and $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}=\sqrt{G(M_{\mathrm{gas}}+M_{\mathrm{DM}})/R_{\mathrm{vir}}}`$ is the circular velocity at the virial radius $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. The angle between the angular momentum vectors of both mass components is defined as

$$\theta =\mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{𝐉_{\mathrm{gas}}𝐉_{\mathrm{DM}}}{|𝐉_{\mathrm{gas}}||𝐉_{\mathrm{DM}}|}\right],$$
(3)
with $`𝐉_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`𝐉_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ being the total angular momentum vectors of the gas and dark matter, respectively.

Following Paper I, for haloes with more than 5000 particles (in total) we compute the detailed distributions of specific angular momenta of the gas and DM particles. Both the dark matter and the gas are fluids, for which the velocity of each microscopic particle can be written as $`𝐯=𝐮+𝐰`$. Here $`𝐮`$ is the mean streaming motion at the location $`𝐱`$ of the microscopic particle, and $`𝐰`$ is the particle’s random motion. The velocities of the DM particles in the simulation correspond to $`𝐯`$ and are obtained from Newton’s equations of motion. In the case of the gas, however, the SPH approach is used, which yields the streaming motions $`𝐮`$ of the gas particles by solving the Euler equations (with some artificial viscosity to take account of shocks). Information about the random motion of the gas particles is provided by the internal energy of each particle.

Thus, the velocities of the dark matter particles and gas particles in the simulation correspond to different motions. To compare the angular momentum distributions of the gas and dark matter in a meaningful way, however, the same velocities have to be used. Ideally, one would focus on the angular momentum distributions based on the streaming motions $`𝐮(𝐱)`$. After all, when the gas cools $`𝐯𝐮`$, i.e., the typical random motions become negligible. Under the assumption that the gas conserves its specific angular momentum, the resulting disk will thus have an angular momentum distribution related to $`𝐮`$. However, this requires estimating the streaming motions of the dark matter. In principle this could be achieved by smoothing the dark matter velocities $`𝐯`$, but it is unclear what smoothing scale to use and resolution issues are likely to play an important role. We therefore do not attempt to compute the dark matter streaming motions, but instead use the velocities $`𝐯`$ of the dark matter and gas particles when comparing their angular momentum distributions. To compute the microscopic velocities $`𝐯`$ of the gas particles, we use the same ‘thermal broadening’ technique as described in Paper I. For each gas particle we draw $`100`$ random velocities $`𝐰`$ which we add to the particle’s streaming motion $`𝐮`$. For each of the three Cartesian components of $`𝐰`$ we draw a velocity from a Gaussian with a standard deviation given by

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{kT}{\mu }}=\sqrt{\frac{2U}{3}}$$
(4)
Here $`U`$ and $`T`$ are the internal energy per unit mass and temperature of the gas particle, respectively, $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight of the gas. For each particle (gas and dark matter) we compute the component $`j^v`$ of the specific angular momentum $`𝐣^v=𝐫\times 𝐯`$ that is aligned with the total angular momentum vector $`𝐉`$. We use the superscript $`v`$ to distinguish it from the specific angular momentum $`𝐣=𝐫\times 𝐮`$, which is only accessible for the baryons.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Baryonic mass fractions

Fig. 1 plots the baryonic mass fraction $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ as a function of halo virial mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=M_{\mathrm{gas}}+M_{\mathrm{DM}}`$. Results are shown for the case with (tripods) and without (triangles) preheating. Whereas the baryonic mass fractions in haloes without preheating are close to the universal value $`f_{\mathrm{bar}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_b/\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (indicated by horizontal, dotted line), in the preheating simulation the gas mass within the virial radii of dark matter haloes is significantly suppressed. This suppression is larger for smaller mass haloes and can be parameterised using the fitting formula suggested by Gnedin (2000):

$$M_{\mathrm{gas}}=\frac{f_{\mathrm{bar}}M_{\mathrm{DM}}}{\left[1+(2^{\alpha /3}1)\left(\frac{M_f}{M_{\mathrm{DM}}}\right)^\alpha \right]^{3/\alpha }}$$
(5)
Here $`\alpha `$ and the filter mass $`M_f`$ are free fitting parameters. Our best-fit relation is shown as a thick solid line in Fig. 1 and has $`\alpha =0.4`$ and $`M_f=5\times 10^{11}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

We can use this fitting function to gain some insight in how preheating affects the angular momentum distribution of the baryons. We reanalyse the no-preheating simulation presented in Paper I, but this time considering only the inner-most gas mass fraction whose mass is given by equation (5) with $`\alpha =0.4`$ and $`M_f=5\times 10^{11}h^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Applying the same halo selection criteria as described in Section 3.1 we end up with $`83`$ haloes, which we analyse exactly as before. In what follows, we refer to this sample of haloes as the “inner gas only” sample. If the differences between the no-preheating and preheating simulations are predominantly due to the fact that in the latter only the most bound fraction of the gas remains within the virial radius, this “inner gas only” sample should reveal similar angular momentum distributions as in the preheating simulation.

### 4.2 Spin parameters & misalignment angles

In Fig. 2, we compare the spin parameter distributions of the gas and dark matter, and contrast the simulations with and without preheating. The hatched histograms in the upper, middle, and lower panels plot the distributions of the spin parameter of the dark matter, $`p(\lambda _{\mathrm{DM}})`$, of the spin parameter of the gas, $`p(\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}})`$, and of the angle between the angular momentum vectors of both mass components, $`p(\theta )`$, respectively. Panels on the left correspond to the simulation without preheating (cf., Paper I), panels in the middle correspond to the simulation with preheating, and panels on the right correspond to the simulation without preheating, but in which only the inner fraction of the gas is used in the analysis (as described above). The thick solid lines in the upper and middle panels indicate the best-fit log-normal distributions

$$p(\lambda )\mathrm{d}\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(\lambda /\overline{\lambda })}{2\sigma _\lambda ^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\lambda }.$$
(6)
with the best-fit values of $`\overline{\lambda }`$ and $`\sigma _\lambda `$ indicated. The thick solid lines in the lower panels correspond to a random distribution of angles $`\theta `$, and are shown for comparison.

As already discussed in Paper I, the spin parameter distributions of the gas and dark matter are remarkably similar in the case without preheating. However, in the preheating simulation presented here, there is a clear indication that $`\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}}<\lambda _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ on average. For the dark matter $`\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{DM}}=0.035`$ and $`\sigma _{\lambda _{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.63`$ (almost identical to the no-preheating case), while for the gas $`\overline{\lambda }_{\mathrm{gas}}=0.025`$ and $`\sigma _{\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}}}=0.76`$. Preheating has reduced the typical specific angular momentum of the gas with respect to that of the dark matter and with respect to that of the gas in the no–preheating case. In addition, with an average (median) of $`58.2^\mathrm{o}`$ ($`49.5^\mathrm{o}`$) the $`\theta `$-distribution in the case with preheating is clearly different from the case without preheating. Although it is still significantly different from that of a purely random distribution, preheating has largely decoupled the angular momentum directions of the gas and dark matter.

If the differences between the no-preheating and preheating simulations result predominantly from the fact that in the latter case only the most bound fraction of the gas ends up inside the virial radius, the haloes of the “inner gas only” sample should reveal similar distributions of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`\theta `$ as for those with preheating. This, however, is clearly not the case: $`p(\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}})`$ is shifted to even lower values, while the distribution of $`\theta `$ is virtually indistinguishable from that of the no-preheating simulation (and thus differs strongly when preheating is included). The increase in the misalignment found in the preheating simulation is thus not merely due to the fact that only the inner fraction of the gas remains bound to the halo. Apparently preheating has modified the inertia tensor of the gas with respect to that of the dark matter, which has resulted in a larger average misalignment between the two mass components. In addition, this comparison indicates that the fraction that remains bound in the case with preheating has acquired more specific angular momentum as the same mass in the case without preheating. This is due to the fact that the extent (and thus the torquing arm) of that gas is larger in the case of preheating, and/or, to differences in the relative importance of low mass progenitors, as suggested by MD02.

### 4.3 Angular Momentum Distributions

In the previous section we compared the distributions of the (global) spin parameters of dark matter and gas, both with and without preheating. Here, we compare the angular momentum distributions within individual haloes.

As described in Section 3.2, for each particle we compute the specific angular momentum $`j^v`$ along the direction of the total angular momentum vector. Following Paper I we define the normalised specific angular momenta $`l^v=j^v/(R_{\mathrm{vir}}V_{\mathrm{vir}})`$ and compute separate, normalised distribution functions $`p(l^v)`$ for the gas and dark matter in each individual halo. Because of this normalisation, the distributions of different haloes can be compared directly, and be used to compute the average distribution function

$$p(l^v)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i(l^v)$$
(7)
where the average is taken over the $`N`$ haloes with more than $`5000`$ particles in total. In the simulation without preheating there are $`N=23`$ haloes that make our selection criterion, which is reduced to $`N=11`$ in the case with preheating. The upper panels of Fig. 3 plot $`p(l^v)`$ for both the dark matter (solid line) and the gas (solid dots). The errorbars correspond to the rms of the scatter about the mean, and, for clarity, are only plotted for the gas.

The upper left panel of Fig. 3, which corresponds to the simulation without preheating, confirms the conclusion from Paper I that the angular momentum distributions of the gas and dark matter are virtually identical, and thus that the shocks that occur during virialisation do not significantly modify the angular momentum distribution of the gas. The upper middle panel, which corresponds to the simulation with preheating, however, shows a clear deficit of low angular momentum material for the gas with respect to that of the dark matter. This is in good agreement with predictions from the MD02 model, even though the effect shown is fairly small. However, this may be due to the fact that we have included only massive haloes with more than 5000 particles, while MD02 predict that the effect is stronger in less massive haloes. In order to investigate this mass dependence and to make the differences between $`p(l_{\mathrm{gas}}^v)`$ and $`p(l_{\mathrm{DM}}^v)`$ at low $`l^v`$ more quantitative, we define the statistic

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{0.1}=1\frac{_{0.1}^{0.1}p(l_{\mathrm{gas}}^v)dl_{\mathrm{gas}}^v}{_{0.1}^{0.1}p(l_{\mathrm{DM}}^v)dl_{\mathrm{DM}}^v}$$
(8)
which is a measure of the difference between the dark matter and baryonic mass fractions with $`|l^v|0.1`$. The lower panels of Fig. 3 plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0.1}`$ as function of virial mass. In order to increase the number statistics we have included all haloes with more than 1000 particles in total. Whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0.1}0`$, independent of halo mass, in the case without preheating, there is a clear trend of decreasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0.1}`$ with decreasing halo mass in the case with preheating. This indicates that lower mass haloes contain relatively smaller baryonic mass fractions with low angular momentum, in excellent agreement with the MD02 model.

The right-hand panels of Fig. 3 show $`p(l^v)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0.1}(M_{\mathrm{vir}})`$ for the “inner gas only” sample. Here, the baryonic material clearly has much more low angular momentum material than the dark matter. In addition, this effect becomes stronger for lower mass haloes. A comparison with the preheating results clearly proves that preheating has not merely “stripped” the outer layers of gas from the dark matter haloes, but has also affected the actual angular momentum distribution of the remaining gas.

In addition to the mass fraction of low angular momentum material, another useful statistic regarding the angular momentum distributions are the fractions $`f_{\mathrm{DM}}^v`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^v`$ of dark matter and gas particles, respectively, that have negative specific angular momentum. Note that negative here means that the angle $`\varphi `$ between the total angular momentum vector and the particle’s angular momentum vector $`𝐣^v=𝐫\times 𝐯`$ lies in the range $`90^\mathrm{o}<\varphi 180^\mathrm{o}`$. As shown in Paper I, $`f^v`$ is anti-correlated with the spin parameter, such that systems with higher specific angular momentum have lower mass fractions with $`j^v<0`$. As can be seen from the average distributions $`p(l^v)`$ shown in the upper panels of Fig. 3 the average mass fraction with $`j^v<0`$ is fairly large ($`40`$ percent). This, however, is to a large extent a reflection of the fact that the random motions $`𝐰`$ are larger than the streaming motions $`𝐮`$. As indicated in Section 3.2 (see also Paper I), the more illustrative angular momentum distribution is the one based on the streaming motions, $`p(l)`$. Here $`l=j/(R_{\mathrm{vir}}V_{\mathrm{vir}})`$ with $`j`$ the component of the specific angular momentum vector $`𝐣=𝐫\times 𝐮`$ that is aligned with the total angular momentum vector $`𝐉`$. As shown in Paper I, $`p(l)`$ typically has a less extended wing to negative specific angular momentum than $`p(l^v)`$ and a more pronounced peak at low angular momentum.

Fig. 4 plots the cumulative distributions of the baryonic mass fractions, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, with $`l<0`$. Results are shown for all three samples and take all haloes with more than 100 gas particles and more than 100 dark matter particles into account. Although the median of these distributions is clearly smaller than the $`0.4`$ in the case of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^v`$, they indicate a significant amount of decoherence in the streaming motions of the gas. As detailed in Paper I, this implies that disk formation cannot occur under detailed conservation of specific angular momentum, posing new challenges to the usual picture of disk formation. In the “inner gas only” case, the distribution of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ is shifted slightly to lower values compared to the no-preheating case. The K-S test indicates a probability of $`10^5`$ that both are drawn from the same distribution. This indicates that the amount of decoherence is radially dependent, in agreement with the notion that material accreted at different times introduces a radial dependence of the angular momentum direction (Ryden 1988; Quinn & Binney 1992). In the case with preheating, the median of $`p(f_{\mathrm{gas}})`$ is larger than in the case without preheating. According to the K-S test, the probability that both $`p(f_{\mathrm{gas}})`$ are drawn from the same parent distribution is only $`9.8\times 10^9`$. This indicates that preheating significantly increases the mass fraction with negative specific angular momentum.

## 5 Discussion & Conclusions

A full understanding of the structure and formation of disk galaxies within a hierarchical, cold dark matter cosmogony faces a number of intriguing challenges. First, in the absence of any heating, baryons cool extremely efficiently, producing too many satellite galaxies and resulting in what has become known as the angular momentum catastrophe. In addition, the angular momentum distributions of both the gas and the dark matter in numerical simulations reveal an excess of low angular momentum material compared to real disk galaxies. Moreover, as shown by van den Bosch et al. (2002), virialised systems reveal large mass fractions with negative specific angular momentum. Since disks typically contain no negative specific angular momentum material, disk formation cannot occur under detailed conservation of specific angular momentum, contrary to standard assumptions.

It is generally hoped that these problems subside when feedback related heating effects are included. Arguably, the most popular feedback effect is heating of the cold gas in galaxies by the energy feedback from star formation. In semi-analytical models for galaxy formation this type of feedback is typically implemented in such a way that large fractions of the cold gas are ejected from the galaxy and/or the dark matter halo. Although these “galactic winds” may successfully explain several of the observed properties of galaxies, it remains unclear whether this picture is realistic. For instance, detailed hydrodynamical simulations have shown that the actual mass ejection efficiencies may be much smaller than typically assumed (Mac Low & Ferrara 1999; Strickland & Stevens 2000).

The preheating investigated in this paper is an alternative form of feedback which relies on heating the gas before it becomes part of a virialised dark matter halo. This type of feedback has mainly been discussed in connection with the observed entropy excess in groups and clusters of galaxies (e.g., Kaiser 1991; Ponman et al. 1999; Borgani et al. 2002), but might be of equal importance for galaxy formation (Mo & Mao 2002). However, unlike the supernova-induced feedback mentioned above, the energy source for preheating is highly speculative. Possible candidates include high-redshift (starburst) galaxies, population III stars, active galactic nuclei, or even the decay of some dark matter species. Therefore, until the energy source is known and understood, the epoch and (non)-uniformity of preheating are to be considered free model parameters (see Section 2 for a more detailed discussion).

In this paper we investigated the impact of preheating on the angular momentum of gas in proto-galaxies. To that end, we used a numerical simulation of structure formation in a standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with non-radiative gas, in which we mimic an extreme form of preheating by instantaneously and homogeneously increasing the temperature of the gas at $`z=7`$. Although somewhat unrealistic, the amount of entropy injected into the gas is consistent with the observed entropy excess in groups and clusters of galaxies. By comparing the angular momentum distributions of gas and dark matter both in simulations with and without preheating we identified the following effects;

* preheating unbinds baryons from dark matter haloes, resulting in a baryonic mass fraction that decreases with decreasing halo mass.
* with preheating, the spin parameter of the gas within the virial radius is smaller than that of all gas within the virial radius in the case without preheating, but larger than that of the inner most gas with the same mass.
* preheating largely decouples the angular momentum directions of the gas and dark matter.
* preheating decreases the baryonic mass fractions with low specific angular momentum.
* preheating increases the baryonic mass fractions with negative specific angular momentum.

These effects are most easily understood by considering that preheating increases the internal pressure of the gas. This means that the gas associated with a proto-galaxy becomes more extended, and more spherical in shape. Part of the gas can become unbound, which explains the reduced baryonic mass fractions. In addition, this partially explains why the spin parameter of the gas that remains bound to the dark matter haloes is reduced. The baryons that have become unbound were mostly located at larger radii, which experience the largest torquing forces. Thus, the unbinding preferentially removes the high angular momentum material. In addition, the internal pressure of the gas modifies the moment of inertia with respect to that of the underlying dark matter, which explains why the directions of the angular momentum vectors of the gas and the dark matter are so strongly decoupled. The reduction in the mass fraction with low angular momentum may be understood as due to the modification of the density profile of the gas due to the increased internal pressure. As shown by Mo & Mao (2002), preheating creates extremely shallow density distributions for the gas. This means that there is relatively less material with a small moment of inertia, and thus a reduction in the fraction of low angular momentum material.

The above interpretation is based on the standard idea that the angular momentum results from cosmological torques acting on a proto-galaxies with a non-zero moment of inertia. However, in recent papers Vitvitska et al. (2002) and Maller et al. (2002) have proposed an alternative model, in which the angular momentum is due to the orbital angular momentum from the progenitors. Maller & Dekel (2002) have presented a toy-model based on this picture that includes the effects of feedback. They argue that as long as feedback effects imply a baryonic mass fraction that declines with decreasing halo mass (as is the case for the preheating model presented here), the gas in the final halo should have: (i) a spin parameter that is typically larger than that of its dark matter halo, and (ii) an angular momentum distribution with relatively less low angular momentum material. Our results disagree with (i), but confirm (ii), including the prediction that the effect should be stronger for less massive haloes. At first sight it may seem contradictory that we find a reduction of the mass fraction with low angular momentum, yet a decrease in the total angular momentum. The explanation, however, is that the mass fraction with negative specific angular momentum has increased, which has a stronger impact on $`\lambda _{\mathrm{gas}}`$ than the reduction of low angular momentum material.

The origin of this increase in the mass fraction with negative specific angular momentum is not clear, neither in the MD02 scenario nor in the cosmological torque picture. In principle, the presence of negative specific angular momentum is more easily understood in terms of the satellite accretion model. However, there is no obvious explanation for why the amount of negative specific angular momentum should increase in a preheated IGM. Note that we have focused on the simplest possible form of the role of pressure forces namely uniform preheating at high redshifts. Our particular finding that preheating increases the baryonic mass fractions with negative specific angular momentum may change as one considers different forms of feedback. For example, winds produced by galaxies with high star formation rates are likely to produce complex flow patterns around them, as illustrated by figures 5-8 in Springel & Hernquist (2003b). The pressure forces arising from such winds will act differently than the ones caused by our preheating scheme. Studying these more subtle differences in feedback prescriptions will require a large suit of higher resolution numerical simulations that are beyond the scope of the present investigation.

Our results have important implications for the formation of disk galaxies. As we have shown, preheating can regulate the baryonic mass fractions of dark matter haloes in much the same way as galactic winds, and should therefore be able to alleviate the angular momentum catastrophe. Indeed, simulations by Sommer-Larsen et al. (1999) that include both cooling and preheating find a reduction (although modest) of the angular momentum loss of the baryons. Furthermore, the reduction of the baryonic mass fraction with low angular momentum material is advantageous for the formation of realistic disks. However, preheating also has some effects that are less favourable for disk formation. First of all, the total specific angular momentum of the gas within the virial radius, and which is thus eligible to cool and form a disk galaxy, is reduced with respect to that of the dark matter. Thus, although the angular momentum loss may be reduced, there is less angular momentum to start with. Second, the detailed angular momentum distributions reveal a clear increase of the baryonic mass fractions with negative specific angular momentum, making the formation of a disk dominated galaxy less plausible. We therefore conclude that understanding disk formation remains an intriguing puzzle, even in a preheated IGM.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Houjun Mo and Simon White for stimulating discussions, and the referee, Jesper Sommer-Larsen, for his comments that helped improve the presentation of the paper. This work was supported in part through NSF grants ACI96-19019, AST-9803137, AST 99-00877, and AST 00-71019. and through the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium.


format: text

text:
# On linearity of separating multi-particle differential Schrödinger operators for identical particles

## I Introduction

One of the properties considered in speculations about possible fundamental non-linearities in quantum mechanics is separation, that is, product functions evolve as product functions. Separation is considered a nonlinear version of the notion of non-interaction, as then uncorrelated states remain uncorrelated under time evolution. We show here that if separation is combined with either Fermi or Bose statistics embodied in the usual (anti-)symmetrized tensor product states, and if all the multi-particle Shrödinger operators are differential, then they are necessarily linear.

The motivation for studying hierarchies of multi-particle non-linear Schrödinger equations comes from two sources: (1) intellectual speculation about possible non-linearities in quantum mechanicsBBMKos , and (2) examples arising in representations of current algebras (diffeomorphism groups)HDDandGS . We consider the second motivation compelling as current algebra representations were found to include many known linear quantum systems and to predict new ones, anyons in particularanyons .

The non-linear theories considered still maintain that states are represented by rays in a Hilbert space, that evolution is given by a (non-linear) Schrödinger-type equation for the wave function, and that the modulus of the (normalized) wave-function gives the probability density of detection. Though these assumptions can all be questioned, an important class of theories do satisfy them.

A complete analysis of separating hierarchies of Schrödinger-type equations for non-identical particles was given in SVETLICHNY:GS , however as the world is made up of bosons and fermions, the identical particle case has to be addressed. In nlrqm  we explored the possibility of formulating a nonlinear relativistic theory based on a nonlinear version of the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics. A toy model led to a set of equation among which there were instances of a weakened form of the separation property for scalar bosons. This showed once more that such a property is fundamental for understanding any nonlinear extension of ordinary quantum mechanics.

In SK  we showed that separating second-order differential hierarchies for identical particles are necessarily linear under various simplifying assumptions. We here prove linearity under fewer assumptions and in a more transparent fashion.

The present result should not be taken as an argument against non-linear quantum mechanics. As such, it would be a much weaker physical argument than the causality violation objections already raised by various authorsgpl ; svetBG . Though a degree of separability is necessary to be able to isolate and observe an independent physical system, it need not be exact. Another possibility is that in non-linear theories one could conceivably form multiparticle states from states of fewer number of particles in a way other than by the usual (anti-)symmetric tensor product. In fact by using the non-linear gauge transformations of Doebner, Goldin, and Nattermanndoegolnat  one can deform a linear separating hierarchy of differential Schrödinger operators to a non-linear hierarchy of differential Schrödinger separating with respect to a deformed tensor product. Whether differential hierarchies that are not equivalent to linear ones and separating with respect to deformed tensor products exist, is still to be determined. Lastly, our results are strictly non-relativistic. Causal relativistic non-linear theories are seemingly hard to formulate, though they probably do existnlrqm ; bonae . What separation implies in such a context is still to be explored. What the present result hints at is the origin of linearity about which we comment in the final section.

## II Separation

At time $`t`$ an $`n`$-particle wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ depends on the positions $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ of each particle, where each $`x_i^d`$, $`d`$ being the dimension of space, and on $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_n`$ where each $`A_i`$ is an index denoting the internal degrees of freedom of each particle. Initially we assume the $`n`$ particles to always belong to different species and so no permutation symmetry property is assumed of the wave-function. We use the symbol $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)`$ as labelling the species of the particle. For initial notational ease we shall combine the internal degrees of freedom index $`A_i`$ with the position $`x_i`$ into a single symbol $`\xi _i=(x_i,A_i)`$ and denote the $`n`$-tuple of such by $`\xi `$. Thus we denote an $`n`$-particle wave function at time $`t`$ by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,t)`$.

We assume that the evolution from time $`t_1`$ to time $`t_2`$ of the state corresponding to the ray with representative wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,t_1)`$ can be expressed by a not necessarily linear evolution operator $`E_s(t_2,t_1)`$ applied to the wave-function, that is:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,t_2)=(E_s(t_2,t_1)\mathrm{\Psi })(\xi ,t_1).$$

The simple tensor product of an $`n`$\- and an $`m`$-particle wave function is defined as

$$(\varphi \psi )(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n,\xi _{n+1},\mathrm{},\xi _{n+m})=\varphi (\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)\psi (\xi _{n+1},\mathrm{},\xi _{n+m}).$$
(1)
The separation property for the simple tensor product now reads:

$$E_s(t_2,t_1)(\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2)=E_{s_1}(t_2,t_1)(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)E_{s_2}(t_2,t_1)(\mathrm{\Psi }_2),$$
(2)
where the species index $`s`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the concatenation of the species indices $`s_i`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$. Strictly speaking, since states correspond to rays and not vectors, the right-hand side should be multiplied by a complex number $`\gamma (t_2,t_1,s_1,s_2,\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2)`$. To our knowledge, a full analysis of the possibility of such a factor has not been carried out. For the rest of this paper we shall assume that $`\gamma =1`$, the general assumption in the literature.

Now, the world is made of bosons and fermions and one should reconsider the separation property when one is dealing with a single species of identical particles. The separation property (2) must then be reformulated with respect to the symmetric or anti-symmetric tensor product $`\varphi \widehat{}\psi `$ which is the right-hand side of (1) symmetrized or anti-symmetrized according to either bose or fermi statistics:

$$(\varphi \widehat{}\psi )(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n,\xi _{n+1},\mathrm{},\xi _{n+m})=\frac{n!m!}{(n+m)!}\underset{}{}(1)^{fp()}\varphi (\xi _{i_1},\mathrm{},\xi _{i_n})\psi (\xi _{j_1},\mathrm{},\xi _{j_m}),$$
(3)
where $`=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ are $`n`$ numbers from $`\{1,\mathrm{},n+m\}`$, in ascending order, $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_m)`$ the complementary numbers, also in ascending order, $`f`$ is the Fermi number $`0`$ for bosons and $`1`$ for fermions, and $`p()`$ is the parity ($`0`$ for even and $`1`$ for odd) of the permutation $`(1,\mathrm{},n+m)(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n,j_1,\mathrm{},j_m)`$. We have taken into account that both $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are either symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to permutations of their arguments. The normalizing factor makes the product associative and the map $`\varphi \psi \varphi \widehat{}\psi `$ into a projection. For the identical particle case, the species symbol $`s`$ reduces just to the particle number $`n`$.

If we pass to the generators of the evolution operators

$$H_s(t)=\frac{1}{i}\frac{}{t_2}E_s(t_2,t_1)|_{t_2=t_1=t}$$

then the separation property (2) (under the assumption that $`\gamma =1`$) becomes:

$$H_s(\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2)=H_{s_1}(\mathrm{\Psi }_1)\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\mathrm{\Psi }_1H_{s_2}(\mathrm{\Psi }_2),$$
(4)
where for notational simplicity we have suppressed indicating the $`t`$ dependence of the $`H`$’s. This relation (which we called tensor derivation) was fully analyzed in SVETLICHNY:GS . Canonical decompositions and constructions were also presented.

An (anti-)symmetric tensor derivation would be a hierarchy of operators $`H_n`$ that satisfies (4) with $`\widehat{}`$ instead of $``$. One does not have a classification of these as one has for ordinary tensor derivations as given in SVETLICHNY:GS . It seems that the conditions to be a tensor derivation in the (anti-)symmetric case is rather stringent, and as we shall now see, in the case of differential operators, implies linearity.

It now becomes convenient to disentangle the space-coordinate $`x`$ and the internal degree of freedom index $`A`$. Our one-particle wave function will thus be denoted by $`\psi ^A(x)`$ with the index as a superscript for convenience. Multi-particle wave function will carry multiple indices in the usual way. The possibly non-linear operators of the tensor derivation will be assumed to depend on the real and imaginary parts of the wave function in an independent fashion, though, to simplify notation, this is not denoted explicitly. Likewise, for notational ease, internal degree of freedom indices will be suppressed when no confusion can arise.

We shall use a multi-index notation for partial derivatives. Given a function $`u(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ and $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ an $`n`$-tuple of non-negative integers, we denote by $`|I|`$ the sum $`i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n`$ and by $`u_I`$ the partial derivative

$$_Iu=\frac{^{|I|}u}{x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}}.$$

For the case of a function $`u(x,y)`$ of two variables we write $`u_{I,J}`$ for $`I`$ differentiations with respect to $`x`$, and $`J`$ with respect to $`y`$.

Let us consider possibly nonlinear differential operators of any order (dependence on time can be construed as simply dependence on a parameter). Such a two-particle operator has the form $`H(x,y,\varphi _{I,J}^{AB}(x,y))`$. Introducing variable names for the arguments of $`H`$, we write $`H(x,y,a_{I,J}^{AB})`$. When $`\varphi `$ is constrained to be an (anti-)symmetrized product

$$\varphi ^{AB}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^A(x)\beta ^B(y)+(1)^f\beta ^A(x)\alpha ^B(y)),$$

then the arguments of $`H`$ are constrained to take on values of the form.

$$a_{I,J}^{AB}=\frac{1}{2}(\alpha _I^A\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J^B+(1)^f\beta _I^A\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_J^B).$$
(5)
Here quantities without the tilde are derivatives evaluated at $`x`$ and those with, at $`y`$. The quantities on the right-hand sides: $`\alpha _I^A,\beta _I^A,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_J^B,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J^B`$, which we shall call the $`\alpha \beta `$-quantities, can be given, by Borel’s lemma, arbitrary complex values by an appropriate choice of the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ and functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Denote the right-hand sides of the above equations by $`\widehat{a}_{I,J}^{AB}`$.

The separability condition for the symmetrized tensor product now reads:

$$2H_2^{AB}(x,y,\widehat{a}_{I,J})=H_1^A(x,\alpha _I)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^B+\alpha _0^AH_1^B(y,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J)+(1)^fH_1^A(x,\beta _I)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0^B+(1)^f\beta _0^AH_1^B(y,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_J).$$
(6)
Now we come to the main point: in the space of the $`\alpha \beta `$-quantities there are flows that leave $`\widehat{a}_{I,J}`$ invariant, and so must leave the right-hand side of (6) invariant. This leads to linearity.

## III Proof of linearity

One easily sees that the following transformations leave the $`\alpha \beta `$-quantities invariant:

$`\alpha _I^As\alpha _I^A,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J^Bs^1\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J^B;`$
$`\alpha _I^A\alpha _I^A+s\beta _I^A,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_J^B\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_J^Bs(1)^f\stackrel{~}{\beta }_J^B;`$ (7)
and the same with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ interchanged. Symmetry (7) is enough to force linearity.

Note that $`s`$ is a complex parameter, which means that the real and imaginary parts of the quantities undergo separate transformations. As a result, the right-hand side of (6) has to be annihilated by the vector field corresponding to (7):

$$\underset{C,I}{}\left(\beta _I^C\frac{}{\alpha _I^C}(1)^f\stackrel{~}{\beta }_I^C\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_I^C}\right),$$
(8)
where by $`/\alpha _I^C`$ we mean the usual convention $`(1/2)\left(/\text{Re}\alpha _I^Ci/\text{Im}\alpha _I^C\right)`$ and similarly for the other partial derivative.

Applying now (8) to the right-hand side of (6), we get:

$$\left[\underset{C,I}{}\beta _I^C\frac{H_1^A}{\alpha _I^C}(x,\alpha )H_1^A(x,\beta )\right]\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^B\beta _0^A\left[\underset{C,I}{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_I^C\frac{H_1^B}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_I^C}(y,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })H_1(y,\stackrel{~}{\beta })\right]=0.$$

Now the $`\alpha \beta `$-quantities can be chosen arbitrarily and generically we have $`\beta _0^A0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^B0`$ for all $`A`$ and $`B`$ and so generically

$$\frac{1}{\beta _0^A}\left[\underset{C,I}{}\beta _I^C\frac{H_1^A}{\alpha _I^C}(x,\alpha )H_1^A(x,\beta )\right]=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^B}\left[\underset{C,I}{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_I^C\frac{H_1^B}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_I^C}(y,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })H_1(y,\stackrel{~}{\beta })\right].$$

Since both sides depend on different sets of variables, each side is a constant $`k`$ and we now have:

$$\underset{C,I}{}\beta _I^C\frac{H_1^A}{\alpha _I^C}(x,\alpha )H_1^A(x,\beta )=k\beta _0^A.$$

Fixing $`\alpha `$ this equation states that $`H_1(x,\beta )`$ is a linear function of $`\beta `$ with coefficients depending on $`x`$. We have thus shown:

Lemma: In an (anti-)symmetric tensor derivation in which the one-particle and two-particle operators are differential, the one-particle operator is necessarily linear.

To show the whole hierarchy is linear we procede as in SK . An $`N`$-particle wave-function for particles in $`^d`$ can be viewed as a one-particle wave-function for particles (call them conglomerate particles) in $`^{Nd}`$. Consider the separating property for a $`2N`$-particle operator acting on an (anti-)symmetrized tensor product of two $`N`$-particle wave-functions, reinterpreted now as a separating property for operators acting on the wave-functions of two and one conglomerate particles. The only difference in relation to what we have already done, is the permutation symmetry of conglomerate particles. Let $`\varphi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ and $`\psi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_N)`$ be two properly (anti-)symmetric $`N`$-particle wave-functions. One has using the conventions of (3):

$$(\varphi \widehat{}\psi )^𝒜(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2N})=\frac{N!^2}{(2N)!}\underset{}{}(1)^{fp(I)}\varphi ^{𝒜_I}(x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_N})\psi ^{𝒜_J}(x_{j_1},\mathrm{},x_{j_N}),$$
(9)
where $`𝒜=(A_1,\mathrm{},A_{2N})`$, $`𝒜_I=(A_{i_1},\mathrm{},A_{i_N})`$, and $`𝒜_J=(A_{j_1},\mathrm{},A_{j_N})`$ are internal degree of freedom indices. For (9) the possible values that one can attribute to the wave-function and its derivatives at a point is now more complicated than that given by (5), but since by an appropriate choice of coordinates and an appeal to Borel’s lemma we can again use (5) as a particular case for two conglomerate particles, the only differences being the change of the combinatorial factor $`1/2`$ to $`N!^2/(2N)!`$ and the possibility that the factor $`(1)^f`$ may be absent even in the Fermi case. These differences are non-essential to the derivation, and repeating the argument presented above for the two-particle case we see that the operator for one conglomerate particle must be linear and so the $`N`$-particle operator must be linear. With this the whole hierarchy must be linear. We thus have:

Theorem: An (anti-)symmetric tensor derivation in which all multiparticle operators are differential, is necessarily linear.

## IV Comments on the origin of quantum linearity

Our view on quantum-mechanical linearity is that it is an emergent feature of the world that arises along with the manifold structure of space-time from some more fundamental pre-geometric reality. Thus questions of (non)linearity should be joined with the general quantum gravity program. Previous clues in this direction are provided by (1) the apparent connections between linearity and the causal structure of space-timesvetBG ; cover  and by (2) the difficulty of incorporating internal degrees of freedom, such as spin, in separating non-linear theories, requiring new multi-particle effects at every particle numbertandor . We consider the present result as another such clue, linking linearity to the statistics of identical particles and the possibility of independently evolving systems.

The emergent view of linearity is also supported by the present extremely small experimental bounds on possible non-linear effects, the suppression factor being about $`10^{20}`$nlexp1 . If linearity is emergent, experimental evidence would be hard to come by. There is however the possibility that ultra-high-energy cosmic rays actually do probe the hypothetically non-linear pre-geometric regimecosmicrays . The possible role of non-linearities on the Planck scale has also been considered by T. P. Singhsingh , and by N. E. Mavromatos and R. J. Szabomavsz .

### Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Scientífico e Tecnológico (CNPq).


text:
# A Model for Long Term Climate Change

## 1 Introduction

In the Northern Hemisphere,the last glaciation took place 18,000 years ago. The ice layer was several kilometers thick.It covered up to the middle of US and Europe and right up to Paris.Infact the current situation is one in which the continental ice extends only up to Greenland and this was established 10,000 years ago.That is, the earth has in a few thousand years undergone a tremendous transition between two completely different states in a very short span of time– geologically speaking. The earth can be seen as a point object in space receiving solar radiation and emitting infra-red radiation back into space.We consider the only important state variable,the mean temperature T,with respect to time given by the heat balance equation

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=\frac{1}{C}(Q(1a(T))\epsilon _B\sigma T^4)$$
(1)
$`\sigma `$ ,the Stefan constant $`\epsilon _B`$, emissivity factor, C, the heat capacity of the system Q the Solar Constant and a, the albedo,which expresses the part of solar radiation emitted back into space. The equation (1) admits two steady states $`T_a`$,$`T_b`$, $`T_a`$, being the present day climate and $`T_b`$, the glaciation time. A third state $`T_0`$ is unstable and separates the above two stable states. As is well known,in systems involving only one variable,U the kinetic potential is given by

$$U=𝑑xF(x)$$

In the present case, the kinetic potential U(T) is given by

$$U(T)=\frac{1}{C}𝑑T(Q(1a(T))ϵ_B\sigma T^4)$$
(2)
Now climatic systems like any other physical system are continuously subject to statistical fluctuations,the random deviation from deterministic behavior. We include the effect of the fluctuations in a random force F(t).The energy balance equation ,(1),and (2) now become a stochastic differential equation of the form

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=\frac{U(T)}{T}+F(T)$$
(3)
The important new element introduced by this enlarged description is that different states become connected through the fluctuation.That is ,starting from some initial state the system will reach any other state,sooner or later.This is true for the stable states $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ ,taken as initial states,which become some sort of meta-stable states.
The time scale of this phenomenon is determined by two factors:the potential barrier

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{a,b}=U(T_0)U(T_{a,b})$$

and the strength of the fluctuations as measured by the variance ,$`q^2`$ of F(t)in (3).
The mean transition time from state $`T_a`$ or $`T_b`$ via the unstable state $`T_0`$ is given by

$$T_{a,b}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U_{a,b}}{q^2}}$$
(4)
## 2 The Model

We will now model the above situation in terms of a Quantum Mechanical two state system.In the Quantum Mechanical world a two state system could be represented by the equations

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dC_1}{dt}=H_{11}C_1+H_{12}C_2$$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dC_2}{dt}=H_{21}C_1+H_{22}C_2$$
(5)
where the coefficients $`H_{ij}`$ are the Hamiltonian matrix and C is given by the vector,

$$C(C_1,C_2)$$

We now identify C with T and its two states $`T_a`$ and $`T_b`$ and write

$$C(C_1,C_2)(T_a,T_b)T$$

This reduces (5) to

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dT}{dt}=HT$$
(6)
where H is the 2x2 matrix. Taking $`\overline{t}`$ =$`\frac{t}{i\mathrm{}}`$ reduces (6) to

$$\frac{dT}{d\overline{t}}=HT$$
(7)
Reverting back to equation(3) and replacing t with T we have

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=\frac{U(T)}{t}+F(t)$$

Taking

$$\frac{U(T)}{t}+F(t)=H(T),\text{we get}$$

$$\frac{dT}{dt}=HT$$
(8)
(8) is identical to (7).We note that from Quantum Mechanical Theory,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}}{H}$$
(9)
To proceed further and establish the correspondence fully,we now observe $`H_{12}`$=$`H_{21}`$ is proportional to the transition probability of $`C_1`$ to $`C_2`$ i e., $`T_a`$ to $`T_b`$ In fact

$$H_{12}\alpha e^{U/kT}$$

So the transition time in Quantum Theory is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t\alpha \frac{1}{H}\alpha e^{U/kT}$$
(10)
(10) can be identified with equation (4). This establishes the required result.
The reduction of the Climate problem to the analogous Quantum Mechanical problem has interesting consequences which need to be studied further.This is all the more so because in recent years “Scaled” Quantum effects have been studied in macroscopic systems and even a Bode-Titius type relation for planetary distances has been deduced on the basis of “quantized” energy levels.


text:
# Analysis of finite temperature phase transition using level spacing Work supported in part by US DOE grants DE-FG0201ER41165 (HN) , DE-AC02-98CH10886 (FB), NSF grant PHY-0300065 (RN) and Jefferson Lab (RN).

## Abstract

Let $`B`$ be the largest spacing between adjacent eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop. We propose to employ the distribution of $`B`$ as an order parameter for the finite temperature phase transition in $`SU(N)`$ lattice gauge theories. Using smeared links to reduce ultraviolet fluctuations, we carry out a test for the gauge group $`SU(3)`$.

The lattice regulator is a powerful non-perturbative framework to study the thermal properties of gauge theories. Polyakov loops provide a useful order parameter for the study of the finite temperature confinement-deconfinement phase transition of non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories. Polyakov loops are not properly renormalized quantities and in four dimensions are strongly affected by ultra-violet fluctuations. It is well known that in the continuum limit at fixed temperature the expectation value of an unrenormalized Polyakov loop vanishes even in the deconfined phase, due to divergent self-energy contributions to the free energy.

For $`N3`$, a lattice theory with Wilson action undergoes a bulk cross-over, separating the lattice strong- and weak-coupling regimes . The bulk cross-over is characterized by a steep increase in the average plaquette value and occurs at a fixed lattice coupling $`\beta _B`$. This steep increase occurs when the probability of $`1\times 1`$ Wilson loops to have eigenvalues near $`1`$ decreases dramatically (for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ a true gap opens up). For $`N5`$ the cross-over becomes a discontinuity and there is a phase transition, but no symmetry breaks and there is no continuum counterpart to this transition. However, the bulk cross-over can affect the finite temperature transition  on coarse lattices.

The Polyakov loop $`L`$ is the parallel transporter around a closed loop in the “temperature” direction and gets multiplied by a $`Z_N`$ phase under certain action preserving changes of link variables in the path integral. In the confined regime (the disordered phase of a gauge theory) the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loops are randomly distributed over the unit circle. At some critical $`\beta _c`$ the $`Z_N`$ symmetry gets broken and the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop favor one of the $`N`$ roots of unity on the unit circle. $`\beta _c`$ scales with $`N_t`$, the length of the lattice in the temperature direction. In order to describe the physical finite temperature transition it is necessary to have $`\beta _c>\beta _B`$. In our $`SU(3)`$ simulations the plaquette distribution already had an apparent gap for $`N_t=4`$ over the whole range of $`\beta `$ that we studied as seen in Fig. 1.

Let the gauge invariant eigenvalues of a given Polyakov loop $`L`$ be $`e^{i\theta _j}(j=1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$, $`\pi \theta _1<\theta _2<\mathrm{}<\theta _N<\pi `$. The maximal level spacing $`B`$ is defined as $`\text{max}\{2\pi \theta _N+\theta _1,\theta _N\theta _{N1},\mathrm{},\theta _2\theta _1\}.`$

The distribution of $`B`$ changes through the finite temperature transition. It is neither affected by the particular location on the unit circle where the spectrum condenses, nor by tunneling between the different $`Z_N`$ vacua. If the eigenvalues $`\theta _j`$ are randomly distributed on the unit circle $`B`$ will be of order $`2\pi /N`$; when the Polyakov loops get ordered, the concentration of angles at one location creates an effective gap, increasing $`B`$. Random matrix theory can be used to describe the distribution of $`B`$ in the confined phase where it has one peak value. This is no longer true in the deconfined phase where the distribution tends to have two distinct peaks. The development of two peaks in the deconfined phase is signaled by the single peak distribution developing a more populated tail as one goes through the phase transition. Deep in the confined phase one can compute the average value of $`B`$ by averaging over a very large number of random matrices. In the case of $`SU(3)`$ we get $`B_{\text{random}}=0.9564(1)`$ and $`B_{\text{random}}0`$ for $`N\mathrm{}`$ in the case of $`SU(N)`$.

Following , we denote by $`\text{Re}(L)`$ the projection of the trace of $`L`$ onto the nearest $`Z_3`$ axis. The critical $`\beta _c`$ is generally determined by locating the peak in $`\chi _L=\text{Re}(L)\text{Re}(L)\text{Re}(L)\text{Re}(L).`$ Projection onto the nearest $`Z_N`$ works reasonably well for $`N=3`$ but can become a problem close to the transition for larger $`N`$. The observable $`B`$ does not suffer from such a problem since it is defined as the biggest level spacing without any reference to its location on the unit circle.

We performed various Monte Carlo simulations to study the finite temperature transition using the standard Wilson gauge action. A generic $`SU(N)`$ gauge fields update was implemented, even though the present results are restricted to $`SU(3)`$. We used the heat-bath algorithm following Creutz-Kennedy-Pendleton , where the update of one link corresponds to updates by all the $`N(N1)/2`$ $`SU(2)`$ subgroups. In our Markov chain a step between two measurements consisted of one heat-bath sweep plus one over-relaxation sweep to avoid being trapped in a locally metastable state. Each over-relaxation update was done on the full $`SU(N)`$ group . We considered lattices with $`N_t=4`$ and $`L=12,16,24`$ and typically we collected at least $`15,000`$ measurements. The errors were estimated with the jack-knife method.

In order to suppress ultra-violet fluctuations we used APE smeared links following . We smeared both the time-like and the space-like links on the lattice in parallel and repeated the process $`N_t`$ times. Subsequently, we used the resulting links to compute the Polyakov loops. In Fig. (2) one can see that smeared links provide a largely enhanced signal in the Polyakov loop susceptibility.

The biggest level spacing turned out to be a good order parameter showing transitions consistent with traces of Polyakov loops as one can see in Fig. (3) (the horizontal line represents $`B_{\text{random}}`$, the limiting value as $`\beta 0`$). By studying $`\chi _B`$ in Fig. (4) we infer $`\beta _c=5.6925(25)`$ and this is consistent with . Both $`L=16`$ and $`L=24`$ show well defined peaks in $`\chi _B`$ and our estimate of $`\beta _c`$ was done without resorting to re-weighting and by working at relatively small volumes. The lack of monotonicity seen in Fig. (4) in the deconfined phase is due to the system being trapped into one of the $`Z_3`$ vacua for a long time during the measurement history.


text:
# Measurement of the 𝐶𝑃 Asymmetry in 𝐵→𝑋_𝑠𝛾

on leave from \]Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510 on leave from \]Nova Gorica Polytechnic, Nova Gorica The Belle Collaboration

## Abstract

Direct $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ violation in the $`bs\gamma `$ process is a sensitive probe of physics beyond the Standard Model. We report a measurement of the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry in $`BX_s\gamma `$, where the hadronic recoil system $`X_s`$ is reconstructed using a pseudo-reconstruction technique. In this approach there is negligible contamination from $`bd\gamma `$ decays, which are expected to have a much larger $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry. We find $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}=0.002\pm 0.050\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.030\text{(syst.)}`$ for $`BX_s\gamma `$ events having recoil mass smaller than $`2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The analysis is based on a data sample of $`140\mathrm{fb}^1`$ recorded at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring.

preprint: Belle Preprint 2004-12preprint: KEK Preprint 2004-6

Radiative $`B`$ decays, which proceed mainly through the $`bs\gamma `$ process, have played an important role in the search for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). The inclusive branching fraction has been measured by CLEO Chen:2001fj , ALEPH Barate:1998vz  and Belle Abe:2001hk , giving results consistent with the recent theoretical prediction of $`(3.57\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ Buras:2002tp . The SM predicts very small direct $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ violation in $`bs\gamma `$; the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry,

$$A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}(bs\gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(bs\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{b}\overline{s}\gamma )},$$

is about $`+0.5\%`$ in the SM, while some new physics, such as supersymmetry, allows the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry to be above $`10\%`$ without changing the inclusive branching fraction ACP-predictions . Thus, measurement of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ may provide information on new physics that cannot be extracted from the measurement of the branching fraction. Previously, CLEO measured $`0.27<0.965A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}(bs\gamma )+0.02A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}(bd\gamma )<0.10`$ at $`90\%`$ confidence level Coan:2000pu ; however $`bd\gamma `$ is expected to cancel the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry in $`bs\gamma `$ Akeroyd:2001gf . The measurement presented here has negligible $`bd\gamma `$ contamination.

In this paper, we report on a measurement of the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry in $`BX_s\gamma `$, where the hadronic recoil system $`X_s`$ is reconstructed using a pseudo-reconstruction technique. The analysis is based on $`140\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of data taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (on-resonance) and $`15\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at an energy $`60\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the resonance (off-resonance), which was recorded by the Belle detector Mori:2000cg  at the KEKB asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider ($`3.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ on $`8\mathrm{GeV}`$KEKB:NIM . The on-resonance data correspond to $`152`$ million $`B\overline{B}`$ events. The Belle detector has a three-layer silicon vertex detector, a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of aerogel Cherenkov counters (ACC), time-of-flight scintillation counters (TOF) and an electromagnetic calorimeter of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An instrumented iron flux-return for $`K_L`$/$`\mu `$ detection is located outside the coil.

We form the hadronic recoil system, $`X_s`$, with a mass up to $`2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, by combining one charged or neutral kaon with one to four pions, where at most one pion can be neutral. We also reconstruct $`X_s`$ via $`K^\pm K^{}K^\pm (\pi ^{})`$ and $`K_S^0K^\pm K^{}(\pi ^\pm )`$ including the $`BK\varphi \gamma `$ decays that were observed recently by Belle Drutskoy:2003xh .

Each of the primary charged tracks is required to have a momentum in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass (CM) frame that is greater than $`100\mathrm{MeV}/c`$, and to have an impact parameter within $`\pm 5\mathrm{cm}`$ of the interaction point along the positron beam axis and within $`0.5\mathrm{cm}`$ in the transverse plane. These tracks are identified as pion or kaon candidates according to a likelihood ratio based on the light yield in the ACC, the TOF information and the specific ionization measurements in the CDC. For the selection applied on the likelihood ratio, we obtain an efficiency (pion misidentification probability) of $`90\%`$ ($`7\%`$) for charged kaon candidates, and an efficiency (kaon misidentification probability) of $`93\%`$ ($`7\%`$) for charged pion candidates. Tracks that are identified as an electron or muon are excluded.

$`K_S^0`$ candidates are formed from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ combinations whose invariant mass is within $`8\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal $`K_S^0`$ mass. The two pions are required to have a common vertex that is displaced from the interaction point. The $`K_S^0`$ momentum direction is also required to be consistent with the $`K_S^0`$ flight direction. Neutral pion candidates are formed from pairs of photons that have an invariant mass within $`16\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass and an opening angle smaller than $`60^{}`$. Each photon is required to have an energy greater than $`50\mathrm{MeV}`$. A mass constrained fit is then performed to obtain the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum.

The $`B`$ meson candidates are reconstructed from the $`X_s`$ system and the highest energy photon with a CM energy between $`1.8`$ and $`3.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ within the acceptance of the barrel ECL ($`33^{}<\theta _\gamma <128^{}`$, where $`\theta _\gamma `$ is the polar angle of the photon in the laboratory frame). In order to reduce the background from decays of $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ mesons, we combine the photon candidate with all other photons in the event and reject the event if the invariant mass of any pair is within $`18\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ ($`32\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$) of the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ ($`\eta `$) mass.

We use two independent kinematic variables for the $`B`$ reconstruction: the beam-energy constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}\sqrt{\left(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{}/c^2\right)^2(|\stackrel{}{p}_{X_s}^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma ^{}|/c)^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_{X_s}^{}+E_\gamma ^{}E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{}`$ is the beam energy, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma ^{}`$, $`E_\gamma ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_{X_s}^{}`$, $`E_{X_s}^{}`$ are the momenta and energies of the photon and the $`X_s`$ system, respectively, calculated in the CM frame. In the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ calculation, the photon momentum is rescaled so that $`|\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma ^{}|=(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{}E_{X_s}^{})/c`$ is satisfied; this improves the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ resolution to $`2.9\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. We require $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.24\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`150\mathrm{MeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }E<80\mathrm{MeV}`$. We define the signal region to be $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}>5.27\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

The largest source of background originates from continuum $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ ($`q=u,d,s,c`$) production including contributions from initial state radiation ($`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}\gamma `$). In order to suppress this background, we require the presence of a high energy lepton from the opposite $`B`$. The lepton can be either an electron with a CM momentum greater than $`0.8\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ or a muon with a laboratory momentum greater than $`1.0\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. In both cases, the opening angle $`\theta _\mathrm{}\gamma ^{}`$ between the high energy photon from the signal $`B`$ meson and the lepton, calculated in the CM frame, must satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{}\gamma ^{}|<0.8`$. In addition to this lepton requirement, we use the likelihood ratio described in Ref. Nishida:2002me , which utilizes the information from a Fisher discriminant Fisher:1936et  formed from six modified Fox-Wolfram moments Fox:1978vu  and the cosine of the angle between the $`B`$ meson flight direction and the beam axis. The lepton requirement (likelihood ratio selection) retains $`15\%`$ ($`92\%`$) of the signal, rejecting $`98.5\%`$ ($`55\%`$) of the $`q\overline{q}`$ background.

When multiple $`B`$ candidates are found in the same event, we take the candidate that gives the highest confidence level when we fit the $`X_s`$ decay vertex, constrained to the profile of the measured interaction region. The confidence level for the $`K_S^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ mode is set to zero, because we do not determine the vertex. If multiple $`B`$ candidates appear in an event according to the inclusion or omission of different $`\pi ^0`$ mesons in the $`X_s`$ recoil system, we take the candidate that has the minimum $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$.

We fit the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution to extract the signal yield. The $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution of the $`q\overline{q}`$ background is modeled by an ARGUS function Albrecht:1990am  whose shape is determined from the off-resonance data. (The lepton requirement is not applied to the off-resonance data in order to compensate for the limited amount of data in that sample.) Background from $`B`$ decay is divided into two components. $`B`$ decays through $`bc`$ transitions (except color-suppressed $`B`$ decays such as $`B^0\overline{D}^0\pi ^0`$), which we call $`B\overline{B}`$ background in this paper, have a non-peaking $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution which is modeled by another ARGUS function. Rare $`B`$ decays, i.e. $`B`$ decays through $`bs`$ and $`bu`$ transitions (charmless $`B`$ decay) and color-suppressed $`B`$ decays, are not negligible and have peaks at the $`B`$ mass in the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution. The sum of these distributions is modeled by a Gaussian plus an ARGUS function. The shape of the distributions is determined by a corresponding Monte Carlo (MC) sample.

The $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution of the signal component is also modeled by the sum of a Gaussian and an ARGUS function. All parameters are determined from the $`BX_s\gamma `$ signal MC simulation, except that the mean of the Gaussian is extracted from a fit to $`BD\pi `$ decays, described below. Our nominal signal MC contains a $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ component and an inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ component with $`M_{X_s}>1.15\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The ratio of the two components is based on the branching fraction for $`BK^{}(892)\gamma `$ measured by Belle Belle:kstgamma  and the PDG value of $`(BX_s\gamma )`$ Hagiwara:2002pw . The $`X_s`$ system of $`bs\gamma `$ is modeled as an equal mixture of $`s\overline{d}`$ and $`s\overline{u}`$ quark pairs, and is hadronized using JETSET Sjostrand:1994yb . The $`M_{X_s}`$ spectrum is fitted to the model by Kagan and Neubert Kagan:1998ym  with the $`b`$ quark mass parameter $`m_b=4.75\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

Before discussing the extraction of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$, we elaborate on the signal modeling. We create alternative signal MC samples in which the $`K^{}(892)\gamma `$ fraction is varied by $`\pm 1\sigma `$ or the $`b`$ quark mass parameter is varied by $`\pm 0.15\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. We account for the uncertainty in the hadronization process by preparing an alternate MC sample wherein $`B`$ candidates with $`M_{X_s}>1.15\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ are selected or discarded at random to match the fractions of such candidates observed in the data having between one and four pions. We prepare other such samples wherein the proportion of selected $`B`$ candidates without a neutral kaon or pion matched the value seen in data; the correction is modest for all modes except $`K\pi \gamma `$ (which contributes $`32\%`$ in the MC but $`12\%`$ after correction). The systematic error estimate based on these samples is described below.

In the pseudo-reconstruction analysis of $`BX_s\gamma `$, the flavor of the $`B`$ meson is “self-tagged” when the net charge of the $`X_s`$ system is non-zero or the $`X_s`$ system contains an odd number of charged kaons. Otherwise the flavor is “ambiguous.” Because we have three possibilities for the flavor tag, there are three ways to tag the flavor incorrectly: $`w_1`$ is the probability of classifying a self-tagged event as a self-tagged event of the opposite flavor; $`w_2`$ is the probability to classify an ambiguous event as self-tagged; $`w_3`$ is the probability to classify a taggable event as ambiguous. For example, $`w_2`$ refers to the case when a $`B^0K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ event is tagged as a $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ event, and $`w_3`$ refers to the case when a $`B^+K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ event is tagged as a $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. The effect of the flavor dependence of the wrong tag fractions is negligibly small, and is included in the systematic error from the $`BD\pi `$ study described later.

The formula to calculate $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ is then $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}=DA_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}^{\mathrm{raw}}`$ with the dilution factor $`D=(1w_2w_3)/[(1w_2)(12w_1w_3)]`$ and the raw asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}^{\mathrm{raw}}=(N_{}N_+)/[N_{}+N_+(w_2/(1w_2))N_0]`$, where $`N_{}`$ ($`N_+`$) is the number of events tagged as originating from a $`b`$ ($`\overline{b}`$) quark, and $`N_0`$ is the number of events classified as ambiguous.

The three wrong tag fractions are estimated using signal MC, and thus are model dependent. We calculate the wrong tag fractions for the collection of signal MC samples described earlier, and extract the systematic errors in the wrong tag fractions from the changes in $`w_i`$ as the model is changed. We find $`w_1=0.0206\pm 0.0027`$, $`w_2=0.248\pm 0.020`$ and $`w_3=0.0067\pm 0.0013`$, resulting in a dilution factor of $`D=1.041\pm 0.006`$.

Figure 1 shows the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distributions for events that are classified as $`b`$-tagged, $`\overline{b}`$-tagged and ambiguous, respectively. The distributions are fitted with signal, $`q\overline{q}`$, $`B\overline{B}`$ and rare $`B`$ components. We assume the shapes of the three components are common for $`b`$\- and $`\overline{b}`$-tagged classes, distinct from those for the ambiguous class. In the fit, the numbers of events from the $`B\overline{B}`$ and rare $`B`$ background in the signal region are fixed to be $`39.3`$ ($`9.2`$) and $`35.4`$ ($`3.3`$) for the common $`b`$\- and $`\overline{b}`$-tagged classes (ambiguous class) using the MC prediction, while the normalization of the $`q\overline{q}`$ component is allow to float. Signal yields are obtained by integrating the signal Gaussian and ARGUS functions in the signal region. We find the signal yield in each class to be $`N_{}=393.2\pm 25.9`$, $`N_+=392.0\pm 25.9`$ and $`N_0=52.8\pm 9.6`$, resulting in $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}=0.002\pm 0.050`$.

The systematic errors are studied using a $`BD\pi `$ control sample. $`D`$ mesons are reconstructed in the same final states as $`X_s`$ except for the final states to which $`D`$ cannot decay. Only a mild requirement on the invariant mass of the reconstructed $`D`$ mesons of less than $`1.9\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is applied, in order to allow cross-feeds between different $`D`$ decay channels. In the calculation of $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$, the primary pion momentum is rescaled in the same way as the photon in the $`BX_s\gamma `$ reconstruction.

In order to check the validity of the signal $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ shape obtained from MC, we compare the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution for $`BD\pi `$ data and MC. The data $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution is fitted with the sum of a Gaussian and an ARGUS function plus $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`B\overline{B}`$ distributions. The $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`B\overline{B}`$ distributions are obtained from off-resonance data and MC simulation, respectively, where each normalization is scaled according to the luminosity. From this procedure, we determine the mean of the Gaussian used to model the signal $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution. We find that the ratio of the Gaussian and ARGUS function agrees between data and MC within the statistical error of $`23\%`$.

The systematic error on $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ due to the fitting procedure is estimated by varying the value of each fixed parameter by $`\pm 1\sigma `$ and extracting new signal yields and $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ for each case. We assign an additional $`23\%`$ error obtained from $`BD\pi `$ to the ratio of the Gaussian and ARGUS function. The ratio is also varied separately for $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ to take into account the possible difference of sub-decay modes between $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$. We also use the signal shape parameters obtained from each of the signal MC samples described earlier and extract $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ for each case. We set the normalization of either the $`B\overline{B}`$ or rare $`B`$ backgrounds to zero and to twice its nominal value to account for its uncertainty. A $`50\%`$ error is assigned to the Gaussian width and to the ratio of the Gaussian and ARGUS function for the rare $`B`$ decays, to compensate for our limited knowledge of their branching fractions. The changes of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ for each procedure are added in quadrature, and are regarded as the systematic error. We obtain a systematic error of $`0.014`$ due to the fitting procedure.

The $`BD\pi `$ sample is also used to estimate the possible detector bias in $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$. We estimate $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ for $`BD\pi `$ using the same method as for $`BX_s\gamma `$. The flavor is determined from that of the $`D`$ candidate. From the MC study, we find the $`BD\pi `$ wrong tag fractions to be $`w_1=0.0314\pm 0.0039`$, $`w_2=0.285\pm 0.024`$, and $`w_3=0.0225\pm 0.0033`$, resulting in a dilution factor of $`D=1.059\pm 0.013`$. The signal yields are calculated by fitting the data $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ distribution with signal, $`q\overline{q}`$, and $`B\overline{B}`$ components with fixed $`B\overline{B}`$ normalization, and are found to be $`N_{}=2125\pm 60`$, $`N_+=2105\pm 60`$ and $`N_0=580\pm 30`$, resulting in a $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ “asymmetry” of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}=0.006\pm 0.022`$. We therefore assign $`0.022`$ as the systematic error due to detector bias.

In addition, we estimate the uncertainty due to possible asymmetries in charmless $`B`$ decays. We divide these decays into two groups: those for which $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ has been measured ($`BK^{}\eta `$, $`K\pi ^0`$ and $`K\rho `$), corresponding to about half of the selected charmless $`B`$ events; and all other decay modes. We assign an $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ of $`\pm 30\%`$ to the first group (corresponding to around 1$`\sigma `$ in each case), and $`\pm 100\%`$ to the second, assuming the signs of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ are correlated. The resulting contribution to the measured $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$, $`0.014`$, is taken as a systematic error.

The systematic error on $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ due to the uncertainty of the wrong tag fractions is found to be small. The contribution of the $`bd\gamma `$ process is negligible, because we require the existence of kaons in the final state. This is confirmed by examining MC samples of $`B\rho \gamma `$, $`\omega \gamma `$ and inclusive $`bd\gamma `$ process footnote:bdgamma ; we expect that the contribution of $`bd\gamma `$ to $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ is less than $`0.001`$. The total systematic error on $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ is then calculated to be $`0.030`$ by adding in quadrature the errors mentioned earlier.

In order to examine the $`M_{X_s}`$ dependence of $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$, we divide the data sample into six bins of measured $`M_{X_s}`$ and perform the $`M_{\mathrm{bc}}`$ fit for each bin. Figure 2 shows the $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ distribution as a function of $`M_{X_s}`$. Here, the systematic error due to the detector bias and possible $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry in charmless $`B`$ decays is not included in the error. We find that $`A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}`$ is consistent with zero for all $`M_{X_s}`$ values in the distribution. From our MC study, about $`2\%`$ of the events reconstructed with $`M_{X_s}<2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ are expected to have a true $`X_s`$ mass greater than $`2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

In conclusion, the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry of $`BX_s\gamma `$ for events with $`M_{X_s}<2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is measured to be

$$A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}(BX_s\gamma ;M_{X_s}<2.1\mathrm{GeV}/c^2)=0.002\pm 0.050\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.030\text{(syst.)},$$

consistent with no asymmetry. This corresponds to $`0.093<A_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}}<0.096`$ at the 90% confidence level, where we add the statistical and systematic errors in quadrature and assume Gaussian errors. The result can restrict the parameter space of new physics models that allow sizable $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑃}`$ asymmetry in $`bs\gamma `$ BabarACP .

We thank the KEKB group for the excellent operation of the accelerator, the KEK Cryogenics group for the efficient operation of the solenoid, and the KEK computer group and the NII for valuable computing and Super-SINET network support. We acknowledge support from MEXT and JSPS (Japan); ARC and DEST (Australia); NSFC (contract No. 10175071, China); DST (India); the BK21 program of MOEHRD and the CHEP SRC program of KOSEF (Korea); KBN (contract No. 2P03B 01324, Poland); MIST (Russia); MESS (Slovenia); NSC and MOE (Taiwan); and DOE (USA).