text:
# Pulse emission mechanisms

## 1. Introduction

Collectively, pulsars emit over essentially the entire electromagnetic spectrum. However, most pulsars are observed only in a relatively narrow range, $`100\mathrm{MHz}`$$`10\mathrm{GHz}`$. The basic properties determined for most pulsars are the period, $`P`$, and the period derivative, $`\dot{P}`$, which determine the magnetic field, $`B(P\dot{P})^{1/2}`$, the characteristic age $`P/2\dot{P}`$ and the spin-down power $`\dot{P}/P^3`$. Also available for most pulsars are the integrated pulse profile, the position angle of the linear polarization, which determines the inclination angle between the magnetic and rotational axes, and the dispersion measure, which provides an estimate of the distance to the pulsar. Based on the location in the $`P`$$`\dot{P}`$ plane, pulsars are classified as young ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^5\mathrm{yr}`$), old, recycled (or millisecond), or magnetar. It is remarkable that despite the large ranges in $`P`$, $`B`$, the variations in pulse profile between classes are similar to those within classes. This suggests that the radio emission mechanism cannot be sensitive to either $`P`$ or $`B`$. The source of the radio emission appears to be between inner and outer gaps, seemingly far from these sites where parallel electric fields are thought to accelerate primary particles and trigger pair cascades. Only a small fraction of radio pulsars are also observed at high energies, in the X-ray and gamma-ray ranges, which emissions should provide a direct signature of particle acceleration and pair creation. However, there remains a major uncertainty in the location of the source region, with both inner-gap and outer-gap models considered viable.

High-energy emission mechanism are summarized in section 2 and radio emission mechanisms are summarized in section 3. The identification of source regions is discussed in section 4.

## 2. High-energy emission mechanisms

The high-energy emission mechanisms that need to be considered for pulsars are synchrotron emission, curvature emission and inverse Compton emission (IC), all of which are relatively well known. A less familiar, resonant form of IC emission (RIC) is important.

A preliminary point is that in a relativistic quantum treatment, the energy of an electron has discrete values $`\epsilon _n=(m^2c^4+p_z^2c^2+2neBc^2\mathrm{})^{1/2}`$ where $`p_z`$ is the component of the momentum along the field lines, and $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ is the Landau quantum number. In a pulsar the lifetime of the excited states is very short, and all electrons quickly relax to their ground state, $`n=0`$.

Synchrotron emission occurs only if highly relativistic pairs are created with $`n1`$, corresponding to $`\gamma \mathrm{sin}\alpha 1`$, $`\gamma =\epsilon _n/mc^2`$, $`\alpha =`$ pitch angle. The emission is strongly concentrated around an angle $`\theta =\alpha `$, with a broad frequency spectrum peaked at $`\omega \omega _B\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, where $`\omega _B=eB/m`$ is the cyclotron frequency. The power radiated is $`(e^2\omega _B^2/6\pi \epsilon _0c)\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, and the radiation is highly linearly polarized, $`70\%`$, in the direction perpendicular to the projection of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky. For a power-law energy spectrum of radiating particles, $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^a`$, the intensity spectrum is a power law, $`I(\omega )\omega ^{(a+1)/2}`$.

Curvature emission by an individual electron with Lorentz factor $`\gamma 1`$ moving along ($`n=0`$) a magnetic field line with radius of curvature $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ is strongly concentrated around $`\theta =0`$, with a broad frequency spectrum peaked at $`\omega \omega _\mathrm{c}\gamma ^3`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{c}=c/R_\mathrm{c}`$. The power radiated is $`(e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}^2/6\pi \epsilon _0c)\gamma ^4`$, and the radiation is highly linearly polarized in the direction perpendicular to the plane containing the curved magnetic field line. For a power-law energy spectrum of radiating particles the intensity spectrum is a power law with index $`(a+2)/3`$.

IC emission is actually Thomson scattering by highly relativistic electrons. An initial photon with frequency $`\omega _0`$ is scattered into a final photon with frequency $`\omega \omega _0\gamma ^2`$ propagating nearly along the direction of the initial electron. The power radiated is $`\sigma _TcW_0\gamma ^2`$, where $`\sigma _T=(8\pi /c)(e^2/4\pi \epsilon _0mc^2)^2`$ is the Thomson cross section and $`W_0`$ is the energy density in the initial photons. The polarization has no characteristic value in general, and the spectrum is synchrotron-like. Relativistic quantum effects sharply reduce the cross section, from the Thomson to the Klein-Nishina value, for $`\omega _0mc^2/\gamma \mathrm{}`$.

RIC emission is Thomson scattering by highly relativistic electrons in a magnetic field such that the wave frequency, $`\omega _0`$, is near the relativistic cyclotron frequency, $`\omega _0\omega _B/\gamma `$. When this condition is satisfied, the Thomson cross section is greatly enhanced, by a factor $`\omega _0^2/(\omega _0^2\omega _B^2/\gamma ^2)`$ (Canuto, Lodenquai & Ruderman 1971) dependent on the polarization of the photon (Melrose & Sy 1972). The maximum enhancement factor is $`\omega _B^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the width of the cyclotron resonance. RIC involves scattering in which the initial and final state of the electron is $`n=0`$ and the (virtual) intermediate state is $`n=1`$. The relevant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the inverse lifetime of the first excited state (Herold 1979), which is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=e^2\omega _B^2/3\pi \epsilon _0mc^3\gamma `$. The importance of RIC in high-energy emission from pulsars was emphasized by Daugherty & Harding (1989) and Dermer (1990).

## 3. Models for high-energy emission

There are both inner-gap and outer-gap models for the high-energy emission, and there is no clear consensus on which type of model is to be preferred.

High-energy emission should provide a signature of acceleration and pair production in inner-gap models, provided a small fraction of high-energy photons escape. Recent inner-gap models (Zhang & Harding 2000, Hibschman & Arons 2001, Arendt & Eilek 2002) confirm the general features of earlier models, generally favoring a higher fraction of lower energy, $`\gamma \stackrel{<}{}100`$, pairs and pair creation extending to greater heights than earlier models. The efficiency of conversion of the energy in primary particles can be very high, when acceleration is radiation-reaction limited due to curvature emission losses. RIC emission off thermal photons from the surface of the neutron star can be particularly effective (Zhang & Harding 2000). Synchrotron emission from the secondary pairs can contribute to the observed high-energy emission, provided the magnetic field is not too strong. Existing models are not satisfactory for relatively strong fields for reasons discussed by Zhang & Harding (2000). Another effect that has not been included is that for $`B\stackrel{>}{}0.1`$$`0.2B_c`$ ($`B_c=4\times 10^9\mathrm{T}`$), the secondary pairs are created predominantly in their ground state (Weise & Melrose 2002) or as bound pairs (Usov & Melrose 1996), in which cases synchrotron emission is absent.

Outer-gap models (e.g, Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986) involve particle acceleration, high-energy emission and pair production in an outer gap, relatively near the light cylinder. Some of the relevant parameters in the outer gap are quite different from the inner gap: $`B`$ is much weaker, $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ is much larger, and the density of thermal photons from the surface of the star is much lower. Emission of photons with a given energy due to synchrotron emission or curvature emission requires particles with a much higher $`\gamma `$ in the outer gap compared with the inner gap. The low density of thermal photons implies that they are unimportant as targets for IC emission. Romani (1996) compared the contributions to the high-energy emission due to the various processes for a particular choice of parameters, as illustrated in figure 1. Qualitative arguments in favor of outer-gap models are that they lead naturally to the double-peaked profiles of the form observed in some sources, and imply harder spectra from older, more efficient pulsars (Romani 1996). The sensitivity of the models to various parameters, notably $`B`$ and the inclination angle between rotation and magnetic axes, provides scope for accounting for most of the observed features of high-energy emission from individual pulsars.

The properties of inner-gap and outer-gap models (Cheng & Zhang 1999) were compared by Zhang & Harding (2000), concentrating on X-ray emission. Qualitatively, nonthermal X-ray emission in inner-gap models is attributed to RIC emission due to upward-propagating pairs, and in outer-gap models it is attributed to synchrotron emission by downward propagating pairs. Thermal X-ray emission from polar-cap heating is determined by the energy flux of secondary pairs incident on the polar cap, heating it, and this flux is different in the different models. However, these and other differences have yet to provide definitive arguments that distinguish between the two types of model.

The uncertainty as to whether the source region is in the inner-gap or the outer-gap, or even in the wind (Kirk, Skæraasen & Gallant 2002), is likely to be resolved only when more detailed observational data on the high-energy emission becomes available. A hint as to how a partial resolution might arise is through an obscuring of the distinction between inner and outer gaps. Inefficient screening of the accelerating electric field (e.g., Hibschman & Arons 2001) allows pair production and high-energy emission from an inner gap to extend to greater heights than previously thought, and the dependence of the location of the outer gap on the global current (Hirotani & Shibata 2001) allows pair production and high-energy emission from an outer gap to occur at lower heights than previously thought. It may be that acceleration and pair production occur at a significant level over a wide range of heights.

## 4. Radio emission mechanisms

Amongst the many pulsar radio emission mechanisms that have been proposed, only those that involve some form of plasma instability or maser action are mentioned here. There are at least five distinct instability or maser mechanisms currently under consideration. The two most favorable of these are discussed here: a form of maser curvature emission and relativistic plasma emission (beam-driven Cerenkov instability). The other three are described more briefly.

Maser curvature emission: Although initially thought impossible (Blandford 1975; Melrose 1978), maser curvature emission is possible when either curvature-drift (Luo & Melrose 1992) or field line torsion (Luo & Melrose 1995) are taken into the account. There are two unfavorable features of curvature-drift-driven maser. First, it is sensitive to $`B`$, and so cannot plausibly be applied to all classes of pulsars. Second, maser emission is possible only for Lorentz factors above a relatively high threshold, $`\gamma \stackrel{>}{}10^4`$. However, like all relevant instability mechanisms, growth requires that the particle distribution function be an increasing functions of Lorentz factor, $`df(\gamma )/d\gamma >0`$, and this condition is satisfied only for $`\gamma \stackrel{<}{}100`$ in current models for pair cascades (Hibschman & Arons 2001; Arendt & Eilek 2002). The torsion-driven maser requires that the field line not be confined to a plane, so that it has two different radii of curvature in orthogonal directions. There are two possible sources of torsion. One is rotation, which causes a sweeping back of the field lines. This is significant only near the light cylinder. The other is a non-dipolar component of the field, which tends to produce torsion in the inner magnetosphere. For example, a quadrupolar component would provide torsion in general, with the ratio of the radii of curvature increasing linearly with radial distance from the center of the star. Like the curvature-drift-driven maser, growth is possible only above a minimum $`\gamma `$, but in this case the threshold, $`\gamma \stackrel{>}{}40`$ (Luo & Melrose 1995), is compatible with $`df(\gamma )/d\gamma >0`$ from pair cascade models.

A strong argument in favor of torsion-driven maser curvature emission is that the mechanism depends sensitively only on the primary radius of curvature, and is not particularly sensitive to the ratio of the radii of curvature. Hence the properties of the emission is determined by the dipolar component of the magnetic field, which is plausibly similar in all pulsars. As a consequence, the mechanism can account naturally for the remarkable similarity in the frequency range for radio emission from all classes of pulsars. Another argument in favor of the mechanism is that growth occurs only in one linear polarization (that orthogonal to the dominant polarization in incoherent curvature emission), and this is consistent with observational evidence on the plane of polarization (Radhakrishnan & Deshpande 2001).

Relativistic plasma emission: Some form of beam-driven wave growth has long been favored as the pulsar radio emission mechanism, but various difficulties with it have led to ongoing doubts about its viability. Generically, a beam-driven Cerenkov instability requires (a) that the growing waves have refractive index greater than unity (phase speed $`<c`$), and (b) that the distribution of particles includes a counterstreaming motion such that one component is streaming through another at greater than the phase speed of the growing wave. Effective growth requires that the growth rate for the instability be greater than effective loss rates for the growing waves. Seemingly plausible beams are primary particles streaming through secondary pairs, or electrons streaming relative to positrons to provide the required current density, but for both the growth rate is far too small. One seems to be forced to appeal to some form of nonstationarity in the pair creation that results in the faster particles from a following bunch overtaking the slower particles in a preceding bunch (Usov 1987).

When the dispersive properties of waves in a pulsar plasma are considered in detail (e.g., Lyutikov, Blandford & Machabeli 1999), further difficulties arise. In the early literature, a possible analogy with growth of Langmuir waves in solar radio bursts suggested that the growing waves might be longitudinal waves near $`\omega _p/\gamma ^{3/2}`$ in a relativistically-streaming, monoenergetic model. However, the plasma is expected to have a large spread, $`\gamma `$, in Lorentz factor (e.g., in the rest frame of the plasma). When such a spread is taken into account, parallel-propagating ($`\theta =0`$) longitudinal waves have phase speeds $`<c`$ only above a relatively high frequency $`\omega _p\gamma ^{1/2}`$ in the plasma rest frame. This frequency is further boosted, by the Lorentz factor of the streaming motion, in the pulsar frame. Oblique (L-O mode) waves have phase speed $`<c`$ only for a tiny range of angles about $`\theta =0`$. The dispersion curves in the rest frame are plotted in figure 2 for a small value of $`\gamma `$; beam-driven growth of L-O mode waves is possible only for sufficiently small angles, $`\theta 1/\gamma `$, for which the dispersion curve extends into the region above the line $`z^2=1`$ in the figure.

These features lead to several unresolved problems (Melrose & Gedalin 1999). First, the frequency of the beam-driven waves (Doppler boosted to the pulsar frame) seems too high to account for all pulsar emission. Second, due to the curvature of the field lines, waves rapidly leave the tiny range of angles where growth is possible, severely restricting effective growth. The suggestion that beam-driven growth may occur in other wave modes in the pulsar plasma leads to other difficulties: the X mode (in a non-gyrotropic plasma) does not couple directly to the beam; Alfvén waves can grow at lower frequencies, but cannot escape directly due to a stop band, cf., curve A in figure 2.

The required large growth rate in a highly relativistic plasma precludes a maser mechanism: a maser operates in the random-phase regime, which requires that the growth rate be less than the bandwidth of the growing waves, which is very small in a highly relativistic plasma. A (resonant) reactive or hydrodynamic version of the instability applies for $`\omega \omega _p\gamma ^{1/2}`$. There is also a nonresonant reactive instability, which causes waves in a beam mode to grow at lower frequencies. Appeal to this nonresonant instability partly alleviates some of the difficulties (Gedalin, Gruman & Melrose 2002).

Other maser mechanisms: The other three instability-based mechanisms are linear acceleration emission (Melrose 1978; Rowe 1995), anomalous Doppler instability (Machabeli & Usov 1979) and curvature-drift instability (Kazbegi, Machabeli & Melikidze 1991). Linear acceleration emission requires large-amplitude oscillations in the parallel electric field as the driving mechanism in the source region. Although there is no strong argument against this mechanism, there is no detailed model for the development of the required large-amplitude electrostatic oscillations and no independent evidence for them. The other two mechanisms are possible only in the outer magnetosphere (Lyutikov, Blandford & Machabeli 1999), and are sensitive to $`B`$, both of which imply that they cannot apply to all classes of pulsars. Also, both require that the refractive index be greater than unity at the point of emission, and this is even more difficult to satisfy than for the beam-driven Cerenkov instability.

Orthogonal modes: There is compelling evidence that in at least some pulsars the emission emerges in two orthogonal modes (OMs) that become spatially separated (e.g., McKinnon & Stinebring 2000). The presence of OMs requires refraction in a birefringent plasma that causes different rays for the two OMs. The observed OMs raise a further difficulty: any instability favors one wave mode in the plasma over others, and after many growth times the faster growing mode completely dominates, implying emission in only one of the natural modes of the plasma. Hence, one requires some process that converts waves initially purely in one mode into a roughly equal mixture of two modes. Mode coupling due to large-scale gradients is one possibility, but a more effective process such as reflection off sharp boundaries seems to be necessary. Moreover, if such propagation effects are important, then the observed polarization should be determined at a polarization limiting region, rather than being characteristic of the emission mechanism or of the dominant mode at the source.

## 5. Source regions and heights of emission

It has long been thought that the most plausible location for the source region of the radio emission is many tens of radii above the star in the polar cap regions. Recent analysis of data (Gangadhara & Gupta 2001) favors a source region at such heights, roughly midway between the magnetic axis and the last closed field lines, far from the gap regions where pair creation is conventionally assumed to occur. It may be that significant pair creation does occur between the conventional inner and outer gaps. However, why should the radio emission originate from intermediate heights, rather than the gaps where the pair creation should be most efficient?

A speculation as to how some of these difficulties might be overcome involves appealing to a possible analogy with solar radio bursts. Type III bursts are due to a stream of electrons, that generate Langmuir waves through a Cerenkov instability, and types I, II and III are all attributed to plasma emission. Theory implies that the polarization of plasma emission should be 100% in the o mode, and this is sometimes the case for type I bursts, but never the case for type II and III bursts, and some bursts of all types can be unpolarized. A depolarizing agent operates, and this requires very small-scale inhomogeneities (Melrose 1975), and may be associated with reflection off overdense structures, such as columns invoked to account for the directivity of type I emission (Bougeret & Steinberg 1977). Ducting is also required to account for the apparent sources being scatter images at much greater heights than the actual sources (Duncan 1979). The polarization, directivity and apparent height can all be explained in terms of a source in an underdense region with the escaping radiation reflected off nearly radial overdense structures.

Nonstationary, inhomogeneous pair creation would produce dense columns of pair plasma that can act as ducts for radio emission generated in the underdense regions between the columns. Reflection off the columns can convert radiation in one mode into a mixture of the two modes, as well as ducting the radiation outward. The radiation characteristic would then correspond to those of an apparent source at a much greater height than the actual source. These speculations suggest that an appeal to locally highly time-variable pair creation may resolve some of the outstanding difficulties in the interpretation of the source location and polarization of pulsar radio emission.

## 6. Conclusions

High-energy emission processes are well understood, but the location of the source region is uncertain. The radio mechanism is probably either relativistic plasma emission or torsion-driven curvature maser instability; a detailed critical comparison of these is needed. Observed orthogonal mode polarization appears to require structures with sharp boundaries off which the waves can be reflected.

## References

Arendt, P.N., Jr & Eilek, J.A. 2002, ApJ, 581, 451

Blandford, R.D. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 551

Bougeret, J.-L. & Steinberg, J.-L. 1977, A&A, 61, 777

Canuto, V., Lodenquai, J. & Ruderman, M. 1971, Phys.Rev.D, 3, 2303

Cheng, K.S., Ho, C. & Ruderman, M.A. 1986, ApJ, 300, 522

Cheng, K.S. & Zhang, L. 1999 ApJ, 515, 337

Daugherty, J.K. & Harding, A.K. 1989 ApJ, 336, 871

Dermer. C.D. 1990, ApJ, 360, 214

Duncan, R.A. 1979, SolarPhys., 63, 389

Gangadhara, R.T. & Gupta, Y. 2001, ApJ, 555, 31

Gedalin, M., Gruman, E. & Melrose, D.B. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 422

Herold. H. 1979 Phys.Rev.D, 19, 2868

Hibschman, J.A., & Arons, J. 2001, ApJ, 560, 671

Hirotani, K. & Shibata, S. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1228

Kazbegi, A.Z., Machabeli, G.Z. & Melikidze, G.I. 1991, MNRAS, 263, 377

Kirk, J.G., Skæraasen, O., & Gallant, Y. 2002, A&A, 388, L29

Luo, Q. & Melrose, D.B. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 616

Luo, Q. & Melrose, D.B. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 631

Lyutikov, M., Blandford, R.D. & Machabeli, G. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 338

Machabeli, G.Z. & Usov, V.V. 1979, Sov.Astron.Lett., 5, 445

McKinnon, M.M. & Stinebring, D.R. 2000, ApJ, 529, 435

Melrose, D.B. 1975, SolarPhys., 43, 79

Melrose, D.B. 1978, ApJ, 225, 557

Melrose, D.B. & Gedalin, M. 1999, ApJ, 521, 351

Melrose. D.B. & Sy, W. 1972, Ap&SS, 17, 343

Radhakrishnan, V. & Deshpande, A.A. 2001, A&A, 379, 551

Romani, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 469

Rowe, E.T. 1995, A&A, 296, 275

Usov, V.V. 1987, ApJ, 320, 333

Usov, V.V. & Melrose, D.B. 1996, ApJ, 464, 306

Weise, J.I. & Melrose, D.B. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 115

Zhang, B. & Harding, A.K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1150


format: text

text:
# Angle-resolved photoemission study of quasi-one-dimensional superconductor 𝛽-Na0.33V2O5

## Abstract

We have studied the electronic structure of $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5, which becomes a superconductor under pressure, by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Clear band dispersions is observed only along the chain direction, indicating the quasi-one-dimensional (1D) electronic structure. The spectra of the V $`3d`$ band are dominated by a Gaussian-like broad feature at $``$ 1 eV below the Fermi level ($`E_F`$) with negligible intensity at $`E_F`$, which we attribute to strong electron-phonon coupling as in other 1D polaronic metals. In the momentum space, the spectra show a maximum intensity at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$, where $`b`$ is the V-V distance along the $`b`$-axis, reflecting the band filling of the chain and/or ladder.

The recent discovery of superconductivity ($`T_C`$ = 8 K) under high pressure (8 GPa) in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 attracted considerable interest Yamauchi  because this is the first observation of superconductivity in vanadium oxides and because the superconductivity occurs in a quasi-1D conductor analogous to organic superconductors. $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 belongs to a class of $`\beta `$-vanadium bronzes which have highly anisotropic crystal structures as shown in Fig 1. There are three kinds of V sites denoted by V1, V2, V3. The V1O6 octahedra form a zigzag chain along the $`b`$-axis, the V2O6 octahedra form a two-leg ladder, and the V3O5 pyramids form a zigzag chain. Previously, this compound had been studied from the view point of a bipolaron conductor. bipolaron  Recently, Yamada et al. Yamada  found that a metal-insulator transition (MIT) occurs at $`T_{MI}=`$ 135 K and that above $`T_{MI}`$ it shows metallic conductivity along the chain direction (the $`b`$-axis). Itoh et al. Itoh  found by an NMR study that this metal-insulator transition is accompanied by a charge ordering below $`T_{MI}`$. They also discussed the population of $`d`$ electrons at each vanadium site and concluded that the V3 is V5+-like while the V1 and/or V2 are in a mixed-valence state. Nishimoto and Ohta studied charge ordering by Mardelung potential calculations and found that electrons enter the V1 zigzag chain in the most stable charge distribution Nishimoto . The superconductivity in this material invoked considerable interest also because of possible roles of poralons or electron-phonon interaction in the superconductivity. The electronic structure is also interesting from the viewpoint of one-dimensionality. Haldane ; Voit

In this Rapid Communication, we report on an electronic structure study of $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 using angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). We have found that the V $`3d`$ band has a Gaussian-like broad line shape and its peak does not cross $`E_F`$ even in the metallic phase. In the momentum space, on the other hand, the maximum intensity of the V $`3d`$ band occurs at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$ although in the vicinity of $`E_F`$, the intensity is suppressed. We shall discuss the origins of these unusual spectral behaviors in the context of 1D metal under the strong influence of polaronic effect.

Single crystals of $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 were grown by the rf heating Czochralski method as described in Ref. Yamauchi, . Photoemission measurements were performed using a Gammadata-Scienta SES-100 electron analyzer and a Gammadata-Scienta VUV-5000 He discharge lamp with a toroidal grating monochromator. The energy calibration and the estimation of the energy resolution were made by measuring gold spectra. The energy resolution and the momentum resolution were set at $``$ 25 meV and $`\pm `$ 0.2 near $`E_F`$ and $``$ 40 meV and $`\pm `$ 0.4 otherwise. The base pressure of the analyzer chamber was 5 $`\times `$ 10-10 Torr. Clean surfaces were obtained by cleaving the sample in situ. The reproducibility was checked by repeated cleaving and measurements.

Figure 2 shows the spectra in the entire valence-band region taken with He I ($`h\nu `$ = 21.2 eV) and He II ($`h\nu `$ = 40.8 eV) at normal emission. The structures at 2.5-8 eV binding energies ($`E_B`$’s) are originated from the O $`2p`$ band while the weak feature at $`E_B`$ $``$ 1 eV is originated from the V $`3d`$ states. Because there is only one V $`3d`$ electron per six vanadium atoms, the intensity of the V $`3d`$ band is extremely weak. Among the three structures in the O $`2p`$ band, A, B and C, structure B is enhanced in the He II spectrum compared to He I, indicating that this structure is strongly hybridized with the V $`3d`$ states since the relative photoionization cross section of the V $`3d`$ states to the O $`2p`$ states is larger for the He II spectra than for the He I spectra. Yeh

Figure 3 shows the angular dependence of the spectra taken at 160 K. The left panels (a) and (c) show the spectra with momentum along the chain ($`b`$-axis) while the right panels (b) and (d) show the spectra with momentum perpendicular to the chain (i. e., along the $`c`$-axis). The vertical lines in the O $`2p`$ band indicate local minimum positions in the second-derivative of the spectra while those in the V $`3d`$ band indicate peak positions and the inflection points determined by the first and second derivatives, respectively. Clear dispersion can be seen only along the chain direction both for the O $`2p`$ and the V $`3d`$ bands. Structure B is the most strongly dispersive in the O $`2p`$ band probably because this structure is most strongly hybridized with the V $`3d`$ states as mentioned above. The V $`3d`$ band has a broad line shape and the peak position is located at $`E_B`$ $``$ 0.9 eV. The dispersional width is $``$ 0.25 eV.

The peak position of the V $`3d`$ band in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 is closer to $`E_F`$ than that in the related insulating vanadates NaV2O5 ($`E_B`$ $``$ 1.5 eV, Ref. Kobayashi1, ) and LiV2O5 ($`E_B`$ $`1.3`$ eV, Ref. LiV2O5, ) with $`d^1`$ electronic configuration, reflecting the smaller band filling or the lower $`E_F`$ in the present compound. However, the intensity is suppressed near $`E_F`$ and the peak does not disperse sufficiently to allow the band crossing $`E_F`$. The ARPES spectra of a quasi-1D conductor (TaSe4)2I, which shows a CDW transition at 160 K, as reported by Perfetti et al Perfetti1  also show a similar behavior in its metallic phase and only the tail of the Ta $`5d`$ band reaches $`E_F`$. They interpreted this characteristic spectral feature of (TaSe4)2I in terms of a polaron picture phonon  because electron-phonon interactions are obviously important in CDW systems such as (TaSe4)2I. In fact, for $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 strong electron-phonon coupling had been proposed. bipolaron  The Gaussian-like broad feature of the V $`3d`$ band and the small spectral weight at $`E_F`$ may therefore be attributed to strong electron-phonon coupling. The high resistivity ($`10^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$) for a metal may indicate that electron-phonon interaction is very strong and that the charge carriers are mobile small polarons. Perfetti2

The intensity plot of the ARPES spectra near $`E_F`$ in the $`E`$-$`k`$ plane is shown in Fig. 4 (a). One can see that the contour lines become closest to the $`E_F`$ at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$. From the fitting of the momentum distribution curves (MDCs) to two Lorentzians, as shown in Fig. 4 (b), their peak positions indicated by the vertical bars are $`\pm `$(0.22 $`\pm `$ 0.02)$`\pi /b`$ ($`\pm \pi /4b`$), where $`b`$ is the V-V distance along the $`b`$-axis of the zigzag chains or of the ladder (see Fig. 1 (b)), and depend on $`E_B`$ only very weakly (corresponding to the Fermi velocity of $`>`$ 10 eV$``$Å). This means that although most of the spectral weight of the V $`3d`$ band is confined in the Gaussian-like broad peak centered at $`E_B`$ $``$ 0.9 eV and the Gaussian peak does not cross $`E_F`$, there are underlying strongly dispersive features and their Fermi surface crossings at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$. Strongly dispersive weak feature crossing $`E_F`$ has been observed in a double-layer metallic manganite La1.2Sr1.8Mn2O7 (Refs. Mn1, ; Mn2, ), where the spectra are also dominated by a broad Gaussian-like peak at higher binding energy and a very weak feature reaches and cross $`E_F`$. To explain this unusual spectral behavior, a polaron model has been proposed. Mn1 ; Mn2

The occurrence of the maximum intensities at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$ is contrasted to the corresponding feature in the insulating NaV2O5 (Ref. Kobayashi1, ) and LiV2O5 (Ref. LiV2O5, ), whose band maximum and hence the maximum intensity near $`E_F`$ occurs at $`k\pm \pi /2b`$. The smaller value $`k\pm \pi /4b`$ in the present compound should be related to the smaller band filling of the chains and/or ladders in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5. Based on this observation, in the following we discuss possible band filling of the V1 zigzag chain and the V2 ladder for several cases depending on the relative strength of the nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor V-V hopping in the chain and the relative strength of the V-V hopping within the rung and within the leg of the ladder. First, we consider the case where the bonding within the rung and the nearest-neighbor hopping in the zigzag chain are strong. If the doped electrons enter the V $`3d`$ orbitals only of the ladder, the ladder would become quarter-filled (1/2 electron per V2 site) and the band filling would be similar to NaV2O5. In the high temperature phase of NaV2O5, because the bonding orbital of the rung is occupied and the antibonding orbital is empty, the quarter-filled ladder effectively behaves as a half-filled 1D chain, and the ARPES spectra are well reproduced by the half-filled 1D t-J model or Hubbard model Kobayashi2 , resulting in the band maximum at $`k=\pm \pi /2b`$. We expect the same situation for the quarter-filled ladder in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5. If the doped electrons enter only the zigzag chain, the chain would be quarter-filled and the Fermi-level crossing (and hence the intensity maximum) would occur again at $`k=\pm \pi /2b`$. (Note that there are two V1 atoms per $`b`$.) If $``$ 50% of doped electrons go into the zigzag chain (resulting in the 1/8-filled zigzag chain) and the remaining $``$ 50% go into the ladder (the 1/8-filled ladder), Fermi-level crossing would occur at $`k=\pm \pi /4b`$, consistent with experiment. In this case, the band filling of the chain and ladder is determined by a subtle balance between the energy levels of the chain and the ladder and therefore may vary sensitively under high pressure. Electrons may be transferred between the zigzag chain and the ladder under high pressure as in the hole-doped ladder system Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 (Ref. 14-24-41, ), which also shows a pressure-induced superconductivity.

Second, we consider the case where the bonding within the rung of the ladder is weak or the nearest-neighbor hopping in the zigzag chain is weak compared to the next-nearest-neighbor hopping in the chain. Indeed, the bonding within the rung of the ladder in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 may be weaker than that of NaV2O5, because the V-V distance is longer: 3.6 Å for $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 versus 3.45 Å for NaV2O5. In that case, the ladder or the zigzag chain can be regarded as two independent single chains. Therefore, if $``$ 50% of doped electrons go into one of the two independent chains and the remaining $``$ 50% go into another chain, these chains become quarter-filled single chains and the intensity maximum would occur at $`k=\pm \pi /4b`$ near $`E_F`$. Hence, electrons may enter both of the ladder and the zigzag chain, or may enter either the ladder or the chain, because that ladder or zigzag chain consists of two quarter-filled chains. The existence of quarter-filled single chains is analogous to the quarter-filled quasi-1D band in organic superconductors such as Bechgaard salts. Bechgaard

Since $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5 is shown to be a 1D metal above $`T_{MI}`$ (= 135 K), we have attempted to analyze the photoemission spectra within the Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) liquid frame work. In Fig. 4 (c), energy distribution curves (EDCs) near $`E_F`$ are shown for the metallic phase. As mentioned above, the intensity is suppressed near $`E_F`$, which is a characteristic of a TL liquid. The line shape is approximately parabolic for all momenta. Therefore, the anomalous exponent $`\alpha `$ is at least $``$ 2 in the present system, Voit ; note  extremely large compared to other 1D conductors ($`\alpha 1`$). Denlinger ; Xue ; Mizokawa1  Note that the Hubbard model predicts $`\alpha <1/8`$ (Ref. Schulz, ). One possible origin of the large $`\alpha `$ is that electron-phonon interaction is strong compared to other systems. Another possibility is that the long-range Coulomb interaction is unscreened because there are few conducting carriers. Theoretically, it has been shown that if long-range interaction exists, the exponent $`\alpha `$ can be any large value. Kawakami

Finally, we briefly comment on the temperature dependence of the spectra across $`T_{MI}`$. The leading edge of the V $`3d`$ band is shifted toward higher binding energies by $``$ 15 meV in going from the metallic to insulating phases, taken at 160 K and 100 K, respectively. We have also studied changes in the band dispersion from the peak positions and the inflection points \[Fig. 3 (c)\]. We could not, however, observe clear change from those plots across $`T_{MI}`$.

In conclusion, we have studied the electronic structure of $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5. The band dispersion is finite only along the chain direction, indicating the quasi-1D electronic structure. In spite of the metallic conductivity, the V $`3d`$ band has a Gaussian-like broad feature whose peak does not cross the Fermi level. We attributed this to the strong electron-phonon coupling in the quasi-1D metal. In the momentum space, the V $`3d`$ band shows maximum intensities at $`k\pm \pi /4b`$, due to a Fermi-level crossing or a valence-band maximum. Based on this observation, we have discussed possible band filling of the zigzag chain and the ladder in $`\beta `$-Na0.33V2O5.

Discussions with T. Ohta and S. Nishimoto are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Area “Novel Quantum Phenomena in Transition Metal Oxides” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.


text:
# IF - 1576/2003 IFT-P.033/2003 Discriminating among Earth composition models using geo-antineutrinos

## I Introduction

There is much about the Earth’s heat engine that is unknown. The main datum is the surface heat flow, as most of the Earth is hidden from view. The total heat flux is presently estimated to be about 40 TW, which, however, suffers from uncertainties due to the size of its local variations and inaccessibility of much of Earth’s surface.

We know that there are radioactive isotopes in the Earth that can produce heat through decay. Although the rate of heat generation by decay of unstable radioactive nuclides is tiny, if it is integrated over the entire volume of the Earth, the total heat flux becomes huge. Radiogenic heat, evidently, must be an important source of internal heat production. However, questions as how much of the Earth’s heat generation is from radiogenic origin, how much from residual heat remaining from the formation of the Earth or from the release of gravitational energy as the Earth contracts, have not yet been answered in a satisfactory way.

In the context of modeling the thermal state and thermal history of the Earth it is important to know the specific heat production of the chief heat-producing radionuclides such as 40K, 238U, 232Th and 87Rb, encountered on surface layers and supposed to exist also in interior layers. The heat that drives mechanical motion in the mantle presumably comes mostly from radioactivity. In the radioactive decay process, a portion of the mass of each decaying nuclide is converted to energy. Most of this is the kinetic energy of emitted $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ particles or of $`\gamma `$ rays, which is fully absorbed by rocks within the Earth and converted to heat.

For $`\beta `$ decays, however, part of the energy is carried away by emitted neutrinos and antineutrinos. Clearly, measuring the neutrino and antineutrino fluxes from the Earth can provide a unique way to access information on the internal structure and dynamics of our planet Eder ; Avilez ; Krauss ; Kobayashi ; Chen ; Ragh ; fiorentini1 ; fiorentini2 ; fiorentini3 .

This can be done, at least for electron-antineutrinos ($`\overline{\nu }_e`$) coming from 238U and 232Th decays, the former producing 6 and the latter 4 $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ per decay chain within the energy reach of current and near future neutrino detectors. Antineutrinos from these elements have higher energies than those that come from 40K and 87Rb, and are detectable at liquid scintillator detectors such as KamLAND kamland  and/or Borexino borexino  through the inverse $`\beta `$-decay reaction, $`p+\overline{\nu }_en+e^+`$ where the detection threshold energy is $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}=1.7`$ MeV.

Different Earth composition models predict different total amount of U and Th in the mantle, which lead to different total heat flux from radiogenic origin. Moreover, the fact that concentration of such elements is much larger (a factor of $`20`$ times) in the continental crust (with typical thickness $`35`$ km) than the oceanic one (with typical thickness $`7`$ km) and continents and ocean are not uniformly distributed over the Earth make the geo-antineutrino flux different from place to place.

Quite recently, in Ref. fiorentini1 , geo-antineutrino fluxes from various Earth composition models have been estimated (before the first KamLAND results were reported) and then in Ref. fiorentini2 , the first KamLAND data, which contained $`9`$ possible geo-antineutrino candidate events kamland , have been analyzed, and it was concluded that practically all Earth composition models are consistent with the current data. Moreover, the accumulated data so far at KamLAND is not enough to establish the presence of geo-antineutrinos kamland  and we must wait for future data.

In this work, we will try to go beyond the above mentioned papers, by investigating to which extent liquid scintillator (type) detectors such as KamLAND and/or Borexino can be used to help in discriminating among different geophysical models of heat production by measuring antineutrinos in the energy range $`1.7<E_{\overline{\nu }_e}/\text{MeV}<3.4`$ produced inside the Earth. We show how much one can improve the quantitative understanding of the radiogenic contribution to terrestrial heat in about a decade of operation.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly describe a few models for the Earth radioactive element composition, in Sec. III, we present our analysis method and in Sec. IV, we describe our results. Finally, Sec. V is devoted to discussion and conclusion.

## II Earth As a Antineutrino Source

Antineutrinos are produced inside the Earth in radioactive $`\beta `$ decays mainly of 40K, 238U, 232Th and 87 Rb. These elements are classified as lithophile elements in geophysics and considered to be accumulated more in the Earth’s crust. The abundance of these isotopes, although of prime geophysical importance, is only known at or near the surface of the Earth. Among these geo-antineutrinos, the one come from 238U and 232Th have higher energies. The maximal neutrino energy from the former and the latter are, respectively, $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ = 3.26 MeV and $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ = 2.25 MeV, which are above the threshold of existing anti-neutrino detector such as KamLAND kamland  and Borexino borexino .

Here we consider, as our references, four different models which predict the distributions of 238U and 232Th in the Earth. We do not consider neutrinos coming from 40K and 87Rb because energies of these neutrinos are below the threshold of detectors we consider in this work. For all models, we have considered three regions, namely, continental crust, oceanic crust and mantle, with different average concentrations of U and Th. We ignore any contribution from the core. The distribution of radioactive elements are supposed to be uniform within each region. Although the concentrations of these radioactive elements are considered to be much smaller in the mantle than in the crust, the total geo-antineutrino flux from the whole mantle can be comparable to that coming from the crust because of the much larger volume.

Since the total mass of U in the crust is estimated to be $`M_\text{c}(\text{U})=0.4\times 10^{17}`$ kg, and Si represents about 15% of the Earth mass, $`M_{}=5.9710^{24}`$ kg, the other masses in the crust and in the mantle can be obtained for each model from the mass ratios they provide. In this paper we will fix $`M_\text{c}(\text{U})`$ in the crust to the above estimated value, but we should point out that this number is known with 50% uncertainty. The average concentration of U in the continental crust is estimated to be 1.7 ppm wedepohl  whereas that in the oceanic one is estimated to be 0.1 ppm taylor . We will assume here these numbers as reference values but as we will discuss later it is important to know the local variations of $`U`$ concentration as well as as the of the crustal thickness at each experimental site.

The models can be thus classified by the amount of U they predict for the mantle $`M_\text{m}(\text{U})`$. In this work, we follow the classification of models considered in Ref. fiorentini1 ; Ragh , whose characteristic will be described below.

### II.1 Chondritic Earth Model

The Chondritic Earth model assumes for the Earth’s gross composition that of the oldest meteorites, the carbonaceous chondrites. The mass ratios for these meteorites And  are: $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})=3.8`$, $`M(\text{K})/M(\text{U})=7\times 10^4`$ and $`M(\text{U})/M(\text{Si})=7.3\times 10^8`$ Bro . Radiogenic production in the chondritic model easily accounts for 75% of the observed heat flow, about 30 TW. U and Th provide comparable contributions, each a factor of two below that of K. In this model, by taking into account that the total mass of the mantle is 4.1 $`\times 10^{24}`$ kg (68 % of the total Earth mass), concentration of U in the mantle is about 0.006 ppm.

### II.2 Bulk Silicate Earth (BSE) Model

The Bulk Silicate Earth (BSE) model provides a description of geological evidence coherent with geochemical information. It describes the primordial mantle, prior to crust separation. The mass ratios here are: $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})=3.8`$, $`M(\text{K})/M(\text{U})=10^4`$ and $`M(\text{U})/M(\text{Si})=9.4\times 10^8`$. In this BSE model the present radiogenic production, mainly from U and Th, accounts for about one half of the total heat flow, 20 TW. The antineutrino luminosities from U and Th are rescaled by a factor 1.3 whereas K, although reduced by a factor of 5, is still the principal antineutrino source. Concentration of U in the mantle is 0.01 ppm Mc .

### II.3 Fully Radiogenic (FR I) Model

One can conceive a model where heat production is fully radiogenic, with $`\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{U}`$ fixed at the terrestrial value and $`\mathrm{Th}/\mathrm{U}`$ at the chondritic value, which seems consistent with terrestrial observations fiorentini1 . All the abundances are rescaled so as to provide the full $`40\mathrm{TW}`$ heat flow. All particle production rates are correspondingly rescaled by a factor of two with respect to the predictions of the BSE model. The concentration of U in the mantle for this model is about 0.03 ppm.

### II.4 Modified Fully Radiogenic (FR II) Model

This model is similar to the previous one, the abundances of U and Th are also rescaled with respect to BSE but it assumes that as an extreme case, the total heat flow of 40 TW are produced in the Earth only by U and Th, completely ignoring K, as considered in Ref. Ragh . This is an extreme, geo-antineutrino fluxes much larger than this limit would need serious alteration of source distribution. The concentration of U in the mantle for this model is about 0.04 ppm.

## III Analysis Method

Here we explain how we calculate the expected number of geo-antineutrino events, for each one of the four models presented in the previous section, at a certain detector position for a given exposure. To try to distinguish models we have used a $`\chi ^2`$ function minimization which is explained at the end of this section.

### III.1 Calculation of the antineutrino fluxes from Th and U decay chains

We would like to calculate the flux of antineutrino produced in the Earth by the decay of a certain isotope that reach a detector for all four geophysical composition models presented in the previous section. Following Refs. fiorentini1 ; fiorentini2 , differential flux of antineutrinos produced in the decay chain of radioactive isotope $`X`$ that will be measured at a detector position $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ on the Earth, can be expressed by the following integral performed over the Earth volume $`V_{}`$,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(X)}{dE_{\overline{\nu }_e}}=_V_{}d^3r\frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{r})}{4\pi |\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}|^2}\frac{C(X,\stackrel{}{r})n_X}{\tau _Xm_X}P_{\overline{\nu }_e}(E_{\overline{\nu }_e},|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}|)\times f_X(E_{\overline{\nu }_e}),$$
(1)
where $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the matter density, $`C(X,\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\tau _X`$, $`m_X`$ and $`n_X`$ are, respectively, the concentration, life time, atomic mass and the number of antineutrinos emitted per decay chain corresponding to element $`X=\mathrm{U},\mathrm{Th}`$. $`f_X(E_{\overline{\nu }_e})`$ is the normalized spectral function for element $`X`$ spectrum , $`P_{\overline{\nu }_e}(E_{\overline{\nu }_e},|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}|)`$ is the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability, which can be averaged out, as a good approximation, and bring out from the integral the term:

$$P_{\overline{\nu }_e}1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}0.58,$$
(2)
where $`\theta _{}`$ is the mixing angle responsible for the solar neutrino problem, which is fixed to the current best fitted value, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=0.83`$, obtained by combining the solar neutrino and KamLAND data NTZ03 , except in Sec. IV.2 where $`\theta _{}`$ is treated as a free parameter to be fitted. We note that the Earth matter effect on geo-antineutrino oscillation is very small and therefore, can be safely neglected in our analysis.

The integration in Eq. (1) can be approximately divided into three distinct contributions, from continental crust (cc), oceanic crust (oc) and mantle (m), assuming that the matter density $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and the concentration of $`X`$, $`C(X,\stackrel{}{r})`$ are approximately constant within these three regions and ignoring any contribution from the core, as assumed in Ref. fiorentini1 , as follows,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(X)\frac{P_{\overline{\nu }_e}}{4\pi R_{}^2}\left[L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{\mathrm{cc}}(X)I_{\mathrm{cc}}+L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{\mathrm{oc}}(X)I_{\mathrm{oc}}+L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^\mathrm{m}(X)I_\mathrm{m}\right],$$
(3)
where $`R_{}6370`$ km is the radius of the Earth, and we have defined the neutrino luminosity, $`L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^i`$, and a factor which depend on the crust thickness distribution over the Earth as well as the detector location, $`I_i`$ ($`i=`$ cc, co, m), as

$`L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^i(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_X\overline{C_i}(X)\overline{\rho }_i}{\tau _Xm_X}},`$ (4)
$`I_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{}^2}{V_i}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\varphi {\displaystyle _0^\pi }d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle _{R_{}h(r,\theta ,\varphi )}^R_{}}dr{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\left|\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{r}\right|^2}},`$ (5)
where $`V_i`$, $`\overline{C}_i(X)`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_i`$ are, respectively, the volume, the average concentration of U or Th and matter density of region $`i`$. We can also write the observable luminosities $`L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^i(X)`$, in units of $`10^{24}`$ particles per second, for masses in units of $`10^{17}`$ kg, as

$$L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^i(\mathrm{U})=7.4M_i(\mathrm{U}),L_{\overline{\nu }_e}^i(\mathrm{Th})=1.6M_i(\mathrm{Th}).$$
(6)
In Eq. (5), $`h(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ indicates the thickness of the shell (mantle or crust) at the position $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. For the mantle we have simply used $`h(r,\theta ,\varphi )=R_{}/2`$, giving $`I_\mathrm{m}=1.6`$. For the crust calculation (typical thickness being $``$ 35 km for continental crust and $``$ 7 km for oceanic one), we have used the Earth Crust $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ Thickness map ThicknessMap , which was obtained based on seismology, to compute the $`I_{\mathrm{cc},\mathrm{oc}}`$ at a given detector position. Earth’s crust is divided into 16200 cells of $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ where within each cell, the crust thickness is assumed to be constant. See Fig. 1 for a schematic illustration of the cell. In Fig. 2 we show some iso-contours of Earth crust thickness in the $`\varphi \theta `$ plane (corresponding to longitude and latitude) based on this crustal map model ThicknessMap  which we will use in this work.

We observe that in our model assumption the predicted ratio of the geo-antineutrino fluxes from U and Th does not depend on details of the integration in Eq. (1) but is given by the following simple formula for any model we consider,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\text{U})}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\text{Th})}=\frac{M(\text{U})n_\text{U}\tau _\text{U}^1}{M(\text{Th})n_{\text{Th}}\tau _{\text{Th}}^1}1.2.$$
(7)
Note that we are assuming uniform U/Th distribution so that the ratio of the total amount of Th and U, $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})`$, is considered to be 3.8 in any of the input models under investigation.

We have thus the basic equations for determining radiogenic heat production and neutrino flows from models of the Earth composition. In order to have some feeling about the local variation of geo-antineutrino fluxes due to the variable crustal thickness, in Fig. 3, we present the normalized cumulative geo-antineutrino flux coming from the continental as well as oceanic crust (without contributions from the mantle) at Kamioka, Gran Sasso, Homestake and Sudbury, as a function of the distance ($`L`$) from the source to the detector, computed using the information from the $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ Earth Crust thickness map ThicknessMap . We note that due to the fact that the abundance of U/Th is much larger in the continental crust than in the oceanic one, the geo-antineutrino flux from the former is dominant.

Since the typical size of the $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ crustal cell at these detector sites is of the order of 100 km, we can only reliably compute for distances equal or larger than this distance. In Fig. 3 we have extrapolated each curve down to 10 km, as a first approximation. For the sake of comparison, we have also plotted the hypothetical case where the entire Earth crust has a uniform thickness of 30 km. Neutrino oscillations were not taken into account in the calculation of the upper five curves but were included in the lower five. These latter curves have been normalized with respect to the no oscillation case.

From this plot, as far as the geo-antineutrino flux coming from the Earth crust is concerned, we can see that about 30-40 % of the total crustal antineutrino flux comes from a distance within 100 km and about 50-60 % from a distance within 500 km from the detector. We note that this flux is about 80%, 65%, 40% and 33% of the total flux, respectively, for Chondritic, BSE, FR I and FR II models. This implies that it is very important to know rather well, with better than $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ resolution, the variation of the crustal thickness near the detector as well as the local variation of the concentration of radioactive elements.

### III.2 Number of geo-antineutrino events

The number of geo-antineutrino induced events from the decay chain of element $`X`$ in the $`i`$-th energy bin, $`N_i(X)`$, is:

$$N_i(X)=N_pt_i𝑑E_{\overline{\nu }_e}ϵ(E_{\overline{\nu }_e})\sigma (E_{\overline{\nu }_e})\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(X)}{dE_{\overline{\nu }_e}},$$
(8)
where $`N_p`$ is the number of free protons in the fiducial volume of the detector, $`t`$ is the exposure time, $`ϵ`$ is the detection efficiency, which is assumed to be 100 % for simplicity. This integral, which is easily computed using the cross section given in Ref. cross , is understood to be performed in a certain energy bin.

We divide the number of events in the positron prompt energy range 0.9-2.6 MeV into 4 bins with an interval of 0.42 MeV following Ref. kamland . Note that the prompt energy $`E_{\text{prompt}}`$ is related to neutrino energy as $`E_{\text{prompt}}=E_{\overline{\nu }_e}(m_nm_p)+2m_e=E_{\overline{\nu }_e}0.78\text{MeV}`$ where $`m_n,m_p`$ and $`m_e`$ are respectively, mass of neutron, proton and electron. The number of events in $`i`$th bin is defined as the sum of events coming from U and Th, $`N_{\mathrm{geo}}(\overline{E}_i)N_i(\text{U})+N_i(\text{Th})`$. We note that the 1st two lower energy bins contains events coming from both U and Th induced geo-antineutrinos whereas the last two higher energy bins contain only events coming from Th.

### III.3 $`\chi ^2`$ minimization

We define the $`\chi ^2`$ function for our geo-antineutrino analysis as follows,

$$\chi _{\mathrm{geo}}^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{17}{}}\frac{\left[N^{\mathrm{obs}}(\overline{E}_i)N_{\mathrm{geo}}^{\mathrm{theo}}(\overline{E}_i)N_{\mathrm{reac}}^{\mathrm{theo}}(\overline{E}_i)\right]^2}{N^{\mathrm{obs}}(\overline{E}_i)+\left(0.06N_{\mathrm{reac}}^{\mathrm{obs}}(\overline{E}_i)\right)^2},$$
(9)
where $`N^{\mathrm{obs}}(\overline{E}_i)`$, $`N_{\mathrm{geo}}^{\mathrm{theo}}(\overline{E}_i)`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{reac}}^{\mathrm{theo}}(\overline{E}_i)`$ are respectively, the number of (simulated) observable events (geo + reactor antineutrinos), the number of theoretically expected events coming from geo-antineutrinos and from nuclear reactors in the neighborhood of the detector. As mentioned before, geo-antineutrinos will only contribute to the first four bins. We have taken into account in our calculation the total statistical error as well as a 6% systematic error only for reactor antineutrino events kamland . Since currently no detector has enough data in the energy region interesting for geo-antineutrino observations, we simulate $`N^{\mathrm{obs}}(\overline{E}_i)`$ according to the Earth composition models, taking into account the reactor antineutrino background for a given exposure and site. Here, for simplicity, we ignore the systematic error for geo-antineutrinos as it is expected to be not so important compared to the statistical one for the exposure we consider in this work.

The above $`\chi _{\mathrm{geo}}^2`$ will be minimized with respect to: (i) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\mathrm{Th})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\mathrm{U})`$, the total geo-antineutrino flux coming from Th and U at a given detector site; (ii) $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\mathrm{U})`$ assuming Th/U ratio fixed; (iii) $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\mathrm{U})`$, assuming Th/U ratio fixed. In the first two cases the neutrino mixing parameters are fixed to their best fitted values, in the latter only $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is fixed (see the discussion in the following sections for further details). In addition, for some of our analyses, we have also added the $`\chi ^2`$ function for solar neutrinos, $`\chi _{\text{sol}}^2`$, which was obtained in Ref. NTZ03 .

## IV Results

### IV.1 Determination of Geo-antineutrino fluxes

We first discuss the determination of geo-antineutrino fluxes at Kamioka as well as Gran Sasso sites where the former (latter) has larger (significantly smaller) reactor antineutrino background. In this work, we have assumed the reactor antineutrino flux at Gran Sasso 5 times smaller than at Kamioka site, however, it can actually be even smaller Ragh . In this subsection, we assume that solar neutrino mixing parameter will be determined with a good precision in the future. See, for instance, Ref. sol\_param  for a discussion on the perspectives of future determination of the solar neutrino mixing parameters. Due to the effect of oscillation, the observable flux suffers a reduction of $`P_{\overline{\nu }_e}=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}0.58`$, which implies that the original flux must be understood as $``$ 1.7 times larger than we assumed at the detector site.

Strictly speaking, experiments can only measure the total flux of geo-antineutrinos for a certain energy range, regardless of their origin (mantle, crust). They cannot directly access the amount of U and/or Th in the crust and mantle separately. Therefore, to be more conservative, we first try to consider the total geo-antineutrino fluxes from U and Th as free parameters to be fitted by the data for a given input model assumption. Since we still do not have enough data in the geo-antineutrino energy range ($`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}<3.4`$ MeV), currently KamLAND has reported data only for about 0.16 kt$``$yr exposure kamland , we have simulated future data according to each one of the Earth composition models. We have used these simulated data points as an input in our analysis. By performing a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis we have investigated if the experiments can correctly reproduce the input data and distinguish among different models.

First we have estimated the required exposure, in units of kt$``$yr to identify the presence of geo-antineutrino flux for an assumed model input, leaving the two components of the geo-antineutrino flux, coming from U and Th, completely free in our fit. The results are shown in Table I. The numbers in the table are the detector exposure, at each site, required to rule out or accept each model at 3 $`\sigma `$ level. The actual fiducial volume of KamLAND (Borexino) is about 0.4 (0.1) kt, which means one has to multiply by a factor 2.5 (10) the number found in Table I in order to translate it to the actual detector exposure time. As naturally expected, the larger the input flux, the easier to identify the model, and therefore we need a smaller exposure to rule it out. If, for instance, a detector such as KamLAND, does not see geo-antineutrinos at the 3 $`\sigma `$ level after 0.46 kt$``$yr exposure, it can rule out the FR II model, but at this point it cannot say anything about the other models. On the other hand, if KamLAND measures geo-antineutrinos at this exposure, then FR II has to be interpreted as the preferred model, and so forth.

In Fig. 4, we present in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\text{U})\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\text{Th})`$ plane, to which extent we can determine geo-antineutrino fluxes in the presence of neutrino oscillations for given input model fluxes and exposure (in units of kt$``$yr) at the Kamioka site. In all cases we are able to correctly reproduce the input fluxes as the best fit points (indicated by stars) in our fit, which, however, does not necessarily mean we can distinguish models with enough significance (see the text below). Unfortunately it seems to be extremely difficult to distinguish between BSE and Chondritic models, independently of the detector exposure we have considered here. From this plot, we can conclude that for 1 kt$``$yr of exposure, it is not possible to distinguish among the four models considered. However, after 3 kt$``$yr of exposure, one start to have some sensitivity to distinguish models, namely, Chondritic/BSE from FR II. After the maximal exposure considered, 6 kt$``$yr of data, one can almost always distinguish FR II from any of the other models. It is worthwhile to note that even for the maximal exposure and maximal flux (FR II) considered here, it is not possible to exclude a null Th induced geo-antineutrino flux, whereas it is sometimes possible to exclude a null U induced one.

In Fig. 5, we present the same plot but for the Gran Sasso site, assuming a significantly less reactor neutrino background, 5 times smaller than at the Kamioka site. In this case, one can achieve the same sensitivity for the flux determination with much less exposure compared to the Kamioka site. Roughly speaking, $`x`$ kt$``$yr exposure at Gran Sasso correspond to $`(23)x`$ kt$``$yr at Kamioka, which we can see by comparing Figs. 4 and 5. The general behavior of the allowed regions are very similar to that for Kamioka site apart from this difference.

In Fig. 6, we show with which precision the total U induced antineutrino flux can be determined by the experiments, further imposing that the ratio between the total U and Th mass in the Earth is fixed to be constant, $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})=3.8`$, in the $`\chi ^2`$ fit. Note that this reasonable assumption, based on meteorite and Earth surface data, is not very important in distinguishing models but allows for a better precision in flux determination. In this case, we have only one free parameter, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}(\mathrm{U})`$, to be fitted. In 6 kt$``$yr at Kamioka, the total U flux can be determined within less than 10 % uncertainty, independently of the model. The precision it can be determined at Gran Sasso, after 2 kt$``$yr exposure, is a bit over 10 %.

Let us now translate the flux uncertainties we have estimated into heat uncertainties, in order to compare our results with those of Ref. fiorentini3 . As one can easily understand from Eq. (8) of that paper, we can write the total heat, $`H`$, as a function of the geo-antineutrino flux as

$$H=a\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}b,$$
(10)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are positive constants satisfying $`a\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}b`$. This implies that the relative heat uncertainty is always greater than the relative flux uncertainty, that is,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }H}{H}>\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}}.$$
(11)
We have roughly estimated that the flux uncertainties of the order of 10 %, that can be achieved at Kamioka with 6 kt$``$yr exposure, correspond to 15-30% in heat uncertainties, consistent with the results presented in Ref. fiorentini3 .

### IV.2 Dependence on the solar mixing angle $`\theta _{}`$

So far, we have fixed the solar mixing angle $`\theta _{}`$ to its current best fitted value. How our ignorance about the precise value of the solar mixing angle can aggravate our results? To answer this question, we perform a fit leaving $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ as a free parameter. For this purpose we will combine present solar neutrino data with future simulated reactor and geo-antineutrino data.

As a first step, to see how the observation of geo-antineutrinos can affect the determination of the mixing angle, we have analyzed the present KamLAND reactor antineutrino data (17 bins) allowing for geo-antineutrino contributions in the first 4 bins, as performed by the authors of Ref. fiorentini2  leaving Th and U antineutrino fluxes free but imposing that the ratio between the total U and Th mass in the Earth is fixed to be constant, $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})=3.8`$, as in the end of the previous section. In Fig. 7, we show the result we have obtained. In agreement with the result in Ref. fiorentini2 , the allowed region becomes somewhat smaller when we include events which can be interpreted as geo-antineutrinos. However, we have confirmed that if U and Th contributions were treated as independent free parameters, the allowed region would not shrink as much, as recently pointed out by Inoue in Ref. kamland . Some events observed in the energy range $`E_{\mathrm{prompt}}<2.6`$ MeV can be attributed to geo-antineutrinos, but the claim that geo-antineutrinos have been observed can not be made at this point due to small statistics (see discussion in previous section).

We further proceed, by combining the KamLAND data with the current solar neutrino one. The final result is shown in the right panel of Fig. 8, where we have also presented the result without the geo-antineutrino constraint in the left panel taken from Ref. NTZ03 . The allowed region becomes somewhat smaller but essentially has not changed. This is quite understandable as solar neutrino data are dominating in the determination of the mixing angle at this point.

Finally, we combine the simulated future reactor and geo-antineutrino data with the present solar neutrino data. In order to see how the discrimination power of composition models depends on our ignorance of the precise value of the solar mixing angle, for a given input value (fixed to be the current best fit value) as well as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$(U), we perform a $`\chi ^2`$ fit leaving $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$(U) and $`\theta _{}`$ as free parameters. In this fit, we assume the ratio between the total U and Th mass in the Earth to be constant, $`M(\text{Th})/M(\text{U})=3.8`$, for simplicity. This is quite reasonable for our purposes here as the discrimination power among models does not seem to depend very much on this assumption, as we have discussed in the previous subsection.

In Figs. 9 and 10 we plot the allowed region for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$(U) and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ for the Kamioka and Gran Sasso sites. The reduction of the allowed range of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ from 1 to 6 kt$``$yr exposure is essentially due to reactor antineutrinos. We observe that our ignorance on the exact value of $`\theta _{}`$ does not influence very much the determination of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$(U), so our conclusions in the previous subsection do not essentially change.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

The amount of radioactive elements in the Earth is not well known. The total quantity of U and Th in the Earth, however, can be directly measured by neutrino detectors. Presently KamLAND data imply that the Earth radiogenic heat output can be anything between 0 and 110 TW kamland  and all Earth composition models are compatible fiorentini2 . We have studied how this can be improved by future data.

We have investigated to which extent U and Th geo-antineutrino fluxes can be determined by neutrino detectors in a decade of exposure. We have considered KamLAND at Kamioka and Borexino at Gran Sasso as our reference detectors and sites. We have found, as we showed in Table I, that within a few years with a relatively small amount of exposure, it is possible to establish the presence of geo-antineutrinos unless their flux is significantly smaller than expected. However, to discriminate among different Earth composition models, considerably longer exposure is required. We found that in 6 kt$``$yr at Kamioka, the total U flux can be determined within less than 10 % uncertainty, independently of the model we considered. The precision it can be determined at Gran Sasso, after 2 kt$``$yr exposure, is slightly larger than 10 %. We note that at Gran Sasso the same sensitivity to geo-antineutrino flux determination can be achieved with substantially smaller exposure due to much lower reactor antineutrino background.

We observe that our ignorance on the exact value of $`\theta _{}`$ does not influence very much the determination of the geo-antineutrino flux. However, it is very important to know the local variation of the Earth crustal thickness as well as concentration of U and Th in the region close to the detector with better than $`2^{}\times 2^{}`$ resolution, to be able to accurately translate the measured flux into amounts of U and Th.

The determination of the radiogenic component of the Earth heat generation is of great geophysical interest. Experiments such as KamLAND and Borexino can open a new window to survey the internal structure and dynamics of our planet, leading to the birth of neutrino geophysics.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (CNPq).


text:
# Signatures of Galaxy Formation in the Intracluster Medium

## 1 Introduction

Clusters and groups of galaxies are interesting laboratories for studying the cooling and feedback processes that govern galaxy formation because these non-gravitational processes have clearly altered the structure of intracluster and intragroup media. Simulations show that the density profiles of dark-matter halos created by hierarchical structure formation are nearly self-similar, with a moderate trend for dark matter to be more concentrated toward the centers of lower-mass haloes (e.g., Navarro, Frenk, & White 1997). The baryonic density profiles of those halos in purely gravitational simulations are also nearly self-similar, leading to an X-ray luminosity-temperature relation that agrees with self-similar scaling: $`L_XT_X^2`$ in the bremsstrahlung-dominated regime (Muanwong et al. 2001; Borgani et al. 2001).

Cluster observations showing that $`L_X\stackrel{}{}T_X^3`$ for $`T_X2\mathrm{keV}`$ were the first clear indication that galaxy formation somehow breaks the self-similarity of the baryonic component (e.g., Edge & Stewart 1991; David et al. 1993; Markevitch 1998; Arnaud & Evrard 1999). This effect shows up even more dramatically in the steeper $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation for groups (Helsdon & Ponman 2000) and the surprising faintness of the unresolved $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ background (Pen 1998; Wu, Fabian, & Nulsen 2001; Bryan & Voit 2001). Recent observations resolving the temperature structure of clusters have revealed similarity breaking in the mass-temperature relation as well. Self-similar models with $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }T_X^{3/2}`$, where $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the total mass within a sphere whose mean density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ times the critical density, agree well with purely gravitational simulations (e.g., Evrard, Metzler, & Navarro 1996; Bryan & Norman 1998). However, X-ray observations that resolve the temperature structure of clusters now indicate a slightly steeper slope $`M_\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{}T_X^{1.8}`$ and a mass normalization $``$1.4 times larger than in simulations without galaxy formation (Horner, Mushotzky, & Scharf 1999; Nevalainen, Markevitch, & Forman 2000; Finoguenov, Reiprich, & Böhringer 2001; Sanderson et al. 2003).

Including galaxy formation in the simulations generally steepens the $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation, but it is not clear whether the dominant mechanism responsible for similarity breaking is cooling or heating. Simulations that preheat the intracluster medium by imposing an entropy floor equivalent to the 100-150$`\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ levels observed in the cores of groups by Ponman et al. (1999) produce good agreement with the observed $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation (Bialek, Evrard, & Mohr 2001).111 Entropy in this paper is quantified in terms of the X-ray observable $`K=Tn_e^{2/3}`$, where $`n_e`$ is the electron density. The standard specific entropy scales with the logarithm of this quantity. Yet, simulations that include radiative cooling without a compensating heat source seem to agree equally well with the data, at the expense of an uncomfortably large condensed baryon fraction ($`30`$%) on group scales (Muanwong et al. 2001; Dave, Katz, & Weinberg 2002; Tornatore et al. 2003; Kay, Thomas, & Theuns 2003).

The insensitivity of the $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation to the details of galaxy formation can be understood in terms of the entropy threshold for cooling within a Hubble time (Voit & Bryan 2001). Gas at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ with entropy equivalent to $`100\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ can radiate away its thermal energy in less than a Hubble time. It must either condense or be heated by feedback to a higher entropy level. The cooling threshold therefore imprints a physical entropy scale on a medium that would otherwise be nearly scale-free. A flattening of the entropy distribution below the cooling threshold, not necessarily an absolute entropy floor, is all that is needed to produce the observed $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation, as long as it forces the cluster’s density profile to be flatter than $`n(r)r^{3/2}`$ where the cooling time is less than a Hubble time. Then, the bulk of the cluster’s luminosity comes from regions where the cooling time is similar to a Hubble time, linking the cluster’s overall luminosity to the cooling threshold (Voit et al. 2002). Simulations of cluster formation performed with a wide range of feedback efficiencies support this basic picture, as long as that feedback heats the affected gas to $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ (Kay et al. 2003). In order to distinguish the effects of cooling from those of heating, more information is needed, and some of that information can be found in observations that resolve the entropy profiles of clusters and groups (e.g., Ponman et al. 2003), which depend in detail on the interplay between cooling, heating, and hierarchical accretion (Voit et al. 2003).

The purpose of this Letter is to highlight two trends found in those spatially resolved entropy observations and to present an initial comparison with theoretical predictions by way of simple analytical models. Section 2 focuses on the core entropy measured at $`0.1r_{200}`$, where $`r_{200}`$ is the radius at which $`\mathrm{\Delta }=200`$. Early measurements of core entropy suggested that a global entropy floor $`135\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ applied to all groups and clusters (Ponman et al. 1999; Lloyd-Davies, Ponman, & Cannon 2000), but updated measurements indicate that entropy at $`0.1r_{200}`$ scales as $`T^{2/3}`$ (Ponman et al. 2003), as expected if the cooling threshold indeed determines core entropy. Section 3 focuses on entropy measured at $`r_{500}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=500`$. Somewhat unexpectedly, entropy at these much larger radii also exceeds the predictions of self-similar models, sometimes by as much as $`10^3\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Finoguenov et al. 2002; Ponman et al. 2003). Comparing these measurements to analytical models for smooth accretion suggests that smoothing of the intergalactic medium before it accretes onto a cluster or group is a promising mechanism for producing this entropy excess (Voit et al. 2003; Ponman et al. 2003). In § 4 we discuss the implications of these results and offer a few hypotheses to test with numerical simulations.

## 2 Core Entropy and Cooling

The entropy of intracluster and intragroup media is generated primarily by shocks owing to mergers and accretion. Simulations show that these gravitationally driven processes lead to an entropy profile $`K(r)\stackrel{}{}r^{1.1}`$ (Borgani et al. 2001), a scaling that reflects the history of mass accretion onto the cluster (Tozzi & Norman 2001; Voit et al. 2003). Alterations of that profile owing to non-gravitational heating and radiative cooling should be most obvious at small radii, where the gravitationally generated entropy is smallest. Models involving strong global preheating typically predict that cluster cores should be nearly isentropic, at the level of the global entropy floor (Balogh, Babul, & Patton 1999; Tozzi & Norman 2001; Babul et al. 2002). In models that rely more on cooling to break self-similarity, the details of the core entropy profile depend on the interplay between cooling, feedback, and merging, and perhaps on conduction as well (Voit et al. 2002). Regardless of these details, the entropy scale of similarity breaking set by cooling should correspond to the cooling threshold $`K_c(T)T^{1/3}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2/3}`$, which leads to $`K_cT^{2/3}`$ when bremsstrahlung dominates the cooling function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Recent observational evidence favors cooling-threshold models. Figure 1 shows measurements of core entropy $`K_{0.1}`$ drawn from a compilation of cluster observations. Ponman et al. (2003) collected data from 64 clusters and groups and presented the mean entropy levels within temperature bins containing eight clusters each. Binning the data averages out the cluster-to-cluster variations, which can range up to a factor of three at a given temperature (e.g., Mushotzky et al. 2003). These measurements sit well above the dotted line showing a self-similar relation calibrated to match the purely gravitational simulations of Bryan & Voit (2001). However, the measurements do not level off at a well-defined entropy floor. Instead, they trace a power-law relation $`K_{0.1}T^{0.65}`$, nearly identical to the scaling of the cooling threshold (Ponman et al. 2003).

Entropy profiles of individual clusters and groups likewise show no evidence for an absolute entropy floor. The cores of groups observed with XMM-Newton are not isentropic but instead have entropy profiles similar to those of clusters (Mushotzky et al. 2003; Pratt & Arnaud 2003). In fact, scaling those profiles according to $`KT^{2/3}`$ produces a much closer match to massive-cluster profiles than the expected self-similar scaling $`KT`$ (Pratt & Arnaud 2003; Ponman et al. 2003). Furthermore, the core entropy levels required to explain the $`L_X`$-$`T_X`$ relation with isentropic models are far higher than those observed (Voit et al. 2003).

Simplistic models involving the cooling threshold come close to matching the $`K_{0.1}`$-$`T_{\mathrm{lum}}`$ relation, but the match is not exact. The solid line in Figure 1 shows the cooling threshold $`K_c(T_{\mathrm{lum}})`$, defined to be the entropy level at which the cooling time equals 14 Gyr, according to the cooling function for 0.3 solar metallicity from Sutherland & Dopita (1993). This threshold lies $``$25% below the binned data points with a very similar slope. The dashed line shows $`K_{0.1}`$ computed from $`K_c`$ using the prescription of Voit & Bryan (2001; see also Wu & Xue 2002a,b). In these models the self-similar entropy distribution of unmodified intracluster gas is simply truncated below $`K_c`$, and the gas is allowed to relax back into hydrostatic equilibrium. These truncated models agree better with the hotter clusters but not do not provide much enhancement over $`K_c`$ near $``$1 keV because this simplistic prescription leads to nearly isentropic cores in the low-mass clusters. Treating cooling more realistically produces an entropy gradient within $`0.1r_{200}`$ that declines to zero entropy at the origin, in the absence of feedback and conduction (Voit et al. 2002).

A more detailed computation of $`K_c`$ accounting for time dependence of the gas temperature does not change this basic result. One can compute the total entropy loss $`K_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ owing to radiative cooling assuming that the gas temperature at a given time equals the temperature of the most massive progenitor halo at that time (see Voit et al. 2003). The squares and triangles in Figure 1 show that $`K_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ differs little from $`K_c`$ for a typical merger history (see also Oh & Benson 2003).

Taken as whole, Figure 1 strongly suggests that radiative cooling regulates the entropy scale that defines the cores of clusters. However, the large dispersion of the unbinned data points indicates that cooling acts in concert with other processes. Much of that dispersion may arise from the stochastic nature of mergers, which produce significant entropy differences in clusters of similar temperature (see Figure 5 of Voit et al. 2003). Differing feedback histories may also be responsible for some of this dispersion.

## 3 Outer Entropy and Smoothing

Elevated entropy levels in cluster cores were once thought to be evidence for non-gravitational energy input into the intracluster medium, but the close link between core entropy and the cooling threshold now renders that interpretation of core entropy somewhat questionable. Nevertheless, feedback from galaxy formation still seems necessary to limit the fraction of condensed baryons in clusters. In models of hierarchical structure formation, a large percentage of the plasma that will become the intracluster medium has a cooling time less than a Hubble time at $`z2`$-3 (e.g., Voit et al. 2002). Because only $``$5-10% of baryons are observed to be in stars (e.g., Balogh et al. 2001), feedback from supernovae and active galactic nuclei presumably intervenes to prevent most of this intergalactic gas from condensing. Here we present evidence suggesting that this early episode of cooling and feedback may couple with subsequent merging and accretion to produce an observable entropy signature in the outskirts of clusters owing to the smoothing effect of galactic feedback on the intergalactic medium.

Hierarchical merging in the absence of cooling and feedback tends to produce a nearly self-similar entropy distribution (Voit et al. 2003). The characteristic entropy associated with the baryons in a halo of mass $`M_{200}`$ is $`K_{200}T_{200}\overline{n}_e^{2/3}`$, where $`T_{200}=GM_{200}\mu m_p/2r_{200}`$ is the characteristic temperature of the halo and $`\overline{n}_e1.6\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is $`200\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1`$ times the mean electron density of the universe. According to the simulations of Bryan & Voit (2001), the maximum value of intracluster entropy is typically $`0.8K_{200}`$ without galaxy formation, and the median entropy value at the scale radius $`r_{500}`$ is $`0.4K_{200}`$. These scalings do not appear to depend significantly on halo mass.

In contrast, observations imply a considerably higher entropy value at $`r_{500}`$ with a clear dependence on halo mass (Finoguenov et al. 2002; Ponman et al. 2003). Figure 2 shows mean values of $`K(r_{500})`$ inferred by Ponman et al. (2003) from the same data set as in Figure 1. Notice that all of the binned data points lie above the dotted line showing the value of $`K(r_{500})`$ predicted by self-similar models calibrated with the simulations of Bryan & Voit (2001), indicating that galaxy formation affects the entire entropy profile of a cluster, not just the core. The observed entropy boost is quite large. A solid line showing the value of $`K_{200}`$ inferred from $`T_{\mathrm{lum}}`$ and the observed $`M_{200}`$-$`T_{\mathrm{lum}}`$ relation of Sanderson et al. (2003) indicates the maximum entropy expected from pure hierarchical accretion. All the data points below $`5\mathrm{keV}`$ lie above this line by hundreds of keV cm2, representing an entropy excess that is very difficult to produce with non-gravitational energy injection alone (Ponman et al. 2003).

Voit et al. (2003) and Ponman et al. (2003) independently suggested that this excess entropy arises because feedback has smoothed the baryonic matter that accretes onto a cluster, thereby reducing the characteristic density of gas that passes through the accretion shock. Smoothing boosts intracluster entropy because the entropy of strongly shocked gas is $`v_s^2\rho _1^{2/3}`$, where $`v_s`$ is the shock velocity and $`\rho _1`$ is the preshock baryon density. The scale of $`v_s`$ is determined by dark-matter dynamics that are virtually unaffected by cooling and feedback. Thus, feedback raises the mass-weighted average value of $`v_s^2\rho _1^{2/3}`$ because it reduces the mass-weighted average value of $`\rho _1`$ (Voit et al. 2003). Notice that a modest amount of preshock entropy can be strongly amplified at the accretion shock of a deep potential well if that preshock entropy is sufficient to drive a large proportion of baryons out of the shallower potential wells of the accreting dark matter. Ponman et al. (2003) envisioned this smoothing as a thickening of the filaments through which matter accretes. Voit et al. (2003) modeled this entropy increase by developing analytical models for entropy production during smooth accretion.

The models of Voit et al. (2003) show that smooth, spherically symmetric accretion produces an entropy profile whose shape is similar to that found in simulations without galaxy formation but whose normalization is $``$2 times higher in massive clusters and up to $``$4 times higher in groups. The magnitude of this entropy excess depends on the mass-accretion rate—objects that accrete most of their mass late in time have a higher baryon density entering the accretion shock and therefore less of an entropy excess. The dashed lines in Figure 2 indicate the maximum amount of entropy produced by smooth accretion, assuming the accretion histories of Tozzi & Norman (2001; squares) and Voit et al. (2003; triangles) for halo masses of $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, $`10^{14}h^1M_{}`$, and $`10^{15}h^1M_{}`$.

This initial comparison between analytical models for smooth accretion and observed entropy levels at $`r_{500}`$ suggest that smoothed accretion is a plausible explanation for these entropy excesses because the data points in Figure 2 approach but do not exceed the dashed lines. Furthermore, the trend of the data points with $`T_{\mathrm{lum}}`$ suggests that accretion of baryons onto groups is smoother than accretion of baryons onto clusters. This apparent transition from nearly smooth accretion at $`1\mathrm{keV}`$ to purely hierarchical accretion at $`10\mathrm{keV}`$ may also explain why the entropy profiles of groups are similar in shape to those of clusters but have shifted normalizations (e.g., Pratt & Arnaud 2003). Curiously, scaling the profiles by the same $`T^{2/3}`$ factor found in the cores brings them into agreement, suggesting that the cooling threshold plays a role in setting the smoothing scale. However, it is not immediately clear how cooling and feedback would couple with accretion to produce this scaling.

## 4 Discussion

The entropy of baryons in both the cores and outskirts of clusters disagrees with simulations that do not include galaxy formation. Thus, the entropy profiles of these objects contain valuable information about the impact of galaxy formation on the intergalactic medium and the role of feedback in regulating global star formation. The scaling of core entropy ($`K_{0.1}T_{\mathrm{lum}}^{2/3}`$) suggests that it is governed by radiative cooling (Ponman et al. 2003). However, feedback is likely to limit the fraction of baryons that eventually cool and form stars.

If feedback is strong enough to eject a substantial percentage of baryons from low-mass halos, then this smoothing of the baryon distribution will affect entropy production during subsequent accretion and mergers. Comparing smooth-accretion models with the available data (Figure 2) suggests that a large percentage of the matter accreting onto groups and low-mass clusters must be smoothed in order to explain the observed entropy excess at $`r_{500}`$. If this explanation is correct, then smoothing may also have an observable impact on the X-ray substructure in and around low-mass clusters and the associated filaments. Measuring how feedback affects the level of X-ray substructure in numerically simulated groups and clusters would help observers to quantify the level of intergalactic smoothing.

Only in the highest-mass clusters do entropy profiles approach the self-similar form predicted by simulations without cooling and feedback. However, these clusters presumably formed through mergers of lower-mass objects in which cooling and feedback had already broken self-similarity. We speculate that hierarchical merging restores similarity because the self-similar entropy profile behaves as a dynamical attractor: As structure grows, the deepening potential wells are increasingly able to overcome baryon smoothing produced by early feedback. Accretion onto massive clusters is therefore lumpier than accretion onto groups, and the resulting entropy profile approaches self-similarity when the accreting lumps of dark matter are able to retain the majority of their associated baryons.

Many questions about the link between galaxy formation and the intracluster medium remain unanswered. Among the most crucial is the amount of energy injection implied by the entropy profiles of clusters. Numerical simulations that track entropy production in low-mass halos would be very helpful because smoothing allows a small amount of entropy injection to be amplified with each merger event during the formation of a group or cluster. High resolution simulations will therefore be needed to assess how early feedback propagates through the entire merger hierarchy and to characterize how the hottest clusters eventually approach self-similarity.

The authors thank Greg Bryan for sharing his insights into simulated clusters and Alistair Sanderson for his contributions to the analysis of the observational data. GMV received partial support from NASA through grant NAG5-3257.