text:
# Cosmic Variance in the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey

## 1 Introduction

The number density of observed extragalactic populations in the Universe is a fundamental property which may hold clues to the nature of the objects. However, observational estimates of the number density of any clustered population are plagued by uncertainty due to *cosmic variance*, the field-to-field variation (in excess of Poisson shot noise) due to large scale structure. Clearly, if one can sample a volume that is very large compared with the intrinsic clustering scale of the objects in question, cosmic variance will be insignificant. In practice, especially in high-redshift studies, the volumes sampled are small enough that cosmic variance is often a significant source of uncertainty. Perhaps the majority of published cosmological number densities and related quantities (e.g. luminosity functions, integrated luminosity densities, etc.) do not properly account for cosmic variance in their quoted error budgets.

Cosmic variance has frequently been invoked as a motivation for carrying out deep pencil-beam surveys along multiple sightlines. While the term “cosmic variance” is generally understood, the effects are of course dependent on the clustering properties of the sources of interest, a fact that is often lost in discussions of deep survey strategy. With the availability of the GOODS data, it seems appropriate to cast this variance in practical terms, calculating explicitly the expected uncertainties due to clustering for various source populations under study. A simple exposition of this cosmic variance may be useful both to researchers using the GOODS data and to those planning future studies.

The mean $`N`$ and variance $`N^2`$ are the first and second moments of the probability distribution function $`P_N(V)`$, which represents the probability of counting $`N`$ objects within a volume $`V`$. We define the *relative* cosmic variance:

$$\sigma _v^2\frac{N^2N^2}{N^2}\frac{1}{N}.$$
(1)
Note that the last term is the usual correction for Poisson shot noise, which for the samples considered here will typically be negligible. In any case, it is relatively straightforward to perform this correction, so we do not discuss this term further. In the general hierarchical scenario of structure formation, in which density perturbations grow via gravitational instability, $`P_N`$ is expected to have non-zero higher moments (e.g. skewness and kurtosis). For a detailed and general treatment of the cosmic error, see Colombi et al. (2000), Szapudi et al. (1999, 2000), and references therein. Here, we concentrate solely on one-point statistics (i.e. counts in cells) and do not address the cosmic error with respect to two-point or higher order statistics such as correlation functions. We defer treatment of these issues to future works.

For a population with a known two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$, it is straightforward to calculate the cosmic variance as a function of cell radius $`R`$ or equivalently, cell volume $`V`$ (see e.g. Peebles 1980, or Section 3 below). There are, however, several potential practical difficulties with this simple approach. While the correlation function of galaxies is typically well-approximated by a power law in the strongly non-linear regime ($`r10`$-15 Mpc), on larger scales, in the linear regime, the correlation function is expected to deviate from the power-law slope measured on smaller scales. Also, estimating the correlation function (especially its slope) of an observed population is more difficult than estimating the number density, so often the latter quantity is known while the former is not. In this situation, we can use the theory of clustering and bias in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm to estimate the cosmic variance for a population with a known mean redshift and average comoving number density.

In this *Letter*, we estimate the uncertainty due to cosmic variance for several populations that have been identified in the GOODS survey, and present general results based on CDM theory that can be used to estimate the cosmic variance for populations at $`z<6`$. Throughout, we assume cosmological parameters consistent with the recent analysis of WMAP data (Spergel et al. 2003): matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.044`$, cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.70`$, Hubble parameter $`H_0=70`$ km/s/Mpc, fluctuation amplitude $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, and a scale-free primordial power spectrum $`n_s=1`$.

## 2 The geometry of GOODS

The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) covers two fields, the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS) and the Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN). The CDFS field has dimensions 10’$`\times `$16’, and the GOODS HDFN field has similar dimensions. For more details and a general overview of the GOODS program, see Giavalisco et al. (2003). Here, we treat the case of a single CDFS-sized field. For widely separated fields, the cosmic variance goes as $`1/N_{\mathrm{field}}`$, so the variance will decrease by a factor of two when the second field is included. In Fig. 1, we show the comoving volume per unit redshift for several recent, ongoing, and planned deep HST surveys: the original Hubble Deep Field North (Williams et al. 1996), the GOODS CDFS field, the GEMS (Galaxy Evolution from Morphology and SEDs; Rix et al. in prep) field111http://www.mpia.de/homes/barden/gems/gems.htm, and the planned Ultra Deep Field (UDF) 222http://www.stsci.edu/science/udf/. For redshifts $`z1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.5`$–1, GOODS samples a volume of a few $`\times 10^5\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. Fig. 1 also shows the average transverse size ($`L=\sqrt{10^{}\times 16^{}}=12.7^{}`$) of the GOODS field as a function of redshift, again compared with the original HDF ($`L=\sqrt{5.7\mathrm{arcmin}^2}=2.4^{}`$).

## 3 The Power-Law Model

The relative cosmic variance for a population with known two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ is given by:

$$\sigma _v^2=\frac{1}{V^2}_0^R\xi (|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}|)𝑑V_1𝑑V_2$$
(2)
(see, e.g. Peebles 1980, p. 234). If the correlation function can be represented by a power-law $`\xi (r)=(r_0/r)^\gamma `$, then this expression can be evaluated in closed form:

$$\sigma _v^2=J_2(r_0/r)^\gamma $$
(3)
where $`J_2=72.0/[(3\gamma )(4\gamma )(6\gamma )2^\gamma ]`$ (Peebles 1980, p. 230). Assuming spherical cells, the variance may be equivalently expressed in terms of the cell radius $`R`$ or the cell volume $`V4\pi R^3/3`$.

For objects with a known correlation function that is well represented by a power-law, we can simply use Eqn. 3 to compute the cosmic variance for a given effective volume, as illustrated in Fig. 3. We show $`\sigma _v`$ as a function of volume, for three populations with correlation function estimates from the literature: Extremely Red Objects (EROs) at mean redshift $`\overline{z}1.2`$, U-band dropouts at $`\overline{z}3`$ (also known as Lyman break galaxies (LBG)), and B-band dropouts at $`\overline{z}4`$. The magnitude limit and color selection used for each of these populations selects objects in a given redshift range, resulting in an effective volume $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Characteristic number densities for each of these populations, along with correlation function parameters and the relevant references, are summarized in Table 1. For example, for EROs in the GOODS field, $`\sigma _v0.40.6`$, while for the less clustered LBGs, $`\sigma _v0.150.2`$. Note that we have assumed here a spherical geometry for the cells, while in fact for the GOODS survey the cells are very elongated, with the redshift dimension being much longer (about a factor of ten) than the transverse dimension in comoving distance units. We have also ignored the evolution in clustering that occurs over the time interval between the ‘back’ and the ‘front’ of the cell. It should be noted that, for two fields with the same volume, the cosmic variance is *smaller* for an elongated (parallelepiped or cylindrical) field than for a compact (cubical or spherical) field (see e.g. Newman & Davis 2002). This is because an elongated field samples more independent (uncorrelated) regions. Therefore, the estimates given here provide an upper bound on the cosmic variance.

## 4 CDM models

We now consider the situation in which we know only the number density but not the correlation function of a population. In this situation, we can use predictions from CDM to estimate the clustering strength of a population with a given number density at a known average redshift. In CDM models, both the number density and clustering strength of dark matter halos are a strong function of halo mass. Fig. 2 shows the average bias as a function of number density, for dark matter halos at various redshifts (as described in the figure caption), computed using the analytic model of Sheth & Tormen (1999). The bias is defined as the ratio of the root variance of the halos and the dark matter, $`b\sigma _h/\sigma _{DM}`$. It is likely that this relationship is more complicated for galaxies, since there is probably not a one-to-one correspondence between galaxies and dark matter halos. Similar relations for more general ‘occupation functions’ (i.e., allowing varying numbers of galaxies per halo) are given in e.g. Moustakas & Somerville (2002). Fig. 2 also shows the variance of dark matter $`\sigma _{DM}`$ as a function of cell volume for the same redshifts, as predicted by linear theory ($`\sigma (R,z)=\sigma (R,0)D_{\mathrm{lin}}`$, where $`D_{\mathrm{lin}}`$ is the linear growth function). We now have all the ingredients necessary to obtain a rough estimate of the cosmic variance for any population associated with dark matter halos with a known number density and mean redshift:

1. Read off the average bias $`b`$ for objects of a given number density and mean redshift from the left panel of Fig. 2.
2. Obtain the value of $`\sigma _{DM}`$ at the relevant scale $`V`$ and redshift from the right panel of Fig. 2.
3. The cosmic variance for the population is then given by $`\sigma _v=b\sigma _{DM}`$.

As a consistency check, we can use the values given in Table 1 to estimate the cosmic variance for the same populations discussed in the previous section. For EROs, using the number density $`n=1.0\times 10^3\mathrm{h}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, we would estimate a bias of $`b1.8`$, resulting in $`\sigma _v0.7`$ at $`z=1`$, in reasonable agreement with our earlier estimate of $`\sigma _v0.6`$ at $`z=1.2`$. Similarly, for LBGs at $`z=3`$, we find $`b2.5`$, resulting in $`\sigma _v0.25`$, again in agreement with the earlier estimate of $`\sigma _v0.2`$. One reason that these estimates are not in precise agreement with the values obtained from the calculation based on the actual correlation length is due to the unknown halo occupation distribution (i.e., the number of galaxies per halo as a function of halo mass). It has been shown previously that one cannot simultaneously exactly reproduce both the number density and observed correlation length of either of these populations under the simple assumption of one galaxy per halo (Moustakas & Somerville 2002), adopted here.

## 5 Conclusions

Cosmic variance can be a significant source of uncertainty in estimates of the number density or related quantities in deep surveys. We have given empirical estimates of the uncertainty due to cosmic variance for several populations that have been identified in the GOODS survey: EROs at $`z1`$, U-dropouts at $`z3`$ and B-dropouts at $`z4`$. These empirical estimates were based on correlation function measurements from the literature for similarly defined populations, and may be refined once correlation function estimates have been obtained for the actual populations identified in GOODS. From this calculation, we saw that the cosmic variance is much reduced in GOODS compared with the original HDF (40–60% rather than a factor of 2 for for very strongly clustered populations such as EROs, 15–20% rather than 40% for less clustered populations such as LBGs). We have also presented predictions from the theory of clustering and bias in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM Universe, which allow one to estimate the cosmic variance for a population of a known average redshift and number density but unknown clustering strength. We emphasize that this approach is intended to give only a simple first order estimate of the cosmic variance. More detailed estimates, tailored to individual populations and including treatments of e.g. a generalized halo occupation distribution formalism, geometric effects, the observational selection function, and clustering evolution and the change in absolute magnitude limit over the redshift range of the sample, will be addressed in future works.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Emanuele Daddi and Mike Fall for useful discussions and comments. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant GO09583.01-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgments

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to K. Huang for many helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U. S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-FG02-91ER40661.

## Appendix: Hamiltonian for “inelastic” scattering

In the body of this paper, we have considered only those scattering processes which preserve the individuals particles’ $`\mathrm{}`$ values. However, there exists another type of scattering interaction, which does not have this property. Interactions of the type $`(k_F^{\mathrm{}};k_F^{\mathrm{}})(k_F^{\mathrm{}^{}};k_F^{\mathrm{}^{}})`$ with $`|\mathrm{}||\mathrm{}^{}|`$ are also allowed by linear and angular momentum conservation. In this appendix, we shall examine the effects of such terms. We shall find that they lead to interactions that are similar to sine-Gordon interactions but more complicated.

We begin with an interaction Hamiltonian that describes the scattering process in question:

$$H_{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{k,p,q}{}\underset{\mathrm{}=\pm 1}{}g_{\mathrm{in}}a_k^{\mathrm{}}b_{k+q}^{\mathrm{}}a_p^0b_{p+q}^0+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(33)
where “h.c.” denotes the Hermitian conjugate. We may simplify this by Fourier transforming the $`a`$ and $`b`$ operators and expanding the resultant fermion operators in terms of the boson field. For example, $`a_k^{+1}`$ may be written as

$`a_k^{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑xe^{ikx}\psi _+^{+1}(x)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^1L}}}U_+^{+1}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑xe^{ikx}e^{ik_F^1x}e^{i\varphi ^{+1}(x)+i\theta ^{+1}(x)}.`$
The operator $`U_+^{+1}`$ carries the fermion number of $`a_k^{+1}`$ but does not affect the bosonic state of the system, while $`\varphi ^{+1}`$ is the boson field corresponding to the $`\mathrm{}=+1`$ fermion states, and $`\theta ^{+1}`$ is the integral of the momentum conjugate to $`\varphi ^{+1}`$. In general, the operators $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ have the forms

$`i\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}e^{\alpha |p|/2}e^{ipx}[\rho _+^{\mathrm{}}(p)+\rho _{}^{\mathrm{}}(p)]+i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{N_+^{\mathrm{}}+N_{}^{\mathrm{}}}{L}}x`$ (35)
$`i\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}e^{\alpha |p|/2}e^{ipx}[\rho _+^{\mathrm{}}(p)\rho _{}^{\mathrm{}}(p)]+i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{N_+^{\mathrm{}}N_{}^{\mathrm{}}}{L}}x,`$ (36)
where $`N_+^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`N_{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the numbers of excess right- and left-moving fermions of angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$, respectively.

If we express all the operators in $`H_{\mathrm{in}}`$ in this (bosonized) fashion, we get

$`H_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{in}}}{(2\pi )^2\alpha ^1\alpha ^0L^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,p,q}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3𝑑x_4e^{ik(x_2x_1)}e^{ik_F^{\mathrm{}}(x_2x_1)}e^{iq(x_4x_2)}e^{ip(x_3x_4)}`$ (37)
$`e^{ik_F^0(x_3x_4)}e^{i\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x_1)+i\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x_1)}e^{i\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x_2)+i\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x_2)}e^{i\varphi ^0(x_3)i\theta ^0(x_3)}e^{i\varphi ^0(x_4)i\theta ^0(x_4)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
The sums over $`k`$, $`p`$, and $`q`$ give $`\delta `$-functions according to $`_ke^{ikx}=L\delta (x)`$, and these simplify the expression substantially. We find that

$$H_{\mathrm{in}}=\frac{g_{\mathrm{in}}}{(2\pi )^2\alpha ^0\alpha ^1}\underset{\mathrm{}=\pm 1}{}_0^L𝑑xe^{i\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x)+i\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x)}e^{i\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x)+i\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x)}e^{2i\theta ^0(x)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(38)
Since $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\theta ^{\mathrm{}}`$ are Hermitian, this is equivalent to

$`H_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{\mathrm{in}}}{(2\pi )^2\alpha ^0\alpha ^1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=\pm 1}{}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\left[\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x)\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x)\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}(x)\theta ^{\mathrm{}}(x)+2\theta ^0(x)\right]`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{in}}}{\pi ^2\alpha ^1\alpha ^0}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\mathrm{cos}\left[\varphi ^{+1}(x)\varphi ^1(x)\right]\mathrm{cos}\left[\theta ^{+1}(x)+\theta ^1(x)2\theta ^0(x)\right].`$
This a new nonlinear interaction. It is similar to a sine-Gordon interaction, but it contains substantial additional complexity. The effects of this interaction would presumably need to be determined perturbatively.


text:
# Strange Stars with a Density-Dependent Bag Parameter

## I Introduction

The conjecture that the true ground state of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) may be the strange quark matter (SQM) was first explicitly stated by Witten Witten:1984rs , though various forms of quark matter had been considered earlier Bodmer:1971we ; Chin:1979yb . The key idea is that the energy per baryon of SQM could be less than that of even 56Fe, the most stable nucleus, making SQM comparatively more stable. Farhi and Jaffe Farhi:1984qu  studied SQM in the framework of the MIT bag model Chodos:1974je , for various values of the strange quark mass ($`m_s`$) and the bag constant ($`B`$). They found a “window of stability” in the $`m_s`$-$`B`$ plane inside which SQM was stable. The astrophysical implication of the stability of SQM, namely the possible existence of strange (quark) stars, was studied by Haensel et al. Haensel:qb  and Alcock et al. Alcock:1986hz . They found that very compact strange stars are possible, which are much smaller than the normal neutron stars, the reason being that the strange stars are self-bound and generically different from the gravitationally bound stars. Of course, the actual existence of strange stars can only be confirmed by observational studies of pulsars and pulsar-like compact stars, including X-ray pulsars, X-ray bursters, anomalous X-ray pulsars, soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters and isolated neutron stars.

The SQM hypothesis has been around for almost two decades. Recent theoretical progress in our understanding of the cold and dense QCD matter has renewed the interest in this hypothesis: At low temperatures and sufficiently high baryon number densities, it is thought that quarks near the Fermi surface form Cooper pairs and new condensates develop. This is expected to lead to a colour-superconducting phase in the QCD phase diagram Alford:1997zt ; Rapp:1997zu . Among the various colour-superconducting phases, the colour-flavour-locked (CFL) phase Rajagopal:2000wf ; Alford:1999pa ; Schafer:1999pb  is the one in which quarks of all three colours and all three flavours ($`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$) pair. Electrical neutrality of bulk CFL matter is ensured due to the fact that this phase favours equal number densities of $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks, despite their unequal masses Rajagopal:2000ff ; Steiner:2002gx . This also means that electrons are absent in the bulk CFL matter. Strange stars made of CFL matter seem to be favoured over those made of another colour-superconducting phase, namely the 2SC phase Alford:2002kj . These theoretical developments have important implications for the existence of quark stars and neutron stars with quark cores.

Other reasons for the revival of interest in this area are the recent claims of observation of both mass and radius of compact stars Pons:2001px ; Drake:2002bj . Although these claims are somewhat controversial Walter:2002uq , they have further stimulated theoretical activity in this area.

The stability of SQM in the light of the above theoretical developments, and the structure of strange stars have recently been investigated by Lugones and Horvath Lugones:2002va ; Lugones:2002zd . While constructing the equation of state (EOS) of the CFL matter, they introduced the vacuum energy by means of the phenomenological bag constant $`B`$. However, in view of the high densities encountered in neutron stars and quark stars, the question whether the bag constant should be held fixed at its free-space value or whether its variation with the density of the medium should be taken into account becomes very relevant. In this work, we investigate the effect of a density-dependent $`B`$, on the EOS and the resulting structure of the CFL strange stars.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we discuss various models of $`B(\rho )`$ where $`\rho `$ is the baryon number density of the medium. In Sec. III we consider the CFL matter and its EOS. Our numerical results for the resulting stellar structure are given in Sec. IV. In Sec. V we present our conclusions.

## II Density-Dependent Bag Parameter

Of the many models of the nucleon that have been constructed so far, one of the most useful is the MIT Bag Model Chodos:1974je : The nucleon is assumed to be a “bubble” of perturbative vacuum immersed in the non-perturbative or true vacuum, and quarks are confined to the bubble by means of a net inward pressure $`B`$ exerted on it by the surrounding vacuum. The bag model has also been used to study the thermodynamics of the deconfinement phase transition. As the temperature rises above the deconfinement temperature, there is no difference between the two vacua, and the net inward pressure $`B`$ must vanish. In other words, $`B`$ must be viewed as a temperature-dependent quantity Muller:1980kf . The analogy between the bag constant $`B`$ and the condensation energy in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model at finite temperature was pointed out in Ref. Li:es . It was shown that as the temperature rises, this condensation energy decreases and goes to zero at the transition temperature. This provides a model of the temperature-dependent $`B`$. Density dependence of $`B`$ can be motivated in an analogous manner: Since the deconfinement and the concomitant vanishing of $`B`$ can also be brought about by raising the baryon number density $`\rho `$, $`B`$ should be treated as a density-dependent quantity Reinhardt:tv .

There have been a number of attempts in the literature to evaluate the density dependence of $`B`$. The results, however, are model dependent, and no consensus seems to have emerged. In this work, we made use of the results of the following three studies published recently: (a) Liu et al. Liu:2001em  extended the global colour symmetry model Roberts:1987xc  to finite quark number chemical potentials $`\mu `$, in order to derive the variation of $`B`$ with $`\mu `$ and $`\rho `$. (b) Burgio et al. Burgio:2001mk  used the CERN SPS data on heavy-ion collisions to justify and determine the density dependence of $`B`$. (c) Aguirre Aguirre:2002ws ; Aguirre:2003pc  used the NJL model to study the modification of the QCD vacuum with increasing baryonic density and to extract the medium dependence of $`B`$.

(a) Since Liu et al. have not presented their $`B(\rho )`$ or $`B(\mu )`$ in a parametric form, we have fitted their results with a suitable analytic expression with two parameters $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$:

$$B(\rho )/B(0)=\mathrm{exp}[(a_1x^2+a_2x)],$$
(1)
where $`x\rho /\rho _0`$ is the normalized baryon number density, $`\rho _0`$ is the baryon number density of the ordinary nuclear matter, $`a_1=0.0125657`$, and $`a_2=0.29522`$. They took $`B(0)=114`$ MeV/fm3 =(172 MeV)4. (b) Burgio et al. have presented their $`B(\rho )`$ in a parametric form:

$$B(\rho )=B_{as}+(B_oB_{as})\mathrm{exp}(\beta x^2),$$
(2)
where $`B_{as}=38`$ MeV/fm3, $`B_0=200`$ MeV/fm3 = (198 MeV)4, $`\beta =0.14`$, and $`x`$ is as defined above. (c) Aguirre Aguirre:2003pc  has calculated $`B(\rho )`$ for a symmetric $`uds`$ quark matter relevant for a CFL quark star. His $`B(\rho )`$, in MeV/fm3, is given by

$`B(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`a+b_1x+b_2x^2+b_3x^3+b_4x^4+b_5x^5,x9`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\beta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha (x9)),x>9`$
where $`x`$ is as defined earlier. Further, $`a=291.59096,b_1=142.25581,b_2=39.29997,b_3=6.04592,b_4=0.46817,b_5=0.01421,\alpha =0.253470705`$, and $`\beta =19.68764`$. Thus in this case $`B(0)=291.59096`$ MeV/fm3 = (217.6 MeV)4.

We display, in Fig. 1, $`B(\rho )`$ vs $`\rho `$ corresponding to Eqs. (1)-(3). These three models provide $`B(\rho )`$ over a sufficiently wide range of densities expected to be seen inside quark stars. Secondly, the above three values of $`B(0)`$ span more or less the whole range of values of the bag constant found in the literature. Finally, as is clear from Eqs. (1)-(3), they yield qualitatively different shapes for $`B(\rho )`$: (1) and (3) have negative slopes at $`x=0`$, while (2) has a vanishing slope; (1) and (3) vanish as $`x\mathrm{}`$, while (2) tends to a positive constant. It will be interesting to investigate what effects these different shapes and magnitudes of $`B(\rho )`$ have on the EOS and the stellar structure. We shall use these three models in subsequent sections; all our numerical results are labeled accordingly as (a), (b), or (c).

## III Thermodynamics of the CFL phase

The free energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}`$ of the CFL phase, at temperature $`T=0`$, is obtained as follows Rajagopal:2000ff . We first consider the free energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{free}`$ of an unpaired quark matter in which all quarks that are “going to pair” have a common Fermi momentum $`\nu `$: the CFL pairing is most effective if the Fermi momenta of the $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$ flavours are the same. Although the nonzero strange quark mass tends to favour unequal number densities for the three flavours, the CFL pairing forces the three flavours to have the same Fermi momentum and hence the same number density, so long as $`m_s`$ is not too large. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the colour-superconductivity gap parameter and $`\mu `$ is the quark number chemical potential, then the binding energy of the $`qq`$ Cooper pairs can be included (to leading order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$) by subtracting $`3\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2/\pi ^2`$ from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{free}`$. The vacuum energy density in the presence of a finite chemical potential $`\mu `$, is included by adding $`B(\mu )`$. This gives

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{free}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2+B(\mu )`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\nu }(p\mu )p^2𝑑p+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\nu }[(p^2+m_s^2)^{1/2}\mu ]p^2𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2+B(\mu ),`$
see Alford:2002rj ; Alford:2001zr  which, however, treat $`B`$ as a constant. The baryon number density $`\rho =\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}/(3\mu )`$ and particle number densities for individual flavours are given by

$$\rho =n_u=n_d=n_s=\frac{(\nu ^3+2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu )}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{3}B^{}(\mu ),$$
(5)
where $`B^{}(\mu )dB/d\mu .`$ The common Fermi momentum $`\nu `$ is chosen to minimize the free energy density with respect to a variation in $`\nu `$. This gives

$$\nu =2\mu \left(\mu ^2+\frac{m_s^2}{3}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
Energy density of the CFL matter is given by

$$\epsilon =\underset{i}{}\mu _in_i+\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}=3\mu \rho P,$$
(7)
since $`\mu =(\mu _u+\mu _d+\mu _s)/3`$ and the pressure $`P`$ is given by $`P=\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}`$.

Now we obtain the equation of state of the CFL matter, in the standard form. Integrations in Eq. (4) can be performed in a straightforward manner and we get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{free}=\frac{3\nu ^4}{2\pi ^2}\frac{3\mu \nu ^3}{\pi ^2}+\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\left[\frac{\nu }{4}(m_s^2+\nu ^2)^{3/2}\frac{m_s^2\nu }{8}(m_s^2+\nu ^2)^{1/2}\frac{m_s^4}{8}\mathrm{sinh}^1\frac{\nu }{m_s}\right].$$
(8)
We are interested in the region where $`m_s`$ is small compared to the chemical potential $`\mu `$. So it is sufficient to keep terms up to order $`m_s^4`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{free}`$ Alford:2002kj . To that end, first note that the common Fermi momentum $`\nu `$ (Eq. (6)) is given by

$$\nu =\mu \frac{m_s^2}{6\mu }+\frac{m_s^4}{72\mu ^3},$$
(9)
where we have kept terms up to order $`m_s^4`$. This yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{CFL}=\frac{3\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2}+\frac{3m_s^2\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{112\mathrm{log}(m_s/2\mu )}{32\pi ^2}m_s^4\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2+B(\mu ).$$
(10)
Substitution of $`\nu `$ given by Eq. (9), in Eqs. (5) and (7) yields

$$\rho =\frac{\mu ^3}{\pi ^2}\frac{m_s^2\mu }{2\pi ^2}+\frac{m_s^4}{8\pi ^2\mu }+\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu \frac{1}{3}B^{}(\mu ),$$
(11)
$$\epsilon =\frac{9\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2}\frac{3m_s^2\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}+\frac{11m_s^4}{32\pi ^2}+\frac{3\mathrm{log}(m_s/2\mu )}{8\pi ^2}m_s^4+\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2+B(\mu )\mu B^{}(\mu ).$$
(12)
The pressure is given by

$$P=\frac{3\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2}\frac{3m_s^2\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}+\frac{112\mathrm{log}(m_s/2\mu )}{32\pi ^2}m_s^4+\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2B(\mu ).$$
(13)
Equations (12) and (13) give $`\epsilon `$ and $`P`$ in terms of $`\mu `$ as a parameter. The EOS in the standard form can be obtained from these two equations and it reads

$$\epsilon =3P+4B(\mu )\frac{6\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2}{\pi ^2}+\frac{3m_s^2\mu ^2}{2\pi ^2}+\frac{1+6\mathrm{log}(m_s/2\mu )}{4\pi ^2}m_s^4\mu B^{}(\mu ).$$
(14)
If only the first two terms on the rhs of Eq. (14) are kept then it reduces to the ideal gas EOS in the bag model. The occurrence of the pairing term stiffens the EOS because we get a higher pressure at the same energy density. A nonzero value of $`m_s`$, on the other hand, tends to reduce the pressure leading to a softer EOS.

If Eq. (14) is to be used to study the stellar structure, one needs to know $`B(\mu )`$ and its derivative $`B^{}(\mu )`$. In Sec. II, we have described three models of $`B(\rho )`$. Consider first the model of Liu et al. Liu:2001em , denoted by (a) in Sec. II. Their formalism in fact first yields $`B(\mu )`$, not $`B(\rho )`$. They, however, do not present their numerical results for $`B(\mu )`$. Instead, they use the relation $`\rho =2\mu ^3/(3\pi ^2)`$ to obtain $`B(\rho )`$ and present numerical results for $`B(\rho )`$. In order to extract their $`B(\mu )`$, we have to use exactly the same relation between $`\rho `$ and $`\mu `$. This is how we obtained $`B(\mu )`$ in the case of the model (a). Next, consider the models (b) and (c) of Sec. II. To obtain $`B(\mu )`$ from $`B(\rho )`$ in these cases, we proceed as follows. Consider Eq. (11). It can be rewritten as

$$\rho =f(\mu )\frac{1}{3}\frac{dB}{d\mu },$$
(15)
where $`f(\mu )`$ denotes the sum of the first four terms on the rhs of Eq. (11). In the case of model (b), Eq. (2) can be inverted to get $`\rho (B)`$ which can be substituted in Eq. (15). This gives a first-order differential equation between $`B`$ and $`\mu `$, which can be solved numerically. In the case of model (c), it is easier to eliminate $`B`$ between Eqs. (3) and (15), and the resulting differential equation looks like

$$\frac{dx}{d\mu }=3[f(\mu )\rho _0x]/(dB/dx).$$
(16)
In both the cases, the initial condition necessary to solve the differential equation is obtained from the fact that for sufficiently large $`\mu `$, $`dB/d\mu `$ is nearly zero. We have checked the solutions of the above differential equations by substituting them in the original equations (Eqs. (15) and (2) in the case of model (b), and Eqs. (15) and (3) in the case of model (c)).

Before we display our results for the EOS, Eq. (14), it is useful to see how the quantities $`B`$, $`B^{}`$, $`\epsilon `$ in Eq. (12), and $`P`$ in Eq. (13) vary with $`\mu `$. This is shown in Fig. 2. Consider first $`B(\mu )`$. Its broad features are in agreement with those of $`B(\rho )`$ seen in Fig. 1. Also note that in spite of the large differences among the values of $`B(\rho =0)`$ corresponding to the three models, the curves for $`B(\mu )`$ in the region relevant to quark stars ($`\mu `$ a few hundred MeV) do not differ drastically from each other. Consider next $`B^{}(\mu )`$. It is either negative or zero depending on the value of $`\mu `$. We have plotted $`|\mu B^{}(\mu )|`$ since it occurs in Eq. (12). This quantity obviously tends to vanish at very small and very large values of $`\mu `$, and it displays a gentle peak at an intermediate value of $`\mu `$. $`\epsilon (\mu )`$ contains $`|\mu B^{}(\mu )|`$, whereas $`P(\mu )`$ does not. However, because of the relatively small magnitude of $`|\mu B^{}(\mu )|`$, the curves for $`\epsilon (\mu )`$ and $`P(\mu )`$ have similar shapes. Interestingly, the magnitudes of $`\epsilon (\mu )`$ and $`P(\mu )`$ are seen to be insensitive to the details of the three models of $`B(\rho )`$. Finally, note that $`P(\mu )`$ is positive only when $`\mu `$ exceeds a certain threshold value.

Figure 3 displays the EOS of the CFL matter and unpaired quark matter, in the various models considered above. It is easy to understand the shapes of these curves by looking at $`P(\mu )`$ and $`\epsilon (\mu )`$ in Fig. 2, and noting that Fig. 3 is obtained essentially by eliminating $`\mu `$. Some general trends emerge: (1) If $`B`$ is treated as a constant independent of the density of the medium then the EOS appears to be linear; see the dashed lines in Fig. 3. On the other hand, if $`B`$ depends on $`\mu `$, the EOS is slightly nonlinear. (2) The pairing term is seen to make the EOS stiffer, so does the density dependent $`B`$. However, the latter effect is seen to be more significant. This will be corroborated further when we present the stellar structure curves in the next section.

We now discuss the issue of the “window of stability”. This is the region in the $`m_s`$-$`B`$ plane, in which the SQM has energy per baryon ($`\epsilon /\rho `$) less than 939 MeV, and which was first discussed in Ref. Farhi:1984qu . Since both $`m_s`$ and $`B`$ tend to increase $`\epsilon /\rho `$, this region obviously lies near small values of $`m_s`$ and $`B`$, in the first quadrant of the $`m_s`$-$`B`$ plane. It is bounded on the left by the vertical line $`B=57`$ MeV/fm3=(145 MeV)4, and on the other side, by the $`\epsilon /\rho =939`$ MeV contour. The boundary on the left arises because if $`B`$ were smaller than 57 MeV/fm3, i.e., if the inward pressure holding the quarks together in the nucleon were too small (see Sec. II), the nucleon and hence the nuclei would have dissolved into $`ud`$ quark matter. Since that does not happen, $`B`$ must not be smaller than 57 MeV/fm3.

Recently, it was shown that the window of stability is enlarged considerably if the SQM undergoes a phase transition to a CFL quark matter Lugones:2002va . The enlargement occurs because the $`\epsilon /\rho =939`$ MeV contour gets shifted to the right. Let us understand this. To probe the absolute stability of the SQM, we need to set the external pressure $`P`$ equal to zero. Then Eqs. (7) and (10) yield, respectively,

$$\epsilon /\rho =3\mu ,$$
(17)
and

$$\frac{3\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2}+\frac{3m_s^2\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mu ^2+B(\mu )=0,$$
(18)
where we have ignored the $`𝒪(m_s^4)`$ term in Eq. (10), for simplicity. Ignoring the $`\mu `$-dependence of $`B`$ as in Lugones:2002va  and eliminating $`\mu `$ in the last two equations one gets $`\epsilon /\rho `$ as a function of $`m_s`$, $`B`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is clear that a nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ shifts the $`\epsilon /\rho =939`$ MeV contour to the right thereby enlarging the window of stability. This is essentially because of the opposite signs of the $`B`$\- and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-terms in Eq. (18): The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-term tends to nullify the effect of a large $`B`$. The larger the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the larger the value of $`B`$ one may have, while still maintaining $`\epsilon /\rho <939`$ MeV. This is clearly borne out by the results of Lugones:2002va .

Let us now discuss how a $`\mu `$-dependent $`B`$ would affect the window of stability. Earlier, when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was introduced, the functional dependence of $`\epsilon /\rho `$ on $`m_s`$ and $`B`$ was changed (see Eqs. (17)-(18)), and hence the contour $`\epsilon /\rho =939`$ MeV got shifted. Now, whether $`B`$ is constant or $`\mu `$-dependent, the new functional dependence remains unchanged. In other words, the $`\epsilon /\rho =939`$ MeV contour in the present work is the same as in Lugones:2002va . We shall revisit the issue of the window of stability in the next section, when we discuss Fig. 4.

## IV Structure of Strange Stars

The equations of stellar structure, namely the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations Tolman ; Oppenheimer:1939ne , give rise to a one-parameter family of stars corresponding to a particular equation of state: By specifying the central density as the parameter, one can numerically integrate the TOV equations, starting at the centre of the star and going radially outward until the pressure becomes zero which indicates that the surface of the star has been reached. This determines the radius $`R`$ and the mass $`M`$ of the star, for the specified central density. By choosing successively larger values of the central density, one can generate a sequence of stars of increasing mass. The sequence ends when any further increase in the central density leads to a star with a lower mass, which indicates an unstable configuration. This end-of-sequence star is the maximum-mass star for the sequence. For a given EOS, the mass-radius relationship is the most important property of the family of stars. This is because it can be compared directly with observational data in order to test and calibrate the theory. While both the mass and the radius are not known so far for any pulsar, a number of mass measurements exist and the data on the radius are getting better.

We now present our numerical results on the structure of the strange stars. We set the strange quark mass $`m_s=150`$ MeV and the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ or 100 MeV (except in Figs. 8 and 9 where we vary $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between 0 and 150 MeV). We recall from Ref. Lugones:2002va  that the stability of SQM requires that if $`m_s=150`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=100`$ MeV, then the bag constant $`B`$ should be less than about 117 MeV/fm3, and if $`m_s=150`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, then $`B`$ should be less than about 77 MeV/fm3. Now consider the three models of the density-dependent $`B`$, described in Sec. II. Since $`B`$ is a decreasing function of the baryon number density $`\rho `$, the above upper limits on the values of $`B`$ necessarily imply lower limits on the values of $`\rho `$. In the numerical work, one has to ensure that these limits are satisfied, so that the resulting star is always within the window of stability.

We now discuss Figs. 4-9. In all these figures, dashed curves correspond to the case when $`B`$ is taken as a constant independent of the density of the medium, while the solid curves correspond to the case when $`B`$ varies with $`\rho `$, and the panels (a), (b), (c) refer to the three models of $`B(\rho )`$, described in Sec. II.

Figure 4 shows the mass-radius sequences. Consider first Fig. 4(a). Model (a) has $`B(0)=114`$ MeV/fm3 which is well within the window of stability if $`\mathrm{\Delta }=100`$ MeV (see above). This allows us to draw the two curves labelled 100. They show that a density-dependent $`B`$ gives rise to larger and more massive stars. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the above value of $`B(0)`$ is outside the window. Hence there is no dashed curve labelled 0. However, the solid curve labelled 0 is allowed: Recall that the density cannot be arbitrarily small since the pressure needs to be positive (Fig. 2). Indeed, for any point on this curve, the density throughout the star is found to be high enough that $`B(\rho )`$ is everywhere less than 77 MeV/fm3 (see above). Interestingly, this sequence of stars has become possible only because we considered a density-dependent $`B`$. Now consider Fig. 4(b). Model (b) has $`B(0)=200`$ MeV/fm3 which is outside the window of stability for both $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and 100 MeV. Hence there are no dashed curves here. However, the solid curves labelled 0 and 100, are allowed because for any point on these curves, the density throughout the star is found to be high enough that $`B`$ remains within the window of stability. Note again that these sequences of stars have become possible only because we considered a density-dependent $`B`$. Similar remarks can be made about Fig. 4(c). Results in Fig. 4 seem to be robust — not very sensitive to the details of the three models of $`B(\rho )`$ considered in this paper.

The dot-dashed lines crossing the $`M`$-$`R`$ curves in Fig. 4 correspond to the $`M/M_{}0.15R`$ (in Km) constraint obtained by Cottam et al. Cottam:2002cu  by using measurements of the red shift of spectral lines in X-ray bursts from EXO0748-676. In all Figs. 4(a-c) the crossing occurs at $`M/M_{}1.3`$-1.4. Thus the present calculation has been able to construct strange stars which are compatible with this constraint.

It is a built-in feature of the TOV equations that the sequence of stars ends, whatever may be the EOS. The typical shape of the sequence shown in Fig. 4 ($`MR^3`$ approximately) is generic to compact stars that are self-bound. This is borne out by the fact that although the EOS used here is quite different from that used in Haensel:qb , Alcock:1986hz  or Lugones:2002zd , the shapes of the curves in Fig. 4 are similar to those obtained in the earlier studies.

Density-dependent $`B`$ makes the EOS stiffer; see Fig. 3. A stiffer EOS can resist the collapse of a star to a black hole, to a greater extent. Hence stars with larger radii and masses result. What is true for an individual star holds also for a sequence of stars, which as a whole shifts toward larger mass and radius. This is evident in Fig. 4(a).

Further, since the EOS is not strictly linear, simple scaling where the mass and radius scale as 1/$`\sqrt{B}`$ no longer holds gle . Actually when $`\mu `$-dependent $`B`$ is considered, the meaning of scaling as such is lost because as one moves from the surface of a star toward its centre, $`B`$ keeps decreasing. That is, no fixed value can be assigned to it.

Finally, in Fig. 4(a), note that the difference between the two curves labelled 100 is more significant than the difference between the two solid curves. Similar observations can be made about Figs. 5-7. This underscores the importance of the modification of $`B`$ in a dense medium vis-à-vis the phenomenon of Cooper pairing among quarks.

We plot mass $`M`$ vs central energy density $`\epsilon _c`$, in Fig. 5. As $`\epsilon _c`$ rises, so does the mass, until a plateau is reached which leads to the end of the sequence. The slope $`dM/d\epsilon _c`$ is positive signifying stable configurations. Since the solid curves correspond to a stiffer EOS (Fig. 3), for a given value of the central energy density they represent more massive stars. Figure 6 shows the corresponding variation of the radius $`R`$ with $`\epsilon _c`$.

In Fig. 7 we show, for the maximum-mass star, the variation of the density with the distance $`r`$ from the centre of the star. In the case of the density-dependent $`B`$, the EOS is stiffer (Fig. 3) and the central density is lower. In other words, the solid curve labelled 100 in Fig. 7(a) begins at a lower value of $`\rho /\rho _0`$ than the dashed curve. In spite of this, the star in the former case is more massive because it has a larger radius, and the large-$`r`$ regions contribute to the mass in a dominant fashion.

We display the variation of the maximum mass with the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in Fig. 8. The increase in mass with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is expected because as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases the EOS becomes stiffer. Recall that in model (a), $`B(0)=114`$ MeV/fm3. For this point to be inside the window of stability, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has to be at least $`100`$ MeV. Hence in Fig. 8(a) the dashed curve starts near $`\mathrm{\Delta }=100`$ MeV. In Fig. 8(b) there is no dashed curve because in model (b), $`B(0)=200`$ MeV/fm3 which is not inside the window if $`\mathrm{\Delta }150`$ MeV. A similar remark can be made about Fig. 8(c). In Fig. 9 we plot the maximum radius vs $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Recent data hint at the possibility of very compact stars Pons:2001px ; Drake:2002bj . A smaller and denser object in comparison to the neutron stars will be a strong candidate for a strange star.

## V Conclusions

The fact that quarks normally exist in a confined state, does not automatically rule out the strange quark matter hypothesis. This hypothesis does not violate any physical principle and is also not ruled out by any observed phenomenon. The real difficulty in verifying the hypothesis lies in the fact that the underlying theory, namely the QCD at quark chemical potential ($`\mu `$) of the order of several 100 MeV, is difficult to handle and does not yet allow a rigorous calculation. Unfortunately, the phenomenological models which one resorts to, give the energy per baryon of SQM very close to that of 56Fe. In view of the uncertainties and the approximations involved, it is difficult to make a definitive statement.

One way to make progress in this situation is to make the models more realistic. Taking the density dependence of $`B`$ into account is a step in that direction.

1. We have shown that this has a significant effect on the equation of state of SQM and hence on the resulting stellar structure curves. Specifically, the density dependence of $`B`$ leads to a stiffer EOS which gives rise to stars with larger masses and radii.
2. Our results for the $`M`$-$`R`$ curves do not depend sensitively on the details of the three models of the density dependence of $`B`$ considered in this paper.
3. Effect of the newly discovered phenomenon of colour superconductivity on the structure of compact stars has been studied by several authors. An important point which emerges from the present work is that the results depend more sensitively on the density dependence of the bag parameter than on the phenomenon of Cooper pairing of the quarks.
4. Another observation that we made is with regard to the ‘window of stability’ of SQM. We showed that the density dependence of $`B`$ does not affect the window.
5. We have been able to construct stars that are compatible with the constraint given in Cottam:2002cu . Moreover, their masses lie in the astrophysically plausible range.
6. Most importantly, certain stellar sequences which are ruled out by the requirement of the stability of SQM, if $`B`$ is treated as a constant, are allowed if the density-dependence of $`B`$ is taken into consideration.

There are a number of ways in which this work can be extended. As mentioned in Sec. III, we considered the pairing interaction to the leading order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$. The same approximation was made also in Refs. Alford:2002kj ; Lugones:2002va ; Lugones:2002zd ; Alford:2002rj ; Alford:2001zr . Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu `$ can be as large as $`1/3`$, it is clearly desirable to go beyond this approximation. Secondly, the density dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m_s`$ can be included to get a more complete picture. (In the present work, we have varied $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ over a wide range and studied how it affects our results. It appears that allowing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to depend upon the density of the medium, may not change the results significantly. See, e.g., the two solid curves in Fig. 7(a), where we show the variation of the density as one goes from the center to the surface of the star. Each solid curve is for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, namely 0 or 100 MeV. Obviously, curves for intermediate values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (say, 10, 20, …, 90 MeV) would lie in between these two curves. Hence if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ were allowed to vary with the density or equivalently with $`r`$, the resulting curve is not expected to be drastically different from the two solid curves shown here.) Thirdly, existence of additional phases (like 2SC, crystalline, etc.) can be looked into. Finally, we did not include perturbative corrections to the equation of state; these can be incorporated. Furthermore, a similar study where the bag parameter is dependent on density can be made for hybrid stars.

We conclude by noting that the limitations of the present work, pointed out in the preceding paragraph, and the simplicity of the theoretical model employed, should be kept in mind while interpreting the numerical results presented here.

###### Acknowledgements.

N. Prasad acknowledges many helpful discussions with H.M. Antia and A. Ray.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1: Bag parameter $`B`$ vs baryon number density $`\rho `$ for the three models considered in this paper.

Fig. 2: Energy density $`\epsilon `$, pressure $`P`$, bag parameter $`B`$, and $`|\mu dB/d\mu |`$ vs quark number chemical potential $`\mu `$, for the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=100`$ MeV. Here and in the rest of the figures, the panels (a), (b), and (c) refer to the three models of the density-dependent bag parameter $`B(\rho )`$, described in Sec. II. (For the sake of clarity, $`B\times 5`$ rather than $`B`$ is plotted.)

Fig. 3: Pressure $`P`$ vs energy density $`\epsilon `$, i.e., the equation of state of the quark matter. In each panel, the two solid curves correspond to a calculation with a density-dependent $`B`$, and the two dashed curves correspond to a calculation with a constant $`B`$. Curves are labelled by the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in MeV.

Fig. 4: Mass $`M`$ (in units of the solar mass $`M_{}`$) vs radius $`R`$ of a strange star. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3. The dot-dashed line is the $`M/M_{}0.15R`$ (in Km) constraint obtained in Ref. Cottam:2002cu .

Fig. 5: Mass $`M`$ (in units of the solar mass $`M_{}`$) vs central energy density $`\epsilon _c`$ (in units of the energy density $`\epsilon _0`$ of the normal nuclear matter) of a strange star. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 6: Radius $`R`$ vs central energy density $`\epsilon _c`$ (in units of the energy density $`\epsilon _0`$ of the normal nuclear matter) of a strange star. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 7: Baryon number density $`\rho `$ (in units of the baryon number density $`\rho _0`$ of the normal nuclear matter) vs distance $`r`$, for the maximum-mass strange star. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 8: The maximum mass $`M`$ of a strange star (in units of the solar mass $`M_{}`$) vs the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 9: The maximum radius $`R`$ of a strange star vs the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notation as in Figs. 2 and 3.


text:
# Radio Monitoring of Supernova 2001ig: The First Year

## 1 Introduction

On the evening of Dec 10 2001, the Rev. Robert Evans found his 39th supernova from his home in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney evans01 . SN 2001ig lies in the outskirts of the SAB(rs)cd galaxy NGC 7424, at a distance of 11.5 Mpc tu88 . Early optical spectroscopy with the 6.5 m Baade Telescope by Matheson & Jha mj01  highlighted several similarities between SN 2001ig and the Type IIb SN 1987K fil88 . In the months following, the spectral evolution of SN 2001ig began to resemble more and more that of the “prototypical” Type IIb SN 1993J, as the H recombination lines faded cp01 ; clo02 , and eventually disappeared fc02 .

During a Director’s Discretionary Time observation, SN 2001ig was detected by the ACIS-S instrument on board the *Chandra* X-ray Observatory on 2002 May 22 UT. A total of 30 counts was recorded in 23400 sec of integration, corresponding to a 0.2-10.0 keV luminosity $`10^{38}`$ erg s-1 sr02 .

Since its commissioning, the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA)111The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. has played a leading role in the monitoring of several supernovae at radio wavelengths, most notably SN 1987A lss92 , SN 1978K sdr93 ; ems99 , and SN 1998bw/GRB980425 wkf99 . As SN 2001ig was too far south to allow effective monitoring with the Very Large Array (VLA) in its most compact (D) configuration at the time, we commenced observations with the ATCA within a week of its discovery, and have been following it on a regular basis since then.

## 2 Radio Light Curves

Our first ATCA observations of SN 2001ig over 6 hours on 2001 Dec 15 UT yielded a positive detection at 8.64 GHz, and a marginal detection at 4.79 GHz sr01 . On 2001 Dec 31 UT, we detected SN 2001ig using a prototype 18.8 GHz receiver system on just three ATCA antennas. Observations have been carried out with a 128 MHz bandwidth, centered on the primary frequencies of 8.64, 4.79, 2.50, and 1.38 GHz, supplemented by some higher frequency data from both the ATCA and the VLA. The primary flux calibrator for the ATCA data is PKS B1934-638, while the source PKS B2310-417 serves as the secondary gain and phase calibrator. The primary beam around SN 2001ig happens to include an adjacent background source just $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ away, which has also proved useful for gain calibration when phase stability was poor, or hour-angle coverage limited. Figure 1 presents our entire dataset up to 2003 March 16.

The radio “light curve” of a supernova typically proceeds through three phases – a rapid turn-on, with a spectral index which is inverted ($`\alpha =2`$ or steeper, where $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) due to absorption along the line-of-sight; followed by a peak in the flux density, firstly at the higher frequencies; then a more gradual decline in the optically-thin phase, with a non-thermal spectral index. By the end of February 2002, SN 2000ig had already peaked at frequencies of 8.64 GHz and 4.79 GHz. However, in early March, the fluxes at these two frequencies jumped by a factor of 2, and remained almost constant for the next two months, before resuming their decline. In August 2002, there was another short but significant pause in the decline. Similar, but less-pronounced deviations are also apparent in the data at 2.50 and 1.38 GHz.

Superimposed on Fig. 1 are model fits to the multi-frequency dataset, based on the “minishell” model of che82 , as parameterised by kw02 :

$`S(\mathrm{mJy})`$ $`=`$ $`K_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{5\mathrm{GHz}}}\right)^\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_0}{1\mathrm{day}}}\right)^\beta e^\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^\tau ^{}}{\tau ^{}}}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{where}\tau `$ $`=`$ $`K_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{5\mathrm{GHz}}}\right)^{2.1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_0}{1\mathrm{day}}}\right)^\delta `$
$`\mathrm{and}\tau ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`K_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{5\mathrm{GHz}}}\right)^{2.1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{tt_0}{1\mathrm{day}}}\right)^\delta ^{}`$
Here $`K_1`$ is the flux density, $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$ the attenuation by a homogeneous, and a clumpy absorbing medium respectively, at a frequency of 5 GHz one day after the explosion date $`t_0`$; $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index; $`\beta `$ the rate of decline in the optically-thin phase; while $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{}`$ describe the time dependence of the optical depths in the homogeneous, and clumpy circumstellar medium (CSM) respectively. By constraining the model fits using only the data leading up to the high-frequency turnover, as well as the late-time decay, we can at least compare the global characteristics of this event with those of the best-studied Type IIb supernova, SN 1993J (Table 1, svd03 ). We note that despite the temporary “boosts” in the radio flux, the overall rate of decline $`\beta `$ in SN 2001ig is still much faster than SN 1993J. Furthermore, while the model correctly predicted a 5 GHz peak luminosity twice that of SN 1993J, it was not actually attained until after day 100.

## 3 Periodic mass-loss

Bumps and dips in the radio light curve can arise from modulations in either the optical depth, or the CSM density structure (both of which are coupled to some extent) via enhanced mass-loss. Throughout all these events, the spectral index $`\alpha `$ is relatively unaffected, which leads us to favour the latter mechanism. A constant $`\alpha `$ implies that the percentage change in flux is the same at all frequencies, and this is illustrated in Fig. 2 on which is plotted the fractional deviation of the observed flux density from the best-fit model curves in Fig. 1, as a linear function of time. Figure 2 also highlights an apparent periodicity in CSM density enhancements, with the shock wave reaching the peak of the first at $`t`$150 days, a second peak near 300 days, and hints of a third peak between 400 and 500 days. For an ejecta expansion velocity of 15000 km s-1 and a stellar wind velocity of 10 km s-1, this would imply a series of shells $``$0.006 pc apart, ejected every 600 years or so. This is much longer than standard stellar pulsation timescales, but is not inconsistent with the period between thermal pulses (C/He shell flashes) in 5-10 M AGB stars ir83 .

Only SN 1979C has shown such regular structure in its radio light curve kw92 , though these variations eventually ceased mm00 . The proposed explanation was modulation of the red supergiant progenitor wind due to eccentric orbital motion with a 4000 year period about a massive companion. Acceleration of the progenitor near periastron would result in wind density enhancements superimposed on a pinwheel-like CSM structure, which can account for the periodicity in the radio emission sp96 . However, the variations will only be pronounced if the orbital plane is viewed from close to edge-on, which would then naturally account for why so few supernovae display such regular variations in their radio light curves.

Direct evidence for the existence of binary-generated spiral shocks comes from near-infrared aperture-masking interferometry on the Keck I telescope of the Wolf-Rayet stars WR 104 tmd99  and WR 98a mtd99 . Both sources show pinwheel-shaped nebulae, which are attributed to dust forming where the stellar winds of the WR star and an OB-type companion collide, then splaying outward. These sources may represent local, compact analogs of the CSM structure that is currently being swept up by the expanding blast wave from SN 2001ig.

*Acknowledgements:* We are grateful to the staff of the ATNF Paul Wild Observatory for their assistance with the ATCA observations.


text:
# Parity Violation with Electrons and Hadrons

## 1 Introduction

In 1988, Kaplan and Manohar  showed that information about the contribution of sea quarks to ground state nucleon properties, such as spin, charge and magnetic moments, could be learned using neutral weak probes of the nucleon such as neutrino-nucleon scattering. Soon after, McKeown  and Beck  outlined a possible program of experiments in parity-violating electron scattering that, when combined with existing measurements of nucleon electromagnetic form factors, would allow the identification of possible strange quark contributions to the proton’s charge and magnetism. Experiments were proposed at the MIT-Bates Laboratory, Jefferson Lab, and the Mainz Microtron to accomplish this goal. In the decade or so since, many theoretical models of the strange quark components of these neutral weak matrix elements, have appeared in the literature, and the first quantitative information from experiments is becoming available. Here I will provide a summary of the recent measurements, along with expected progress in the short term.

While the expectation is that strange quark contributions should be small, they occupy a special place in nucleon structure because their presence would be exclusively in the nucleon’s $`\overline{q}q`$ sea. Evidence to date suggests that they have a sizeable contribution to the nucleon’s unpolarized quark momentum distribution in the nucleon , as well as to the nucleon’s mass , although the latter has some degree of uncertainty due to both experimental and theoretical extrapolations required to obtain the result. A decade of precise spin-dependent deep-inelastic scattering experiments has led to the conclusion that strange quarks contribute significantly to the (small) fraction of the proton’s spin carried by quark spins , although again assumptions about SU(3) symmetry are required in order to extract a result.

Parity-violating electron scattering is primarily sensitive to the matrix element $`\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s`$, which provides information about the $`\overline{s}s`$ contributions to the nucleon’s charge and magnetization distributions. The neutral weak nucleon current as probed through PV $`e`$-$`N`$ scattering is

$$J_\mu ^{NC}N|\widehat{J}_\mu ^{NC}|N=\overline{U}\left[\gamma _\mu F_1^Z(Q^2)+i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu \frac{F_2^Z(Q^2)}{2M}+\gamma _\mu \gamma _5G_A^Z(Q^2)\right]U,$$
(1)
where $`F_{1,2}^Z`$ are the neutral weak equivalents of the nucleon’s Dirac and Pauli form factors $`F_{1,2}`$. At low momentum transfer, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are more often expressed as the Sachs form factors $`G_E=F_1+\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}F_2`$ and $`G_M=F_1+F_2`$, which can be directly related to the nucleon’s charge and magnetization distributions, respectively, and which have the normalizations $`G_E^p(0)=1`$, $`G_E^n(0)=0`$, $`G_M^p(0)=\mu _p`$, $`G_M^n(0)=\mu _n`$. Corresponding definitions can be made for the vector weak form factors $`F_{1,2}^Z`$. Because the NW form factors are derived from the same matrix element $`\overline{q}\gamma _\mu q`$ as their EM counterparts, they can be re-expressed in terms of the measured EM form factors, with an explicit remainder coming from strange quarks, assuming only that neutrons and protons differ by an interchange of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks.

$$G_{E,M}^Z=\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)\left(1+R_V^p\right)G_{E,M}^{\gamma ,p}\left(1+R_V^n\right)G_{E,M}^{\gamma ,n}G_{E,M}^s.$$
(2)
The $`G_{E,M}^Z`$ thus provide a third degree of freedom to disentangle the flavor structure of the proton’s charge and magnetism. The radiative corrections $`R_V^{p,n}`$ represent contributions from higher order processes and have been computed  to be $`R_V^p=0.053\pm 0.033`$ and $`R_V^n=0.0143\pm 0.0004`$.

The axial form factor $`G_A^Z`$ is related to the same matrix element as that defining the nucleon’s spin, $`\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s`$, and its isoscalar component explicitly contains the $`s`$-quark contribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$. Its isovector $`(T=1)`$ component, to which PV $`e`$-$`p`$ scattering is primarily sensitive, can be expressed in terms of the neutron $`\beta `$-decay constant $`(g_A/g_V)=1.2670\pm 0.0035`$, but also contains higher order corrections that can come from, for example, an electromagnetic $`e`$-$`p`$ interaction coupled with a weak exchange between quarks, or from $`\gamma `$-$`Z`$ box diagrams. The effective axial form factor is

$$G_A^e=\tau _3G_A(Q^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }s+\eta F_A+R_e,$$
(3)
where $`\tau _3`$=+($``$)1 for protons(neutrons), $`G_A(Q^2)=(g_A/g_V)/(1+Q^2/M_A^2)^2`$, and $`(\eta F_A+R_e)`$ are due to the higher order terms.

Experimentally, parity-violating $`e`$-$`p`$ scattering results in an asymmetry in the detected yield for a longitudinally polarized beam on an unpolarized target:

$$A_{PV}=\frac{d\sigma _Rd\sigma _L}{d\sigma _R+d\sigma _L}=\frac{G_FQ^2}{4\pi \alpha \sqrt{2}}\frac{A_E+A_M+A_A}{\left[\epsilon \left(G_E^\gamma \right)^2+\tau \left(G_M^\gamma \right)^2\right]}$$
(4)
where

$`A_E`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon G_E^ZG_E^\gamma ,A_M=\tau G_M^ZG_M^\gamma ,`$
$`A_A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)\sqrt{\tau \left(1+\tau \right)\left(1\epsilon ^2\right)}G_A^eG_M^\gamma ,`$ (5)
$`\tau `$ and $`\epsilon `$ are kinematic factors and the $`\gamma `$ index refers to nucleon EM form factors. A single measurement typically involves at least two of the above terms, so a complete separation of $`G_E^Z`$, $`G_M^Z`$ and $`G_A^e`$ involves at least three experiments. Quasielastic scattering from deuterium can be used to constrain $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ since it carries similar sensitivity to the axial term but is relatively insensitive to the strange vector form factors. A program of experiments has been carried out at MIT-Bates and Jefferson Laboratories and new experiments are underway at JLab and also at the Mainz Microtron.

On the theoretical front, a wide variety of models have been used to estimate the magnitude of $`G_E^s`$ and $`G_M^s`$, including a few predictions for their behavior with $`Q^2`$. At $`Q^2`$=0, $`G_E^s`$ is constrained to be 0 since the proton has no net strangeness, but $`G_M^s`$ is not so constrained and is defined through the expression

$$\mu _p=\frac{2}{3}\mu _u\frac{1}{3}\mu _d\frac{1}{3}\mu _s.$$
(6)
The low energy behavior of each is characterized by a radius parameter that can be written in a dimensionless form as $`\rho =4M_N^2\left(dG/dQ^2\right)|_{Q^2=0}`$. The wide variety of predictions precludes extensive discussion here, but reviews can be found in the literature . Figure 1 shows a sampling of many of the models: a notable feature is that while many predict $`\mu _s`$ to be $`0.3`$, predictions for the electric strangeness $`\rho _s`$ vary widely and do not even agree on the sign.

It is of interest to note one recent calculation , where $`G_M^s`$ and $`G_E^2`$ were analyzed within the framework of chiral perturbation theory. It was first thought that the slope of $`G_M^s`$ could be determined analytically, and with constraints coming from the first results from SAMPLE and HAPPEX, limits on the $`Q^2`$ behavior could be predicted , which resulted in opposite signs for the two form factors. It was, however, recently shown in  that the slope of $`G_M^s`$ is sensitive to an unknown low energy constant that enters at $`O(p^4)`$ due cancellations at lower order, so both the magnitude and sign of $`G_M^s`$ at low $`Q^2`$ are still unconstrained by theory.

## 2 SAMPLE at MIT-BATES

In the SAMPLE experiment , PV electron scattering was measured in the backward direction, from both hydrogen and deuterium targets, in order to determine $`G_M^s`$ and $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ at $`Q^2=0.1`$ (GeV/c)2. A 200 MeV, 40 $`\mu `$A polarized beam was scattered from a 40 cm liquid hydrogen target. Cerenkov light from scattered electrons was detected in an array of ten mirror-phototube pairs arranged symmetrically about the beam axis covering angles between 130 and 170. The scattered electron rate was integrated over the 25 $`\mu `$sec beam pulse and sorted by beam helicity state, which was flipped pseudo-randomly at 600 Hz. Results from the 200 MeV running were published in  and , where the latter included data from quasielastic scattering from deuterium. It was found that while $`G_M^s`$ is likely small, there was an approximately 1.5$`\sigma `$ discrepancy between the extracted value of $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ and that expected assuming a value for the weak radiative corrections as computed by Zhu et al. . This led to theoretical investigations of the nuclear contributions in the deuterium data as well as a more detailed look at the extraction of $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ from the data.

In a simple static approximation, the PV asymmetry in deuterium is an incoherent sum of that of the neutron and proton, and the contributions from $`G_M^s`$ largely cancel, and the sensitivity to $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ is approximately the same as for a proton target. Nuclear corrections can potentially modify the asymmetry, both through parity-conserving , and parity-violating  two-body effects. At the SAMPLE kinematics the PC terms modify the asymmetry by 1-3%, and the PV terms are negligible. The SAMPLE apparatus also has contributions from threshold breakup and elastic $`e`$-$`d`$ scattering which modify the asymmetry by a few percent.

An improved analysis of the SAMPLE deuterium data now brings the extracted value of $`G_A^e(T=1)`$ into reasonable agreement with , as shown in Figure 2, but has a relatively small impact on $`G_M^s`$. The new results include a complete GEANT model of the detector, a revision to the electromagnetic radiative corrections and a dilution correction for coherent $`\pi ^0`$ production in the experimental yield which was previously neglected. Furthermore, the calculation of  was used to model the physics asymmetry. These combined theoretical and experimental efforts lead to better confidence that the higher order contributions to $`G_A^e`$ are now under control. Results from the third SAMPLE measurement, at lower momentum transfer, also agree with expectations from theory . The hydrogen results were also revised , resulting an experimental asymmetry of, after all dilution corrections, $`A_{exp}=5.61\pm 0.68\pm 0.88`$ ppm. Combining this result with the theoretical value of $`G_A^e`$ results  results in the more upright ellipse in Figure 2. While this result is consistent with little or no strange quark effects, it suggests a positive value for $`G_M^s`$ whereas most calculations predict a $`Q^2=0`$ value near $`\mu _s0.3`$.

## 3 HAPPEX at JLab

The first measurements of parity-violating electron scattering at Jefferson Laboratory  were carried out by the HAPPEX collaboration, who used a 3.3 GeV polarized beam on a 15 cm hydrogen target and detected the scattered electrons using the pair of high resolution spectrometers (HRS) in Hall A at 12.5. The measured asymmetry, at $`Q^2`$=0.48 (GeV/c)2, is sensitive to the combination $`G_E^s+0.39G_M^s`$. The counting rate of approximately 1 MHz per spectrometer required the use of integrating techniques, and a set of Pb-scintillator total absorption counters was used instead of the standard tracking detector package. The HAPPEX experiment was the first to use a strained GaAs crystal in the polarized electron source, which produces beam polarization in excess of 70%. Such sources can have an analyzing power for linear polarization in the incident laser light that could potentially result in significant helicity correlated position differences of the beam on the experimental target. Such effects were, however, kept to a negligible level by insertion of a rotatable half-wave plate in the laser beam and with a feedback system nulling any helicity-correlated intensity asymmetry.

The experimentally determined asymmetry from the HAPPEX experiment is $`A_{exp}=15.05\pm 0.98\pm 0.56`$ ppm, corresponding to $`G_E^s+0.39G_M^s=0.025\pm 0.020\pm 0.014`$ where the latter uncertainty is due to knowledge of the nucleon EM form factors. HAPPEX thus for the most part precludes the parameter space in which $`G_E^s`$ and $`G_M^s`$ have the same sign.

The future program for HAPPEX includes a forward angle measurement at $`Q^2`$=0.1 (GeV/c)2 on hydrogen , as well as the first measurement of the PV asymmetry in elastic electron scattering from helium . Due to the fact that 4He is a spin-0, isospin-0, target, only a single weak form factor exists and it can be directly related to $`G_E^s`$ with a good model of the 4He nucleus. Theoretical expectations are that contributions to the asymmetry from many-body effects in the helium are negligible  at low momentum transfer. The combined measurements, or the new hydrogen measurement combined with the SAMPLE result, will result in a determination of $`G_E^s`$.

## 4 PVA4 at Mainz

The PVA4 collaboration at Mainz has taken a different experimental approach, with a detector with sufficient segmentation and specialized electronics that counting the scattered particles is feasible despite high rates. A 20 $`\mu `$A beam of polarized electrons was incident on a 10 cm target. Scattered electrons are detected at 35 with a PbF2 Čerenkov shower calorimeter. The detector design includes 1022 PbF2 crystals arranged in 7 rings, and processed in 3x3 modules with self-triggering and histogramming electronics: for the first two measurements approximately half of the detector was instrumented. The energy resolution of the detectors must be sufficient to separate the 10 MHz of elastically scattered electrons from the 90 MHz of inelastic electrons coming from threshold pion and resonance production. The achieved energy resolution was 4%/$`\sqrt{E}`$ .

The first PVA4 measurement was at a beam energy of 855 MeV, corresponding to $`Q^2`$=0.23 (GeV/c)2 and a sensitivity to the combination $`G_E^s+0.22G_M^s`$. The experimental asymmetry after all dilution corrections is $`A_{exp}=5.6\pm 0.6\pm 0.2`$ ppm, corresponding to an approximately 1$`\sigma `$ deviation of the asymmetry from that expected with no strange quarks, but again hinting that $`G_E^s`$ and $`G_M^s`$ are either both small or have opposite sign. Additional data have already been taken, the run concluding in June 2003, at 570 MeV beam energy, corresponding to $`Q^2`$=0.1 (GeV/c)2. Again by combining these data with the results from SAMPLE will allow the first experimental limits on $`G_E^s`$. Future plans involve reversing the detector for backward angle measurements at $`Q^2`$=0.23 and 0.48 (GeV/c)2 to combine with the existing HAPPEX and PVA4 data.

Although the kinematic sensitivities of each of the experiments is somewhat different, the results from each of the three above $`e`$-$`p`$ measurements can be shown, as in Figure 3, as a deviation from the asymmetry expected with no strange quarks. While any single measurement is consistent with little or no strange quark contribution, the trend in all three experiments suggests an $`s`$-quark contribution that is slightly positive.

It should be noted that, in addition to the parity-violation results, both the PVA4 and SAMPLE experiments have measured a “beam spin asymmetry” resulting from scattering from a purely transversely polarized beam . To lowest order, the asymmetry, which results in a variation of the cross section in azimuthal angle with respect to the beam axis, is to lowest order the result of two-photon processes. Such processes have recently become of interest because they may help explain the discrepancy in the determination of the proton charge form factor at high momentum transfer from polarization and cross section data , and they are related to the Virtual Compton Scattering process which provide information about nucleon polarizabilities .

## 5 G0 at JLab

The G0 experiment at JLab is a dedicated to determining $`G_E^s`$, $`G_M^s`$ and $`G_A^e`$ from a single experimental apparatus over a broad $`Q^2`$ range. The detector consists of a superconducting toroidal spectrometer with an array of scintillators along the focal plane to determine the PV asymmetry at both forward and backward scattered electron angles. Polarized electrons are scattered from a 20 cm liquid hydrogen target. In the forward configuration, the recoil protons are detected and sorted by $`Q^2`$ covering the range $`0.1<Q^2<1.0`$ (GeV/c)2. In the backward configuration the apparatus is reversed and electrons scattered at 108 will be detected with three dedicated magnet settings corresponding to $`Q^2`$ = 0.25, 0.5 and 0.8 (GeV/c)2. In the forward mode, the protons are identified and separated from pions via time-of-flight from the target to detector, which is about 20 ns. In the backward mode the detector package requires an augmentation with another array of scintillators (Cryostat Exit Detectors) and aerogel Čerenkov counters to eliminate negative pions from the trigger. Data will also be acquired with a deuterium target to experimentally determine the $`Q^2`$-dependence of $`G_A^e`$.

The first engineering run of the experiment, in its forward mode, was carried out in late 2002 during which a few days of asymmetry data were collected. While the statistical uncertainties are too large to draw physics conclusions from these data, the measured asymmetry of approximately 5 ppm is consistent with expectation, has a reasonable $`Q^2`$ behavior, and reverses appropriately with manual reversal of the sign of the beam polarization. After a second engineering run, the G0 collaboration will carry out its forward mode physics measurement. While a definitive determination of the relative signs and/or magnitude of $`G_M^s`$ and $`G_E^s`$ will require the backward angle measurements as well, this first set of data will both extend the kinematic reach and improve the precision of the data shown in Figure 3. Additional details of the G0 experiment can be found in  and .

Improvements in polarized beam technology in the last decade have made precise measurements of parity-violating electron scattering possible, and the next generation of experiments, which move beyond studies of hadron structure to other physics are now being considered. One direction is to use parity-violating electron scattering as a precise probe of neutron distributions in heavy nuclei , which may have relevance in understanding the structure of neutron stars. Another direction is to carry out precision tests of the standard model at relatively low momentum transfer where sensitivity to additional $`Z`$-bosons, for example, is greatly enhanced. The latter is of particular interest in light of the recent results from the NuTeV collaboration in which a 3$`\sigma `$ deviation from expectation in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ was measured . The latter direction is being pursued by the QWEAK collaboration at JLab, and further details can be found in  in these proceedings.

## 6 Summary

Since the earliest measurements of parity-violating electron scattering at SLAC  in which the weak mixing angle was first measured, the basic techniques of parity-violating electron scattering have remained more or less the same. But the achievable precision has greatly improved as a result of new high intensity electron beams, advances in polarized beam technology, and technical advances in the feedback and laser systems that are needed for polarized beam delivery. New physics directions also emerged and the results are beginning to become available from the first experiments to use PV electron scattering as a probe of hadron structure. We can look forward to more new results in the near future with the next phases of HAPPEX and PVA4 and the first results from the G0 experiment, all of which should further our understanding of the role of sea quarks in the nucleon’s ground state structure.

The author is supported by NSF contract PHY-0140010. Much of the work discussed in this paper has been supported both by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Dept. of Energy.


text:
# Fourier form of the dressing method: simple example of integrable (2+1)-dimensional integral-differential equation

## 1 Introduction

Dressing method represents a productive tool for solving large family of nonlinear equations of Mathematical Physics. Many equations from this family have well known applications in different branches of mathematical Physics: hydrodynamics, plasma physics, optics, superconductivity. We mention three classical versions of this method as a simple way for construction of particular solutions to those nonlinear Partial Differential Equations (PDE) which are integrable by the Inverse Spectral Transform (IST) (so called completely integrable PDE). First one is Zakharov-Shabat dressing method , which uses integral Volterra operators. In particular, it solves initial value problem. Second version, $`\overline{}`$-dressing method , is based on the Fredholm operators. This algorithm is simpler in comparison with Zakharov-Shabat dressing method, however, the manifold of particular solutions is more restricted. Different properties of integrable PDE have mostly evident interpretation in terms of this method (Miura and Bäclund transformations, commuting flows, relations among different hierarchies of equations). Finally, one should refer to Sato approach to the integrability , which is based on properties of pseudo-differential operators. Two last versions have been used for development of the new version of the dressing method, applicable to wide class of nonlinear PDE, which are not integrable by IST . Some applications of these equations has been outlined.

It is interesting to note that this new version of the dressing method can be readily written in Fourier form, Sec.2. Advantage of this form is evident in work with integral-differential equations. Below we consider an example leading to extension of Intermediate Long Wave equation (ILW) into (2+1)-dimensions:

$`v_tTv_{x_1x_1}(v^2)_{x_1}=0,Tv(x_1,x_2){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\delta }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\delta }}(\xi x_2)\right)v(x_1,\xi )𝑑\xi =0.`$ (1)
Reduction $`_{x_2}=_{x_1}`$ transforms this equation into (1+1)-dimensional ILW . We provide overdetermined linear system for the eq. (22). Then we give the algorithm for construction of solutions (Sec.3) and derive formular for soliton. Then we consider limits of large and small $`\delta `$ (Sec.4), and figure out the asymptotic integrability in the later case . Finally we give some remarks (Sec.5).

Note, that eq.(1) is integrable in classical sence, since it is compatibility condition for some overdetermined linear system. We don’t consider other types of equations in this paper, which is aimed on the description of the algorithm for the dressing procedure in Fourier form.

## 2 Dressing method

We consider two-dimensional $`x`$-space, $`x=(x_1,x_2)`$, and time, $`t`$. Real variables $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are related with complex spectral parameters $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, forming two-dimensional spectral space $`k=(k_1,k_2)`$ due to Fourier transform

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{D_k}{}}f(k)e^{i(k_1x_1+k_2x_2)}𝑑k_1𝑑k_2,`$ (2)
where $`D_k`$ is 2-dimensional, either complex or real $`(k_1,k_2)`$-space, and $`f(k)0`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$. Thus this transformation maps space of functions of two complex variables into the space of functions of two real variables. This means that inverse transform may not be unique. This fact will not been discussed hereafter since inverse transform will not been used in this paper.

Our algorithm is based on the following integral equation

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,\mu ;k)={\displaystyle \underset{D_\nu }{}}𝑑\nu {\displaystyle \underset{D_q}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda ,\nu ;kq)U(\nu ,\mu ;q)𝑑q\mathrm{\Psi }(k)U(k),`$ (3)
which should be uniquely solvable for $`U`$: $`U=\mathrm{\Psi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here we use another type of parameters denoted by Greek. In general these parameters are vector  but in our consideration they are just complex parameters; $`D_\nu `$ is complex $`\nu `$-plane. We use $``$ to abbreviate combination of two types of integrals: integral with respect to ”inside” Greek parameter ($`\nu `$ in eq.(3)) and over space of spectral parameters ($`q=(q_1,q_2)`$ in eq.(3)). In general

$`f(k)g(k)={\displaystyle \underset{D_\nu }{}}𝑑\nu {\displaystyle \underset{D_q}{}}f(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\nu ;kq)g(\nu ,\mathrm{};q)𝑑q.`$ (4)
To avoid unambiguity we will write explicitly dependence on $`k`$ while omit dependence on Greek parameters from notations in most of the cases.

Of principal meaning is how to introduce the dependence on parameters $`x`$ (or $`k`$) and $`t`$. This defines particular nonlinear system of PDE which will be derived in result.

Let

$`k_1\mathrm{\Psi }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)c(k)+k_1\delta (k),`$ (5)
$`e^{2\delta k_2}\mathrm{\Psi }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\left(c(k)e^{2\delta k_2}\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }(k)+(e^{2\delta k_2}1)\delta (k),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_t(k)`$ $`=`$ $`i(k_1\mathrm{\Phi }(k))c(k)i\mathrm{\Phi }(k)(k_1c(k)),`$ (7)
$`c(\lambda ,\nu ;k)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(\lambda )c_2(\nu ;k).`$
Being overdetermined system of equations for the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it should be compatible, which leads to additional conditions for the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`c_2`$. To derive them let us multiply eqs. (5) and (6) by $`e^{2\delta k_2}`$ and $`k_1`$ respectively and subtract one from another. The result is splitted into two equations:

$`\left(\left(k_1e^{2\delta k_2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\right)\left(c(k)e^{2\delta k_2}\right)=0,`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\left((k_1e^{2\delta k_2}+1)c_2\right)=0.`$ (9)
Similarly, differentiating (5) with respect to $`t`$ and using (7) we get two other conditions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_t(k)=ik_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }(k),`$ (10)
$`c_{2}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(k)=ik_1^2c_2(k).`$ (11)
Eqs. (8-11) suggest the following form for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`c_2`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(k_1)e^{ik_1^2t}\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}k_1\right),`$ (12)
$`c_2(k)=c_0(k_1)e^{ik_1^2t}\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}+k_1\right),`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(k)`$ and $`c_0(k)`$ are arbitrary functions of argument. From another point of view equations (8,10) lead to nonlinear equation for $`U`$. In fact, due to (12) we can rewrite eq.(8) in the form

$`\left(k_1e^{2\delta k_2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(k_1)e^{ik_1^2t}\left(k_1e^{2\delta k_2}\right)\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}k_1\right)F(k),`$ (15)
thus $`g(k)F(k)0`$ for any well defined function $`g`$. Now, let us substitute (3) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in eqs. (15,10), use eqs. (5-7) and apply operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(k)`$ from the left. This results in

$`U(k)(c_1c_2(k))U(k)+k_1U(k)U(k)\left(c_1c_2(k)e^{2\delta k_2}\right)(e^{2\delta k_2}U(k))`$ (16)
$`e^{2\delta k_2}U(k)=0,`$
$`iU_t(k)2U(k)(k_1c_1)U(k)2U(k)c_1(k_1U(k))k_1^2U(k)=0.`$ (17)
Introduce variables

$`w(k)=c_2(k)U(k)c_1,V(k)=c_2(k)(k_1U(k))c_1,`$ (18)
where

$`f(k)g={\displaystyle \underset{D_\nu }{}}f(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\nu ;k)g(\nu ,\mathrm{})𝑑\nu .`$ (19)
Apply operators $`c_2(k)`$ and $`c_1`$ from the left and from the right respectively to the eqs.(16,17). We get

$`V(k)(1e^{2\delta k_2})=w(k)((e^{2\delta k_2}1)w(k))(k_1e^{2\delta k_2})w(k),`$ (20)
$`iw(k)_t2k_1V(k)+k_1^2w(k)2w(k)(k_1w(k))=0.`$ (21)
Deriving the first of the above equations we used the fact that $`c_2(k)\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}+k_1\right)`$ which identifies $`c_1e^{2\delta k_2}`$ with $`c_1k_1`$ in this context. Eliminating $`V`$ and introducing $`u=w(e^{2\delta k_2}1)`$ we end up with equation

$`iu_tk_1^2\mathrm{coth}(k_2\delta )u+k_1{\displaystyle \underset{D_q}{}}u(kq)u(q)𝑑q=0.`$ (22)
This equation can be considered as compatibility condition of appropriate linear overdetermined system, which may be readily derived. In fact, apply the operator $`c_1`$ to the eqs. (16,17) from the right side. Resulting equations may be written in terms of the ”spectral” function $`\chi (k)=U(k)c_1`$:

$`k_1\chi (k)+\chi (k)\left((1e^{2\delta k_2})w(k)\right)e^{2\delta k_2}\chi (k)=0,`$ (23)
$`i\chi _t(k)=2\chi (k)(k_1w(k))k_1^2\chi (k).`$ (24)
This is linear system which we need. To check this statement, let us differentiate (23) with respect to $`t`$ and use (24). We result in (22).

Transformation of the derived equations into $`x`$-form is straightforward if $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are real and (2) is usual Fourier transform. Then $`x`$-form of $`\mathrm{coth}(k_2\delta )`$ is $`\frac{i\pi }{\delta }\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\pi x_2}{2\delta }\right)`$ and we receive eq. (1). In general case of complex $`k`$ equation (22) is better to multiply by $`\left(1e^{2\delta k_2}\right)`$. Then we may formally write it in $`x`$-form using shift operator $`𝒟f(x_1,x_2)=f(x_1,x_2+2i\delta )`$:

$`(1𝒟)\left(iu_t(u^2)_{x_1}\right)+(1+𝒟)u_{x_1x_1}=0.`$ (25)
We can write the above linear system (23,24) in $`x`$-form using transformation (2):

$`i\chi _{x_1}^++\chi ^+u+\chi ^{}=0,\chi ^{}(x_1,x_2)=\chi ^+(x_1,x_2+2i\delta ),`$ (26)
$`i\chi _t^+2i\chi ^+w_{x_1}\chi _{x_1x_1}^+=0,`$ (27)
$`u(x_1,x_2)=w(x_1,x_2+2i\delta )w(x_1,x_2),w=uiTu.`$
After reduction $`_y=_x`$ this system becomes linear overdetermined system for ILW .

## 3 Solutions

Find $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the eq.(5) and substitute it into the eq.(3). Thus we receive

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)U(k)+U(k),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_1}}(\mathrm{\Phi }(k)c(k)),`$ (28)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k)\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,\mu ;k)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\lambda ,\mu ;k_1)e^{ik_1^2t}\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}k_1\right),`$ (29)
$`c(k)c_1(\lambda )c_2(\mu ;k),c_2(k)c_2(\mu ;k)=c_0(\mu ;k_1)e^{ik_1^2t}\delta \left(e^{2\delta k_2}+k_1\right).`$ (30)
Thus

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(k)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,\mu ;k)={\displaystyle \underset{D_\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{k_1}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\lambda ,\nu ;q)e^{iq^2t}\right)|_{q=\frac{k_1e^{2\delta k_2}}{1e^{2\delta k_2}}}\left(c_1(\nu )c_2(\mu ;q)e^{iq^2t}\right)|_{q=\frac{k_1}{1e^{2\delta k_2}}}`$ (31)
Hereafter it is convenient to represent the above equation (28) in $`x`$-form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,\mu ;x)={\displaystyle \underset{D_\nu }{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,\nu ;x)U(\nu ,\mu ;x)𝑑\nu +U(\lambda ,\mu ;x).`$ (32)
Solving (32) for $`U`$ we calculate $`w(x)=\underset{D_\nu }{}\underset{D_\mu }{}c_2(\mu ;x)U(\mu ,\nu ;x)c_1(\nu )`$ and $`u(x)=w(x_1,x_2+2\delta i)w(x)`$. Note, that equation (32) can be solved exactly in particular case of degenerate functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,\mu ;x)=_j\psi _{1j}(\lambda ;x)\psi _{2j}(\mu ;x)`$.

In the simplest case let $`c_1(\lambda )=\delta (\lambda )`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\lambda ,\mu ;k_1)=r_1(\lambda ,\mu )\delta (k_1a)`$, $`c_0(\mu ;k_1)=r_2\delta (\mu )\delta (k_1b)`$. Then one can easy receive

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ,\mu ;x)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,0;x)U(0,\mu ;x)+U(\lambda ,\mu ;x),`$ (33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,0;x)`$ is $`x`$-form of the function

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\lambda ,0;k)=\frac{1}{k_1}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\lambda ,0;q)e^{iq^2t}|_{q=\frac{k_1e^{2\delta k_2}}{1e^{2\delta k_2}}}r_2\delta (qb)e^{iq^2t}|_{q=\frac{k_1}{1e^{2\delta k_2}}}.$$

One has

$`U(0,\mu ;x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(0,\mu ;x)}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0,0;x)+1}}.`$ (34)
Then we get line soliton solution of (22) ($`r_1(0,0)=r_1`$):

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1+R_2\mathrm{cosh}(\eta )}},`$
$`R_1={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\beta ^2}},R_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}}{2\beta ^2}},`$
$`\eta =2\beta t_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}(\beta /\alpha )}{\delta }}t_2+4\alpha \beta t,`$
$`a=\alpha +i\beta ,b=\alpha +i\beta ,r_1r_2=2i\beta e^{i\mathrm{arctan}(\beta /\alpha )}.`$
## 4 Limits $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ and $`\delta 0`$

As we mansion above, the reduction $`_x=_y`$ transforms eq.(1) into (1+1)-dimensional ILW, which in turn has two reductions leading to appropriate completely integrable systems: $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ (Benjamin-Ono equation (BO) ) and $`\delta 0`$ (Korteweg-de Vries equation (KdV) ). We consider these reductions in application to our (2+1)-dimensional equation. We will see that limit $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ results in another completely integrable system with Hilbert operator instead of $`T`$-operator. But limit $`\delta 0`$ does not lead to completely integrable system. Instead we get the system, which is integrable in ”asymptotic” sence .

First, we rewrite this system in terms of functions $`\psi ^\pm `$, defined by $`\chi ^+=e^{i(fx_1+gx_2+ht)}\psi ^+`$, and use variable $`\tau `$ instead of $`t`$: $`_t=_\tau +\alpha _{x_1}`$. One has

$`i\psi _{x_1}^++\psi ^+(u\lambda )=\mu \psi ^{},`$ (36)
$`i\psi _\tau ^+2i(\lambda +1/(2\delta ))\psi _{x_1}^+\psi _{x_1x_1}^+(2iw_{x_1}+\nu )\psi ^+=0,`$ (37)
$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }},h=\lambda ^2+\nu ,f=\lambda =k\mathrm{coth}(2k\delta ),e^{2g\delta }=\mu =kcosech(2k\delta ),`$
1. Let $`\delta \mathrm{}`$. Then operator $`T`$ in (1) transforms into Hilbert operator

$$T(f)2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\xi }{\xi x_2}f(\xi )$$

and one should take $`\mu =2k`$, $`\lambda =k`$ in eq.(36,37). Functions $`\psi ^\pm `$ are analytical in upper and lower half of complex $`z`$ plane: $`Re(z)=x`$. If $`_{x_1}=_{x_2}`$, then our nonlinear equation becomes BO.

2. Consider the limit $`\delta 0`$. Let $`u=\delta U`$, $`\delta 1`$, and expand the above linear system in the series up to $`\delta ^2`$. One has:

$`i(\psi _x\psi _y)+\delta (\psi _{yy}+\psi U+k^2\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{2i\delta ^2}{3}}\left(\psi _{yyy}+k^2\psi _y\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38)
$`i\psi _\tau \psi _{yy}\psi (2iw\nu )i\delta \left(2\psi _{yyy}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\psi _y(3U+k^2)+\psi (U_x+U_y)\right)+`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{3}}\left(7\psi _{yyyy}+6\psi _{yy}(U+k^2)+6\psi _yU_y+\psi (3U_{yy}+3U^2+2k^2Uk^4)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
This system is compatible up to $`\delta ^2`$ if

$`\delta v_tv_x+_y^1v_{xx}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{3}}v_{xyy}+4\delta ^2vv_x=0,v=w_y,U=2i(w_y+\delta iw_{yy}).`$ (40)
We conclude that derived equation (40) provides compatibility of related overdetermined system only up to the order $`\delta ^2`$. Thus this equation can be treated as ”asymptotically” integrable .

## 5 Remarks

Although we have considered only completely integrable example, Fourier form of the dressing method can be expanded on other types of systems, discussed in . Their physical application is one of the mostly interesting problems now. One should note that similar ”symbolic” approach to nonlinear PDE has been used by other authors in different contexts . The Lax pair for PDE with quadratic nonlinearity in Fourier form is analyzed in  (compare with eqs.(23,24)).

This work was supported by RFBR grants 03-01-06122 and 1716-2003-1