text:
# Pairing effect on the giant dipole resonance width at low temperature 1footnote 11footnote 1Accepted in Phys. Rev. C

## I Introduction

Intensive experimental studies of highly-excited nuclei during the last two decades have produced many data on the evolution of the giant dipole resonance (GDR) as a function of temperature $`T`$ and spin. The data show that the GDR width increases sharply with increasing $`T`$ from $`T`$ 1 MeV up to $``$ 3 MeV. At higher $`T`$ a width saturation has been reported (See Woude (1) for the most recent review). The increase of the GDR width with $`T`$ is described reasonably well within the thermal shape-fluctuation model TFM (2) and the phonon damping model (PDM) PDM1 (3, 4, 5). The thermal shape-fluctuation model assumes an adiabatic coupling of GDR to quadrupole degrees of freedom with deformation parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ induced by thermal fluctuations and high spins in the intrinsic frame of reference. Although this model shows an increase of the GDR width with $`T`$ comparable with the experimental systematic at 1.2 $`T`$ 3 MeV, the GDR shapes generated using the strength function of this model differ significantly from the experimental ones Gervais (6). The PDM considers the coupling of the GDR to $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations at $`T`$ 0 as the mechanism of the width increase and saturation. The PDM calculates the GDR width and strength function directly in the laboratory frame without any need for an explicit inclusion of thermal fluctuation of shapes. The PDM reproduces fairly well both of the observed width PDM1 (3, 4) and shape PDM3 (5, 7) of the GDR at $`T`$ 0.

In general, pairing was neglected in the calculations for hot GDR as it was believed that the gap vanishes at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}<`$ 1 MeV according to the temperature BCS theory. However, it has been shown in Moretto (8) that thermal fluctuations smear out the superfluid-normal phase transition in finite systems so that the pairing gap survives up to $`T`$ 1 MeV. This has been confirmed microscopically in the recent modified Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) theory at finite $`T`$ MHFB (9), whose limit is the modified-BCS theory MBCS (10, 11). Other approaches such as the static-path approximation DangRing (12), shell model calculations Ze (13), as well as the exact solution of the pairing problem Volya (14) also show that pairing correlations do not abruptly disappear at $`T`$ 0. It was suggested in DGDR (15) that the decrease of the pairing gap with increasing $`T`$, which is also caused by $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations at low $`T`$, may slow down the increase of the GDR width. By including a simplified $`T`$-dependent pairing gap in the CASCADE calculations using the PDM strength functions, Ref. Kaury (7) has improved the agreement between the calculated GDR shapes and experimental ones.

Very recently the $`\gamma `$ decays were measured in coincidence with 17O particles scattered inelastically from 120Sn Heckman (16). A GDR width of around 4 MeV has been extracted at $`T=`$ 1 MeV, which is smaller than the value of $``$ 4.9 MeV for the GDR width at $`T=`$ 0. This result and the existing systematic for the GDR width in 120Sn up to $`T`$ 2 MeV are significantly lower than the prediction by the thermal shape-fluctuation model. Based on this, Ref. Heckman (16) concluded that the narrow width observed in 120Sn at low $`T`$ is not understood. The aim of the present work is to show that it is thermal pairing that causes the narrow GDR width in 120Sn at low $`T`$. For this purpose we include the thermal pairing gap obtained from the modified-BCS theory MHFB (9, 10, 11) in the PDM PDM1 (3, 4, 5), and carry out the calculations for the GDR width in 120Sn at $`T`$ 5 MeV.

The paper is organized as follows. Section I summarizes the main equations for the GDR including thermal pairing within the PDM and discusses in detail the physical assumptions of the PDM. Section II analyzes the results of calculations of GDR width, energy, and cross section for 120Sn at finite temperature in comparison with the most recent experimental systematic. The paper is summarized in the last section, where conclusions are drawn.

## II Main equations for hot GDR within phonon damping model

### II.1 Equations for GDR width and energy including thermal pairing

The quasiparticle representation of the PDM including pairing has been already reported in Ref. pygmy (17). Therefore we discuss here only the final equations, which will be used in numerical calculations. According to this formalism the GDR width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ is presented as the sum of quantal ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$) and thermal ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$) widths as PDM1 (3, 4, 5, 17)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T},$$
(1a)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}=2\pi F_1^2\underset{ph}{}[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2(1n_pn_h)\delta (E_{\mathrm{GDR}}E_pE_h),$$
(1b)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}=2\pi F_2^2\underset{s>s^{}}{}[v_{ss^{}}^{()}]^2(n_s^{}n_s)\delta (E_{\mathrm{GDR}}E_s+E_s^{}),$$
(1c)
where $`(ss^{})=(pp^{})`$ and $`(hh^{})`$ with $`p`$ and $`h`$ denoting the orbital angular momenta $`j_p`$ and $`j_h`$ for particles and holes, respectively. The quantal and thermal widths come from the couplings of quasiparticle pairs $`[\alpha _p^{}\alpha _h^{}]_{LM}`$ and $`[\alpha _s^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_s^{}]_{LM}`$ to the GDR, respectively. At zero pairing they correspond to the couplings of $`ph`$ pairs, $`[a_p^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_h]_{LM}`$, and $`pp`$ ($`hh`$) pairs, $`[a_s^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_s^{}]_{LM}`$, to the GDR, respectively (The tilde $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the time-reversal operation). The quasiparticle energies $`E_j=[(ϵ_j\overline{\mu })^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2]^{1/2}`$ are found from the modified-BCS equations (39) and (40) of MBCS1 (11), which determine the modified thermal gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }`$ from the single particle energies $`ϵ_j`$ and particle number $`N`$. From them one defines the Bogoliubov coefficients $`u_j`$, $`v_j`$, and the combinations $`u_{ph}^{(+)}=u_pv_h+v_pu_h`$, and $`v_{ss^{}}^{()}=u_su_s^{}v_sv_s^{}`$. The quasiparticle occupation number $`n_j`$ is calculated as PDM2 (4)

$$n_j=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{n_\mathrm{F}(E)\gamma _j(E)}{[EE_jM_j(E)]^2+\gamma _j^2(E)}𝑑E,n_\mathrm{F}(E)=(\mathrm{e}^{E/T}+1)^1,$$
(2)
where $`M_j(E)`$ is the mass operator, and $`\gamma _j(E)`$ is the quasiparticle damping, which is determined as the imaginary part of the complex continuation of $`M_j(E)`$ into the complex energy plane. These quantities appear due to coupling between quasiparticles and the GDR. Their explicit expressions are given by Eqs. (3) and (4) of Ref. PDM1 (3), respectively, in which $`E_s`$ is now the quasiparticle energy $`E_j`$. From Eq. (2) it is seen that the functional form for the occupation number $`n_j`$ is not given by the Fermi-Dirac distribution $`n_\mathrm{F}(E_j)`$ for non-interacting quasiparticles. It can be approximately to be so if the quasiparticle damping $`\gamma _j(E)`$ is sufficiently small so that the Breit-Wigner-like kernel under the integration can be replaced with the $`\delta `$-function. Equation (2) also implies a zero value for $`n_j`$ in the ground state, i.e. $`n_j(T=0)=`$ 0. In general, it is not the case because of ground-state correlations (See. e.g Refs. MBCS (10, 18, 19)). They lead to $`n_j(T=0)`$ 0, which should be found by solving self-consistently a set of nonlinear equations within the renormalized random-phase approximation (renormalized RPA). Within the RPA the equation for $`n_j`$ yields the approximate expression $`n_j(T=0)_{Jij^{}}(2J+1)/(2j+1)[Y_{jj^{}}^{(Ji)}]^2`$, where $`Y_{jj^{}}^{(Ji)}`$ is the RPA backward-going amplitude ($`J`$ is the multipolarity). Since for collective high-lying excitations such as GDR one has $`|Y_{jj^{}}^{(Ji)}|`$ 1, we expect the value $`n_j(T=0)`$ to be negligible.

The GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ is found as the solution of the equation

$$\omega \omega _qP(\omega )=0,$$
(3)
where $`\omega _q`$ is the unperturbed phonon energy, and $`P(\omega )`$ is the polarization operator:

$$P(E)=F_1^2\underset{ph}{}\frac{[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2(1n_pn_h)}{EE_pE_h}F_2^2\underset{s>s^{}}{}\frac{[v_{ss^{}}^{()}]^2(n_sn_s^{})}{EE_s+E_s^{}},$$
(4)
Note that, in general, there are also backward-going processes leading to the terms $`\delta (\omega +E_p+E_h)`$ and $`\delta (\omega +E_sE_s^{})`$ as has been shown in Eqs. (14) and (15) of Ref. pygmy (17). However, as the maximum of these terms is located at negative energy $`\omega =(E_p+E_h)<`$ 0, and $`\omega =(E_sE_s^{})<`$ 0, respectively, their contribution to the GDR, which is located at $`\omega =E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ 1 MeV, is negligible. Therefore these backward-going processes are omitted here. It is now easy to see that, at zero pairing $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$ 0, one has $`u_p=`$ 1, $`v_p=`$ 0, $`u_h=`$ 0, $`v_h=`$ 1 so that $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2=`$ 1, $`[v_{ss^{}}^{()}]^2=`$ 1. As for the single-particle occupation number $`f_j`$, one obtains $`f_h=1n_h`$ and $`f_p=n_p`$. The PDM equations for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$ 0 in Ref. PDM1 (3, 4) are then easily recovered from Eqs. (1) – (4).

### II.2 Assumptions of phonon damping model

The PDM is based on the following assumptions:

i) The matrix elements for the coupling of GDR to non-collective $`ph`$ configurations, which causes the quantal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ (1b), are all equal to $`F_1`$. Those for the coupling of GDR to $`pp`$ ($`hh`$), which causes the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$ (1c), are all equal to $`F_2`$. The assumption of a constant coupling strength is well justified when the width of a collective mode is much smaller than the energy range $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (of order of $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$) over which this mode is coupled to the background states (the so-called weak coupling limit discussed in Refs. Ze (13, 20)).

ii) It is well established that the microscopic mechanism of the quantal (spreading) width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ (1b) comes from quantal coupling of $`ph`$ configurations to more complicated ones, such as $`2p2h`$ ones. The calculations performed in Refs. Bortignon (21, 22) within two independent microscopic models, where such couplings to $`2p2h`$ configurations were explicitly included, have shown that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ depends weakly on $`T`$. The microscopic study in Ref. Lauritzen (20), where an hierarchy of states of increasing complexity located around $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ is considered, has also confirmed the nearly constancy of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$. It also indicated that the width of a collective vibration does not depend on the detailed coupling to the compound nuclear eigenstates. Therefore, in order to avoid complicate numerical calculations, which are not essential for the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ at $`T`$ 0, such microscopic mechanism is not included within PDM, assuming that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ at $`T=`$ 0 is known. The model parameters are then chosen so that the calculated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ reproduce the corresponding experimental values at $`T=`$ 0 (See below).

Assumption (i) is satisfied for $`F_1`$ since the quantal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ does not exceed 4.9 MeV. The PDM calculations in fact have shown that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$ decreases from 4.9 MeV at $`T=`$ 0 to around 2.5 MeV at $`T=`$ 5 MeV for 120Sn due to thermal effects in the factor $`1n_pn_h`$ (See the dashed line in Fig. 1 (a) of PDM1 (3) for zero pairing). A similar trend was also observed in the microscopic calculations of Ref. Bortignon (21), where it was found that the GDR width at $`T=`$ 3 MeV is in fact smaller that at $`T=`$ 0 (See Figs. 9 and 10 of Ref. Bortignon (21) an the discussion therein). That’s why $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}(T=0)`$ cannot be simply taken as a parameter uniformly added to what is calculated for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$ at $`T`$ 0 since a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}(T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}(T=0)`$ would lead to a larger value for the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ (1a) at higher $`T`$, worsening the agreement with the data.

Assumption (i) becomes poor for $`F_2`$ at $`T`$ 3 MeV, when the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$ is larger than 10 MeV (See the dotted line in Fig. 1 (a) of Ref. PDM1 (3)). Within such a large width one expects a considerable change of the level density of background states. To be quantitatively precise, one needs to use a self-consistent theory for the strength function, which includes the coupling to doorway states as in Ref. Lauritzen (20). Such theory is valid for any ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. However, from assumption (ii) it also follows that the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ is now driven mainly by the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$ due to the factor $`n_s^{}n_s`$. The change of $`n_j`$ implies a change of the quasiparticle entropy $`S_{\mathrm{qp}}`$. The latter is ultimately related to the change of the level density of background states within the realistic mean-field basis. This can be seen as follows. The complexity of the background states is measured by the information entropy $`S_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ of individual wave functions, which reflects the complicated relationship between the eigenbasis and representation basis. Meanwhile, the thermodynamic entropy $`S_{\mathrm{th}}`$ of the total system is directly determined by its statistical weight $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)=\rho (E)\delta (E)`$ as $`S_{\mathrm{th}}=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$, where $`\rho (E)`$ is the level density. In a situation with incomplete information, such as in the statistical description of hot nuclei considered here, individual compound systems are replaced with a grand canonical ensemble of nuclei in thermal equilibrium. The probability for a quantum system to have a given eigenenergy is determined by the density matrix $`𝒟`$ rather than by a pure wave function. The expectation value $`𝒪`$ of an observable $`𝒪`$ is given as the statistical average over the grand canonical ensemble $`𝒪=\mathrm{Tr}(𝒟𝒪)`$, which is derived from the maximum of the thermodynamic entropy $`S_{\mathrm{th}}=\mathrm{Tr}(𝒟\mathrm{ln}𝒟)`$. The modern shell-model calculations in Ref. Ze (13) have shown that these three apparently different entropies, $`S_{\mathrm{qp}}`$, $`S_{\mathrm{inf}}`$, and $`S_{\mathrm{th}}`$, behave very similarly for the majority of states in the realistic mean field consistent with residual interactions (See column II of Fig. 56 in Ref. Ze (13) and the discussion therein). Significant differences between them take place only when the residual interaction beyond the mean field is very weak (See column I of Fig. 56 in Ze (13)) or when the quasiparticle mean-field is absent ($`S_{\mathrm{inf}}`$ reaches its chaotic limit) (See column III of Fig. 56 in Ze (13)). This might be the reason why the numerical results performed so far within the zero-pairing PDM PDM1 (3, 4, 5) using assumptions (i) and (ii) fit fairy well the experimental systematic for the GDR width including the existing data on the width saturation at $`T`$ 3 MeV. This is partly also due to the large experimental errorbars for the extracted GDR width at high $`T`$ (See, e.g. Refs. Bracco (23, 24)). Therefore, at $`T`$ 3 MeV the results obtained under these assumptions should be considered as qualitative. This does not affect our present study of the pairing effect as the latter is significant only at low temperature ($`T<`$ 2.5 MeV).

Within assumptions (i) and (ii) the model has only three $`T`$-independent parameters, which are the unperturbed phonon energy $`\omega _q`$, $`F_1`$, and $`F_2`$. The parameters $`\omega _q`$ and $`F_1`$ are chosen so that after the $`ph`$-GDR coupling is switched on, the calculated GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ reproduce the corresponding experimental values for GDR on the ground-state. At $`T`$ 0, the coupling to $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations is activated. The $`F_2`$ parameter is then fixed at $`T=`$ 0 so that the GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ does not change appreciably with varying $`T`$. The values of the PDM parameters for 120Sn are given in PDM2 (4) for the zero-pairing case.

In Ref. PDM2 (4) we have presented an argument that, in our opinion, the effect due to coupling of GDR to noncollective $`ph`$, $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations at $`T`$ 0 within the PDM is tantamount to that of thermal shape fluctuations. This has been demonstrated by expanding the coupling of GDR phonon to noncollective $`ph`$, $`pp`$, and $`hh`$ configurations into couplings to different multipole fields (See pages 437 and 438 of Ref. PDM2 (4)). In this expansion the $`pp`$ ($`hh`$)-pair operator $`B_{ss^{}}^{}a_s^{}a_s^{}`$ is expanded in terms of the tensor products of two $`ph`$-pair operators (See mappings (22) and (23) of Ref. RRPA1 (19)). Each $`ph`$-pair operator $`B_{ph}^{}a_p^{}a_h`$ can be then expressed in terms of the RPA phonon operators $`Q_q^{}`$ and $`Q_q`$ with RPA amplitudes $`X_{ph}^q`$ and $`Y_{ph}^q`$. This leads to Eq. (2.43) in Ref. PDM2 (4) for the part of the PDM Hamiltonian, which describes coupling between the phonon and single-particle fields. Hence if $`Q_q^{}`$ and $`Q_q`$ are GDR phonon operators, $`\{Q_{q_1}^{},Q_{q_1}\}`$ and $`\{Q_{q_2}^{},Q_{q_2}\}`$ in Eq. (2.43) of Ref. PDM2 (4) can have the moment and parity equal to $`(1^{},2^+)`$, $`(2^+,3^{})`$, etc. to preserve the total momentum $`\lambda ^\pi =1^{}`$. Therefore, although $`F_{ss^{}}^{(q)}`$ are dipole matrix elements, the amplitudes $`X_{ph}^{q_i}`$ and $`Y_{ph}^{q_i}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) can be calculated microscopically, using the dipole-dipole, quadrupole-quadrupole, octupole-octupole, etc. components of residual interaction. This means that coupling to $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations already includes in principle the coupling to different multipole-multipole fields via multiphonon configuration mixing at $`T`$ 0 222In Ref. PDM4 (25) a version of PDM, which explicitly includes coupling to two-phonon configurations in the second order of the interaction vertex, was proposed. The expressions (2.17) and (2.18) of Ref. PDM4 (25) derived for the polarization operator show that the width increase is still driven mainly by the factor $`(n_sn_s^{})`$. The calculations with the GDR coupled to the first quadrupole phonon $`2_1^+`$ required the energy $`\omega _{2_1^+}`$ and the ratio $`r=F_i^{(2)}/F_i^{(1)}`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ to be fixed as additional parameters. A similar quality for the description of the experimental data for the temperature dependence of the GDR width has been restored after a reduction of the dipole matrix elements $`F_1^{(1)}F_1`$ and $`F_2^{(1)}F_2`$..

CASCADE calculations using PDM strength functions have produced the GDR shapes in good agreement with the experimental data for 120Sn at $`T>`$ 1.54 MeV (See Fig. 2 of Ref. Kaury (7)). The discrepancy at $`T`$ 1.54 MeV is due to omission or improperly inclusion of pairing at low $`T`$, which is now studied in the present work. The splitting of GDR into two peaks is also clearly seen in the PDM calculations for 106Sn Sn106 (26). These evidences are in favor of the argument discussed above and in Ref. PDM2 (4).

Nonetheless, we recognize that the issue of whether coupling to $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations at $`T`$ 0 is a microscopic (although indirect) interpretation of thermal shape fluctuations within the PDM is still not settled. The question on whether thermal shape fluctuations need to be included additionally within PDM or not remains to be investigated. The thermal shape-fluctuation model calculates the time-correlation function of the GDR by replacing the micro-canonical ensemble with an ensemble of macroscopic variables, which are the deformation parameters $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ in the body-fixed (principal axes) frame of reference (intrinsic frame). It parametrizes a priori the dipole correlation tensor by a frequency $`E_k=E_0\mathrm{exp}[\sqrt{5/4\pi }\beta \mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi k)]`$ and a width equal to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(E_k/E_0)^{1.8}`$ along each $`i`$th semiaxis TFM (2). The effect of thermal fluctuations in this model is included via fluctuations of shapes by employing the macroscopic Landau theory of phase transitions Landau (27). Therefore, an explicit inclusion of thermal shape fluctuations in the PDM will bring in additional degrees of freedom, which increase the number of parameters of the model. At the same time, in a way similar to that mentioned in the footnote above, this will certainly require a renormalization of the existing parameters of the PDM to restore the agreement with the experimental systematic. While this issue is left open for future study, it does not affect the study of the role of thermal pairing in the present paper, since, as will be seen below, in order to describe the GDR width at low $`T`$, thermal pairing is necessary to be included in any model, whether it is the PDM or thermal shape-fluctuation one.

## III Analysis of numerical calculations

### III.1 Role of thermal pairing gap at low temperature

Shown in Fig. 1 is the $`T`$ dependence of the neutron pairing gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\nu `$ for 120Sn, which is obtained from the modified-BCS equations MHFB (9, 10, 11) using the single-particle energies determined within the Woods-Saxon potential at $`T=`$ 0. They span a space from $``$ -40 MeV up to $``$ 17 MeV including 7 major shells and $`1j_{15/2}`$, $`1i_{11/2}`$, and $`1k_{17/2}`$ levels. The pairing parameter $`G_\nu `$ is chosen to be equal to 0.13 MeV, which yields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(T=0)\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(0)`$ 1.4 MeV. In difference with the BCS gap (dotted line), which collapses at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ 0.79 MeV, the gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ (solid line) does not vanish, but decreases monotonously with increasing $`T`$ at $`T`$ 1 MeV resulting in a long tail up to $`T`$ 5 MeV. This behavior is caused by the thermal fluctuation of quasiparticle number, $`\delta 𝒩^2_j\delta 𝒩_j^2`$, where $`\delta 𝒩_j^2=n_j(1n_j)`$ is the quasiparticle-number fluctuation on $`j`$-th orbital. The latter is incorporated as $`\delta 𝒩_j`$ in the modified-BCS gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ (See the last term at the r.h.s of Eq. (39) of Ref. MBCS1 (11)).

To analyze the qualitative effect of thermal pairing on the GDR width we plot the usual single-particle occupation number $`f_j=u_j^2n_j+v_j^2(1n_j)`$ with $`n_j`$ obtained within the modified-BCS theory ($`\gamma _j(E)=`$ 0) as a function of single-particle energy $`ϵ_j`$ for the neutron levels around the chemical potential in Fig. 2. It is seen that, in general, the pairing effect always goes counter the temperature effect on $`f_j`$, causing a steeper dependence of $`f_j`$ on $`ϵ_j`$. Decreasing with increasing $`T`$, this difference becomes small at $`T`$ 3 MeV. Since a smoother $`f_j`$ enhances the $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ transitions leading to the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$, pairing should reduce the GDR width, and this reduction is expected to be stronger at a lower $`T`$, provided the GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ is the same. A deviation from this general rule is seen at very low $`T`$ 0.1 MeV, where the temperature effect is still so weak that $`f_j`$ obtained at $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ 0 (solid line) is smoother than that obtained at zero pairing (dotted line).

To get an insight into the detail of the change of GDR width at low $`T`$ we show in Fig. 3 the combinations $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2`$ and $`[v_{hh^{}}^{()}]^2`$ of the Bogoliubov coefficients $`u_p`$, $`v_h`$, and $`v_h^{}`$ together with the factors $`(1n_pn_h)`$ and $`(n_hn_h^{})`$ as well as their zero-pairing counterparts, $`f_hf_p`$ and $`f_h^{}f_h`$ for the particle $`p=2j_{7/2}`$, hole $`h=2d_{3/2}`$, and $`h^{}=1d_{5/2}`$ orbits as functions of $`T`$. The hole orbit $`h=2d_{3/2}`$ is located just below the chemical potential. Therefore the pairing effect is strongest for the $`ph`$ and $`hh`$ configurations involving this orbit. This figure shows a sharp increase of $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2`$ and $`[v_{ss^{}}^{(+)}]^2`$ at $`T`$ 1 – 2 MeV due to a steep slope of the pairing gap, showing a strong pairing effect. At very low $`T`$, the numerator of the polarization operator (4) is close to $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2(E_p+E_h)`$ because $`1n_pn_h`$ 1, while the thermal part $`(n_sn_s^{})`$ 0. This value is equal to 3.67 MeV at $`T=`$ 0.1 MeV, which is smaller than $`(ϵ_hϵ_p)=`$ 4.63 MeV obtained at $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$ 0. The denominator of (4) is also smaller than that obtained at $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$ 0 because $`E_p+E_h>ϵ_hϵ_p`$ due to the gap. Therefore, at very low $`T`$, pairing may lead even to a smaller GDR energy. On the other hand, as $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^{(2)}(1n_pn_h)`$ and $`[v_{ss^{}}^{()}]^2(n_sn_s^{})`$ are also smaller than $`f_hf_p`$ and $`f_s^{}f_s`$, respectively, the competition of these effects in Eq. (1) can result in a larger width in the very low-$`T`$ region. As $`T`$ increases, the factor $`1n_pn_h`$ decreases while $`[u_{ph}^{(+)}]^2`$ increases to reach 1 at $`T`$ 2 MeV because of the decreasing gap. This leads to the decrease of the quantal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{Q}`$. At the same time, coupling to $`pp`$ and $`hh`$ configurations starts to contribute due to the factor $`(n_sn_s^{})`$. The combination $`[v_{ss^{}}^{()}]^2`$ also increases with $`T`$ and reach 1 at $`T`$ 3 MeV. As the result, thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$ starts to give an increasing contribution with $`T`$. However, as compared to their zero-pairing counterparts, $`f_hf_p`$ and $`f_s^{}f_s`$, the decrease of the quantal part $`(1n_pn_h)`$ and increase of the thermal part $`(n_sn_s^{})`$ are much more moderate with increasing $`T`$ up to 1 MeV. On the contrary, at 1 $`T`$ 3 MeV the decrease $`(1n_pn_h)`$ and increase of $`(n_sn_s^{})`$ with increasing $`T`$ are steeper than their counterparts at $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=`$ 0. At $`T>`$ 3 – 4 MeV the total width approaches the saturation because of the dominating contribution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{T}`$, which ceases to increase due to the $`T`$ dependence of $`n_sn_s^{}`$ shown in Fig. 3 (b) PDM1 (3, 4).

### III.2 Temperature dependence of GDR width and energy

The GDR width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ and energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ for 120Sn were calculated from Eqs. (1) and (3), respectively, using the same set of PDM parameters $`\omega _q`$, $`F_1`$, and $`F_2`$, which have been chosen for the zero-pairing case PDM1 (3, 4) (set A). The effect of quasiparticle damping is included in the calculations by using Eq. (2). The results are shown as the thin solid lines in Fig. 4. As seen from Fig. 4 (b), the oscillation of GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ with varying $`T`$ occurs within the range of $`\pm 1.5`$ MeV, which is wider compared with that obtained neglecting pairing. The latter is almost independent on $`T`$ (dashed line in Fig. 4 (b)). As expected from the discussion above, the GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ at $`T=`$ 0.1 MeV drops to 14 MeV, i.e. by 1.4 MeV lower than the GDR energy measured on the ground state. The GDR width increases to 5.3 MeV compared to 4.9 MeV on the ground state as shown in Fig. 4 (a). At 0 $`T`$ 0.5 MeV, the above-mentioned competition between the decreasing quantal and increasing thermal widths makes the total width decrease first to reach a minimum of 3.4 MeV at $`T`$ 0.2 MeV then increase again with $`T`$. At $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ the width only increases with $`T`$. At 1 $`T`$ 3 MeV the GDR width obtained including pairing is smaller than the one obtained neglecting pairing (dashed line in Fig. 4 (a)), but this difference decreases with increasing $`T`$ so that at $`T>`$ 3 MeV, when the gap $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ becomes small, both values nearly coincide. This improves significantly the agreement with the experimental systematic at 1 $`T`$ 2.5 MeV. In order to have the same value of 4.9 MeV for the GDR width at $`T`$ 0, we also carried out the calculation using slightly readjusted values $`F_1^{}=0.96F_1`$ and $`F_2^{}=1.03F_2`$ while keeping the same $`\omega _q`$ (set B). The result obtained is shown in the same Fig. 4 as the thick solid lines. The GDR energy $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}`$ moves up to 16.6 MeV at $`T=`$ 0.1 MeV and at $`T_\mathrm{c}T`$ 1.2 MeV in agreement with the value of 16.5 $`\pm `$ 0.7 MeV extracted at $`T=`$ 1 MeV in Ref. Heckman (16). The width at $`T=`$ 1 MeV also becomes slightly smaller, which agrees quite well with the latest experimental point Heckman (16). At $`T>`$ 1 MeV the results obtained using two parameter sets, A and B, are nearly the same. The effect of quantal fluctuations $`\delta N^2`$ of particle number within the BCS theory at $`T=`$ 0, however, is neglected in these results. To be precise, this effect should be included using the particle-number projection method at finite $`T`$. However, the latter is so computationally intensive that the calculations were carried out so far only within schematic models (See, e.g. Rossignoli (31)), or one major shell for nuclei with A $``$ 60 as in the Shell-Model Monte-Carlo method Alhassid (32). Therefore, for the limited purpose of the present study, assuming that $`\delta N^2`$ 1, we applied the approximated projection at $`T=`$ 0 proposed in Ref. Mikhailov (33), which leads to the renormalization of the gap as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(T)=[1+1/\delta N^2]\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with $`\delta N^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(0)^2_j(j+1/2)/[(ϵ_j\overline{\mu })^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(0)^2]`$ DangZ (34). This yields $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(T=0)`$ 1.5 MeV ($`\delta N\pm `$ 4). The PDM results obtained using the gap $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and the parameter set B are shown in the same Fig. 4 as the thick dotted lines. The GDR width becomes 5 MeV with $`E_{\mathrm{GDR}}=`$ 15.3 MeV at $`T=`$ 0 in good agreement with the GDR parameters extracted on the ground state. It is seen that the fluctuation of the width at $`T`$ 0.5 MeV is largely suppressed by using this renormalized gap $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. For comparison, the predictions by two versions of thermal shape-fluctuation model TFM (2, 28) are also plotted in Fig. 4 (a) as the dash-dotted TFM (2) and thin dotted Kuznesov (28) lines. It is seen that these predictions, in particular the one given by the phenomenological version in Ref. Kuznesov (28), significantly overestimate the GDR width at low temperature $`T`$ 1.3 MeV. The predicted overall increase of the width is not as steep as the experimental systematic and the PDM prediction. The curvature of the trend is also opposite to the experimental one and that given by the PDM. It is, therefore, highly desirable to see how the prediction by the thermal shape-fluctuation model would change by taking into account the effect of thermal pairing gap discussed in the present work in combination with the use of a specific Hamiltonian to calculate every quantity Ansari (35).

### III.3 Effect of thermal pairing on GDR cross section at low temperature

Shown in Fig. 5 are GDR cross-sections obtained for 120Sn using Eq. (1) of Ref. Kaury (7). The experimental cross-section are taken from Fig. 2 of Ref. Kaury (7). They have been generated by CASCADE at excitation energy $`E^{}=`$ 30 and 50 MeV, which correspond to $`T_{\mathrm{max}}=`$ 1.24, and 1.54 MeV, respectively. The theoretical cross-sections have been obtained using the PDM strength function $`S_{\mathrm{GDR}}(E_\gamma )`$ from Eq. (2.22) of Ref. PDM3 (5) at $`T=T_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This is the low temperatures region, at which discrepancies are most pronounced between theory and experiment. (A divided spectrum free from detector response at $`T=`$ 1 MeV is not available in Ref. Heckman (16)). From this figure it is seen that thermal pairing clearly offers a better fit to the experimental line shape of the GDR at low temperature. As has been discussed in Ref. Kaury (7), for an absolute comparison, the PDM strength functions for all decay steps starting from $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ down to $`T`$ 0 MeV should be included in the CASCADE to generate a divided spectra, which can be directly compared with the experimental ones. It is our wish that such calculations can be carried out in collarboration with the authors of Heckman (16) in the near future.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have included the pairing gap, determined within the modified-BCS theory MBCS (10, 11), in the PDM to calculate the width of GDR in 120Sn at $`T`$ 5 MeV. In difference with the gap given within the conventional BCS theory, which collapses at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ 0.79 MeV, the modified-BCS gap never vanishes, but monotonously decreases with increasing $`T`$ up to $`T`$ 5 MeV. The results obtained show that thermal pairing indeed plays an important role in lowering the width at $`T`$ 2 MeV as compared to the value obtained without pairing. This improves significantly the overall agreement between theory and experiment, including the width at $`T=`$ 1 MeV extracted in the latest experiment Heckman (16).

###### Acknowledgements.

The numerical calculations were carried out using the FORTRAN IMSL Library 3.0 by Visual Numerics on the Alpha server 800 5/500 at the Division of Computer and Information of RIKEN.


format: text

text:
# AGB Variables as Distance Indicators

## 1. Introduction

The possibility that at least a subset of AGB variables could be used as distance indicators can probably be traced back to the work of Gerasimovic (1928). He suggested on the basis of statistical parallaxes that Mira variables showed a period - (visual) luminosity relation. This was confirmed and extended in later work (e.g. Gyllenberg 1929, 1930; Wilson & Merrill 1942; Osvald & Risley 1961; Clayton & Feast 1969). However, the scatter in visual absolute magnitude at a given period, though difficult to estimate, seemed quite large (perhaps $``$ 0.5 mag). The statistical parallax results were extended to the near infrared and to $`M_{bol}`$ by Robertson & Feast (1981) on the basis of extensive $`JHKL`$ observations by Catchpole et al. (1979) of nearby Miras.

## 2. The Slope of the Mira PL Relation

### 2.1. The Large Magellanic Cloud

Glass & Lloyd Evans (1981) and Glass & Feast (1982) found that a rather precise period-luminosity relation ($`\sigma 0.25`$mag) existed at $`JHK`$ and $`m_{bol}`$ on the basis of 11 Miras in the LMC; these relations were further refined by Feast (1984) to include the data of Wood, Bessell & Paltoglou (1985). This early LMC work depended on only a few (often only one) infrared observations per star.

An extensive programme (Glass et al. 1990) then allowed time-averaged $`JHK`$ and bolometric magnitudes to be derived for 29 O-rich and 20 C-rich Miras in the LMC (Feast et al. 1989). At $`K`$ the PL relation for O-Miras was found to be,

$$M_K=3.47(\pm 0.19)\mathrm{log}P+\beta $$
(1)
the standard deviation from this equation is only 0.13 mag. Even though some of this dispersion must be observational, it was found that there was some evidence for a period-luminosity-colour relation. Such a relation is of course to be anticipated since one can hardly expect the Mira instability strip to have no width. Recently Glass & Lloyd Evans (2003) have rederived periods for some of these stars from MACHO data. Their results show that the above relation is rather stable since their rederivation for 26 stars yields a slope of $`3.52\pm 0.21`$ insignificantly different from the above value. In fact the small change is due to the fact that they leave out three stars. It could be argued that at least two of these might well be included as O-Miras (leading to a slope of $`3.49`$) since their spectral types (Wood et al. 1985) are K? and S. Note that the designation (M), derived from the photometry, in Feast et al. (1989) implies only a likely O-Mira (i.e. K,M or S). The PL relation at $`K`$ for LMC C-Miras appears to be the same as for the O-Miras.

Feast et al. (1989) also found a PL($`M_{bol}`$) relation for LMC O-Miras with a slope of $`3.00\pm 0.24`$. The data of Glass & Lloyd Evans (2003) gives a slope of $`3.06\pm 0.26`$ (26 stars) or $`3.03`$ (28 stars). In the case of $`M_{bol}`$ the slope for the C-Miras is distinctly different ($`1.86\pm 0.30`$). However, it has never been entirely clear whether this difference is fundamental or due, for instance, to the method of deriving the bolometric magnitudes. This could introduce systematic errors since the spectra of the O- and C-Miras are so different (see also below). A PL slope in $`M_{bol}`$ for C-Miras derived by Groenewegen & Whitelock (1996) using both LMC and Galactic C-Miras of known distance has a slope approximately midway between those for O- and C-Miras just given.

The above discussion refers to Miras with periods shorter than about 420 days. In the sample of Feast et al. (1989) the Miras of longer period fell above a linear extrapolation of the PL relations both at $`M_K`$ and $`M_{bol}`$. Hughes & Wood (1990) chose to fit a PL relation of steeper slope for Miras of periods greater than 400 days. It was later suggested on the basis of approximate theoretical arguments (Willson 2000) that this apparent steeping of the PL at longer periods was to be expected. However, the subsets of LMC Miras so far discussed were all established in optical surveys. They thus are strongly biased to Miras with thin circumstellar shells. In our own Galaxy it is known that Miras with thick circumstellar shells are more frequent amongst the longer period stars. A series of papers (see references in Whitelock et al. 2003) described the identification of luminous AGB stars in the LMC from IRAS and their observation at $`JHKL`$ and with ISO. A subset of these stars are large amplitude (i.e. Mira) variables and these were recently discussed by Whitelock et al. (2003). Extensive $`JHKL`$ photometry of these stars (including data from Wood et al. 1992 and Wood 1998) allowed the derivation of periods and, together with IRAS and ISO data, bolometric magnitudes. Both O-rich and C-rich objects are present in this sample. For the C-rich objects the periods extend up to 939 days and for the O-rich variables up to 1393 days. Whitelock et al. discuss in detail the estimation of the bolometric magnitudes of these stars which can be done in various ways. Whilst there remains uncertainty about the precise bolometric magnitudes of these stars it is clear that the bulk of those with periods greater than 400 days fall below the steep PL relation of Hughes & Wood (1990) and that both the O- and C-rich objects lie near an extrapolation of the PL($`M_{bol}`$) for O-Miras of shorter period. Whitelock et al. point out that the long period C-Miras in Magellanic Cloud clusters (Nishida et al. 2000) also fall on an extrapolation of this relation. Extensive mid-infrared work would be required to determine how much of the scatter about the PL relation in the sample of Whitelock et al. was intrinsic.

It is known that there are low amplitude semi-regular variables above the Mira PL relation (see e.g. Whitelock (1986), Bedding & Zijlstra (1998) Wood (2000)). Such stars are believed to be evolving towards the Mira PL relation. The nature of the long-period Miras above the PL relation has not been clear. However, Whitelock (see Whitelock & Feast 2000a and Whitelock et al. 2003) has pointed out that some at least of these Miras are known to have strong lithium lines in their spectra (Smith et al. 1995) and this shows them to be undergoing Hot-Bottom-Burning (HBB). She therefore suggests that this is the distinguishing characteristic of these objects.

It will be clear from the above that considerable caution is required in using Miras with periods greater than 400 days as distance indicators, especially in optically selected samples. An example of the problems that can arise is provided the discovery of a 641 day, large amplitude, variable in the Local Group Irregular galaxy IC1613 (Kurtev et al. 2001). This lies about 0.7mag above the PL relation at $`K`$ (for the adopted distance of this galaxy). Suspicion as to its true nature is aroused by the fact that it has a very early spectral type (M3) and is rather blue ($`JK1.14`$) for its long period. It is possibly a HBB star or alternatively a relatively faint supergiant variable.

### 2.2. Is the PL Slope Universal?

Wood (1995) showed that the PL($`K`$) relation for SMC Miras has closely the same slope as that in the LMC. Miras in Galactic globular clusters fit the PL($`K`$) slope from the LMC (Feast, Whitelock & Menzies 2002). In the SgrI field of the Galactic Bulge, Glass et al. (1995) found that the Miras (all probably O-Miras) fitted a PL($`K`$) relation of slope $`3.47\pm 0.35`$, i.e. identical to that in the LMC. In this case the scatter about the relation is much higher than in the LMC (0.35 mag compared with 0.13 mag). This difference is primarily due to the depth of the Bulge in the line-of-sight.

In our own Galaxy, Glass et al. (2001) derived periods and mean $`K`$ magnitudes for 406 Miras in an area 24 $`\times `$ 24 arcmin square around the Galactic centre. There is large and variable extinction in this direction. The general distribution of the stars in the $`K\mathrm{log}P`$ plane (their fig 4) nevertheless suggests that most of these objects would fit a PL relation with the LMC slope. However, Oritz et al. (2002) used ISO and near IR data to derive bolometric magnitudes for OH/IR Miras within half a degree of the Galactic Centre. These stars with relatively thick circumstellar shells show a wide range in luminosity at a given period. Oritz et al. find that whilst many of their stars lie on a PL($`M_{bol}`$) relation derived from the SgrI stars of Glass et al. (1995), a considerable number lie below this relation. Thus there appears to be evidence, at least at long period, for Miras below the PL $`(M_{bol})`$ relation near the Galactic Centre. The matter cannot be considered completely settled yet in view of the considerable difficulty in determining the mean bolometric magnitude of the variables and also in estimating the interstellar extinction. It is worth noting that if such “subluminous” OH/IR Miras were present in the LMC they might well have been too faint for existing surveys.

The most striking recent work on the Mira PL slope is that of Rejkuba (2003) who established a well defined PL($`K`$) relation from about 1000 Miras in the Giant Elliptical Galaxy Cen A. The infrared colours of these stars strongly suggests that they are mainly O-Miras. Most of these Miras have $`\mathrm{log}P`$ between 2.3 and 2.7. The slope in Cen A ($`3.37\pm 0.11`$) clearly agrees well with that in the LMC, $`3.47\pm 0.19`$.

## 3. The Mira PL($`K`$) Zero-Point

A realistic determination of the Mira PL zero-point from trigonometrical parallaxes became possible following the Hipparcos astrometric mission. The Hipparcos Mira parallaxes are not of sufficient accuracy to allow their individual use in a determination of both the slope and zero-point of a PL relation. However, since the results summarized above suggest that the PL($`K`$) slope found for the LMC is closely the same elsewhere, we can reasonably adopt this slope as applicable to local Galactic Miras. It is then possible to use the method of reduced parallaxes to obtain a zero point. Whitelock & Feast (2000b) used this method together with extensive infrared photometry (Whitelock et al. 2000) to derive $`\beta `$ in equation 1 above for O-rich Galactic Miras.

In Whitelock et al. (2000) (see also Whitelock 2003) it was shown that the shorter period Miras could be separated by their colours into two sequences, the “short-period-red” and “short-period-blue” stars. These two groups are also distinguished by their kinematics. The latter belong to the main Mira sequence. Whitelock et al. found evidence from the parallaxes that the “short-period-red” Miras were brighter at a given period than those of the main Mira sequence. Whilst the main Mira PL sequence is believed to represent the end points of AGB evolution for stars of different initial masses and/or metallicities, the evolutionary status of the “short-period-red” stars is still uncertain.

Whitelock & Feast (2000b) found from Hipparcos parallaxes of O-Miras (omitting “short-period-red” stars) that $`\beta =0.84\pm 0.14`$ mag. This result depends on data for 180 Miras though most of the weight resides in a relatively small number of stars. It has recently been suggested that the Hipparcos results for some Miras require a recalibration of the adopted corrections for chromaticity (Platais et al. 2003, Pourbaix et al. 2003). Knapp et al. (2003) have published revised parallaxes based on these new corrections. Using these new parallaxes Whitelock (Leiden Workshop on the Future of AGB Star Research 2003 and to be published) finds a zero-point of $`\beta =1.04\pm 0.13`$ from 140 stars. The change in zero-point is partly due to the fact that the selection of stars is slightly different since Knapp et al. do not give revised parallaxes for all the Hipparcos Miras. A discussion of statistical bias corrections (Feast 2002) suggests that a small correction of $`0.02`$mag is necessary leading to $`\beta =1.06`$. Table 1 lists this value of the PL($`K`$) zero-point together with two other Galactic determinations. Vlemmings et al. (2003) have obtained distances to four Mira variables using VLBI astrometry of OH maser spots and this leads to the value of $`\beta `$ listed. The final figure in the table is from Miras in globular clusters with cluster distances based on Hipparcos parallaxes of subdwarfs (Feast et al. 2002).

Whitelock & Feast (2000) also analysed the parallaxes of Galactic C-Miras. However, in view of the uncertainties, which they discuss, it would appear best at present to rely on the LMC result that the (unobscured) C- and O-Miras fit the same PL($`K`$) relation (Feast et al. 1989). It has already been noted (see Whitelock et al. 2003) that within the uncertainties both the O- and C-rich Miras fit, the same $`M_{bol}`$-$`\mathrm{log}P`$ relation at least at long periods.

## 4. Is the PL($`K`$) Zero-Point the Same Everywhere?

There are a number of tests that can be applied to see whether the above PL($`K`$) calibration is applicable to all O-Miras.

(1) As Table 1 shows the value of $`\beta `$ from Galactic field Miras and those in Globular Clusters is not significantly different.

(2) The mean value of $`\beta `$ from Table 1 (1.00) when used with the results of Feast et al. (1989) leads to an LMC modulus of $`18.48`$ with an uncertainty of about 0.1 mag or slightly less. This agrees with an LMC modulus based on Cepheids calibrated in a variety of manners (Feast 2003) which is 18.52 and has a similar small uncertainty.

(3) The difference between the moduli of the SMC and LMC derived from the Mira PL($`K`$) relation is $`0.4`$mag (Wood 1995) which compares well with the difference derived from observations of the magnitudes at the red giant tip (0.44 mag, Cioni et al. 2000). A similar result is obtained from Miras in $`M_{bol}`$ (Cioni et al. 2003).

(4) The results of Glass et al. (1995) on Miras in the SgrI field of the Galactic Bulge together with the calibration of Table 1 yields a distance to the Galactic centre ($`R_0`$) of $`8.5\pm 0.7`$kpc. This may be compared with $`8.5\pm 0.5`$kpc derived from Cepheid kinematics (Feast & Whitelock 1997) and $`8.0\pm 0.4`$kpc recently derived from the orbit of a star very close to the central black hole (Eisenhauser et al. 2003).

(5) With the Galactic calibration of Table 1, the Mira PL($`K`$) results of Rejkuba (2003) for Cen A yield a distance modulus for this giant elliptical of $`28.0\pm 0.2`$mag agreeing with the RGB tip distance derived by Rejkuba, $`27.9\pm 0.2`$ mag.

These tests indicate that there is no present evidence for any variation of the PL($`K`$) zero-point at least within the observational uncertainties.

## 5. Are there Metallicity Effects on the PL relation?

It is known that at least in globular clusters there is a relation between \[Fe/H\] and Mira period (see Feast & Whitelock 2000). We then need to know whether there are variations in chemical abundance at a given period between Miras in different systems. That such seems likely between our Galaxy and the LMC was shown by Glass et al. (1995). They found that the $`JHK`$ colour-period relations were different in the SgrI field of the Galactic Bulge from those in the LMC. This question has been discussed by Feast (1996) and Feast & Whitelock (2000). The Galaxy-LMC difference can be attributed to the weakening of the infrared $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$ band due to a relative underabundance of oxygen or an overabundance of carbon (locking up oxygen in CO) in the LMC. Whether this also implies an overall metal deficiency at a given period in LMC Miras compared with those in our Galaxy is not certain since the \[O/Fe\] ratio for these stars is not known. Whilst the empirical results discussed above indicate that the PL($`K`$) relation holds in all the places to which it has so far been applied, the colour differences between the SgrI field and the LMC show that PL relations at some other colours may not be universal. For instance Feast & Whitelock (1999) point out that that there is a difference in the $`(Km_{bol})`$-$`\mathrm{log}P`$ relations in the LMC and the SgrI field. This suggests that a PL($`M_{bol}`$) relation is more metallicity sensitive than a PL($`K`$) relation, as proposed theoretically by Wood (1990).

## 6. Can Other AGB Variables be used as Distance Indicators?

Wood (2000) showed that AGB variables in the MACHO survey of the LMC defined a number of sequences in the $`K\mathrm{log}P`$ plane. Similar sequences are found in the Galactic Bulge (Glass & Schultheis 2003) These sequences show considerable internal scatter. Some of this will be due to the fact that the results depend on only single observations at $`K`$. However since only the Miras (in Wood’s sequence C) are expected to have large $`K`$ amplitudes (most of the stars are small amplitude semiregular variables) the scatter in the LMC must (except for the Miras) be mainly intrinsic111In the Bulge there is addition scatter due to the depth in the line of sight.. It remains possible that such sequences might be narrowed by the introduction of a colour term. Even so, it is not at present generally possible to determine to which of Wood’s sequences a field SR variable belongs. Thus the use of these sequences for distance determination seems limited for individual stars.

## 7. Conclusions

So far as can presently be determined the slope and zero-point of the Mira PL relation at $`K`$ is invariant. The rather precise zero-point of this relation together with the small scatter of individual stars about the relation now makes it possible to derive good distance for Miras in our Galaxy and in the Local Group. The spectacular work of Rejkuba on Miras in Cen A indicates the potential for Mira studies well beyond the Local Group. Amongst important problems still to solve are; the evolutionary status of the hot bottom burning Miras above the PL relation; the nature of the Miras which apparently lie below the PL$`(M_{bol})`$ relation in the region of the Galactic Centre; and, the nature of the Galactic short-period-red Miras discussed in section 3. In addition there is the problem of understanding the small percentage of Miras which show long term period changes. These have usually been attributed to shell-flashing episodes (Wood & Zarro 1981) but it has recently been suggested as an alternative that they are due to epochs of envelope relaxation (Zijlstra, Bedding & Mattei 2002).

## 8. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Patricia Whitelock for her help and advice and to Marina Rejkuba for information in advance of publication.

## References

Bedding, T.R. & Zijlstra, A.A. 1998, ApJ, 506, L47

Catchpole, R.M., Robertson, B.S.C., Lloyd Evans, T.H.H., Feast, M.W., Glass, I.S. & Carter, B.S. 1979, Sth.Afr.Ast.Obs.Circ. 4,61

Cioni, M.-R.L., van der Marel, R.P., Loup, C. & Habing, H.J. 2000, A&A, 359, 601

Cioni, M. -R. L. et al. 2003, A&A, 406, 51

Clayton, M.L. & Feast, M.W. 1969, MNRAS, 146, 411

Eisenhauer, F. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0306220

Feast, M.W. 1984, MNRAS, 211,51p

Feast, M.W. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 11

Feast, M.W. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1035

Feast, M.W. 2003, in Stellar Candles for the Extragalactic Distance Scale, ed. D. Alloin & W. Gieren, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, in press, astro-ph 0301100

Feast, M.W., Glass, I.S., Whitelock, P.A. & Catchpole, R.M. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 375

Feast, M.W. & Whitelock, P.A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 683

Feast, M.W. & Whitelock, P.A. 1999 in Post-Hipparcos Cosmic Candles, ed. A.Heck & F Caputo, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 75

Feast, M.W. & Whitelock, P.A. 2000, in The Evolution of the Milky Way, ed. F. Matteucci & F. Giovannelli, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 229

Feast, M.W., Whitelock, P.A. & Menzies J.W. 2002, MNRAS, 329, L7

Gerasimovic, B.P. 1928, Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 14, 963 (Harv.Reprint 54)

Glass, I.S. & Feast, M.W. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 245

Glass, I.S. & Lloyd Evans T. 1981, Nature, 291, 303

Glass, I.S. & Lloyd Evans T. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 67

Glass, I.S., Matsumoto, S., Carter, B.S. & Sekiguchi, K. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 77

Glass, I.S. & Schultheis, M. 2003, astro-ph/0307366

Glass, I.S., Whitelock, P.A., Catchpole, R.M., Feast, M.W. & Laney, C.D. 1990, Sth.Afr.Ast.Obs.Circ. No.14, p63

Glass, I.S., Whitelock, P.A., Catchpole, R.M. & Feast, M.W. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 383

Groenewegen, M.A.T. & Whitelock, P.A. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 1347

Gyllenberg, W. 1929, Lund Medd. Ser.II, No. 53

Gyllenberg, W. 1930, Lund Medd. Ser.II, No. 54

Hughes, S.M.G. & Wood, P.R. 1990, AJ, 99, 784

Knapp, G.R., Pourbaix, D., Platais, I. & Jorissen A. 2003, A&A, 403, 993

Nishida, S., Tanabé, T, Nakada, Y., Matsumoto, S., Sekiguchi, K. & Glass, I.S. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 136

Kurtev, R., Geogiev, L., Borissova, J., Li, W.D., Filippenko, A.V. & Treffers, R.R. 2001, A&A, 378, 449

Ortiz, R. et al. 2002, A&A, 388, 279

Osvalds, V. & Risley, A.M. 1961 Publs. Leander McCormick, 11, 147

Platais, I. et al. 2003, A&A, 397, 997

Pourbaix, D. et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 1167

Rejkuba, M. 2003, A&A, in press

Robertson, B.S.C. & Feast, M.W., 1981, MNRAS, 196, 111

Smith, V.V., Plez, B., Lambert,D.L. & Lubowich, D.A. 1995, ApJ, 441, 735

Vlemmings, W.H.T., van Langevelde, H.J., Diamond, P.J., Habing, H.J. & Schilizzi, R. 2003, A&A, 407, 213

Whitelock, P.A. 1986, MNRAS, 219, 525

Whitelock, P.A. 2003 in Mass-Losing Pulsating Stars and their Circumstellar Matter, ed. Y. Nakada, M. Honma & M. Seki, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 19

Whitelock, P.A. & Feast, M.W. 2000a, Mem.S.A.It. 71, 601

Whitelock, P.A. & Feast, M.W. 2000b, MNRAS, 319, 759

Whitelock, P.A., Feast, M.W., van Loon, J.Th. & Zijlstra, A.A. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 86

Whitelock, P.A., Marang, F. & Feast, M.W. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 728

Willson, L. E. 2000, ARAA, 38, 573

Wilson, R.E. & Merrill, P.W. 1942, ApJ, 95, 248

Wood, P.R. 1990, in From Miras to Planetary Nebulae, ed. M.O. Mennessier & A. Omont, Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-Yvette, 67

Wood, P.R., 1995, in ASP Conf.Ser. 83, Astrophysical Applications of Stellar Pulsation, ed. R.S. Stobie & P.A. Whitelock, 127

Wood, P.R. 1998, A&A, 338, 592

Wood, P.R. 2000, Publ.Ast.Soc.Aust. 17, 18

Wood, P.R., Bessell, M.S. & Paltoglou, G. 1985, ApJ, 290, 477

Wood, P.R., Whiteoak, J.B., Hughes, S.M.G., Bessell, M.S., Gardner, F.F. & Hyland A.R. 1992, ApJ, 397, 552

Wood, P.R. & Zarro, D.M. 1981, ApJ, 247, 247

Zijlstra, A.A., Bedding, T.R. & Mattei, J.A. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 498