text:
# WMAP, neutrino degeneracy and non-Gaussianity constraints on isocurvature perturbations in the curvaton model of inflation

## I Introduction

In single field models of inflation, the inflaton gives rise to an era of accelerated expansion in the early universe during which quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field are expanded beyond the horizon size LLBook . At the end of inflation, the inflaton decays into the standard matter fields. The primordial fluctuations, imprinted onto the gravitational potential in form of small perturbations, become the “seeds” that start the formation of large scale structure. As there is only a single degree of freedom, the inflaton’s value, the resulting perturbations are always adiabatic, i.e. the ratio of the number densities of different particle species is spatially homogeneous, there is no isocurvature mode.

Recently a different model has been proposed, the curvaton scenario curvaton ; LUW , which has already received considerable attention allcurvaton ; MWU ; DHLDW ; gordonlewis . In this model the accelerated expansion is still provided by the inflaton, but the primordial perturbations are generated by another scalar field, the curvaton. The curvaton energy density is small compared to the inflaton energy density and being a light field, it acquires an almost scale-invariant spectrum of perturbations during inflation. After the decay of the inflaton, the isocurvature perturbation in the curvaton fluid is transformed into an adiabatic perturbation Mollerach ; LM ; MWU  and the curvaton decays into radiation and other particles. A similar model to the curvaton scenario, in which a second scalar field determines the inflaton decay rate, has also been proposed recently vardecay .

The curvaton scenario requires different constraints on the inflationary potential to standard inflation and might therefore be better suited for inflation at a lower energy scale lythdimopolos ; lythsmallscale . It also allows for the possibility of an isocurvature mode in the standard matter fields curvaton ; LUW , i.e. the ratio of particle number densities of different particle species is not necessarily spatially homogeneous. This arises since the final constituents of the standard big bang model (photons, neutrinos, baryons and cold dark matter (CDM)) do not all necessarily originate entirely from the spatially inhomogeneous curvaton, but may originate instead from the spatially homogeneous inflaton or some other source.

In Ref. gordonlewis  the isocurvature components in the CDM and baryons that could arise in the curvaton scenario were constrained using WMAP and other observational data. It was found that the current data rule out either CDM or baryons being created before curvaton decay. In this article we examine what the current observational constraints are on neutrino isocurvature perturbations created by curvaton decay. These can only arise if there is a non-zero neutrino degeneracy parameter $`\xi =\mu _\nu /T_\nu `$, where $`\mu _\nu `$ is the neutrino chemical potential and $`T_\nu `$ is the neutrino temperature LUW . There may be a separate degeneracy parameter for each of the three species of neutrinos, but the recent atmospheric and solar neutrino data indicate that approximate flavor equilibrium between all active neutrino species is established well before the BBN epoch solar  and hence we take the degeneracy parameters to be equal.

Various studies have constrained the value of $`\xi `$ using CMB and other large scale structure data in the adiabatic case xibg . However, the tightest constraints still come from Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) bbnxi . In this article we examine how the constraints on $`\xi `$ change in the curvaton scenario where neutrino isocurvature perturbations can be induced by a non-zero $`\xi `$. It turns out that the neutrino isocurvature perturbations then also induce baryon and CDM isocurvature perturbations LUW . It is therefore not possible to use constraints that have simply considered the addition of a neutrino isocurvature mode such as Ref. garcia-bellido  or those that have considered arbitrary combinations of different isocurvature perturbations multiiso .

In the next section we evaluate the possible magnitudes of the neutrino isocurvature perturbations. Then in Sec. III we estimate analytically the effects of the isocurvature perturbations on the temperature fluctuations of the CMB and their dependence on $`\xi `$. A full likelihood analysis of the allowed ranges of $`\xi `$ is given in Sec. IV. Finally, the conclusions and the discussion are given in Sec. V.

## II Curvaton generated neutrino isocurvature perturbations

A useful gauge-invariant variable for characterizing inhomogeneity on large scales is BST ; Bardeen88 ; WMLL

$$\zeta =\psi H\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }},$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ and $`H`$ are respectively the total energy density and the Hubble parameter, the dot denotes differentiation with respect to coordinate time, and the perturbation in a background quantity $`x`$ is denoted by $`\delta x`$. For a critical density Universe, $`\psi `$ is related to the intrinsic curvature of a spatial hypersurface by WMLL

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R=\frac{4}{a^2}^2\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor and $`_i`$ is the covariant derivative. It is possible to choose the coordinate system such that certain combinations of perturbation variables are set to zero. This is known as choosing the gauge or frame Bardeen ; KS ; WMLL . In this article we will work in the flat gauge Bardeen ; KS ; WMLL  in which $`\psi =0`$, and Eq. (1) becomes

$$\zeta =H\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }},$$
(3)
where from now on $`\delta x`$ refers to the perturbation in $`x`$ when the flat gauge is chosen. The energy conservation equation is given by

$$\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +P)=0,$$
(4)
where $`P`$ is the total pressure. After curvaton ($`\sigma `$) decay, the component fluids are photons ($`\gamma `$), neutrinos $`(\nu )`$, cold dark matter ($`\mathrm{cdm}`$) and baryons ($`\mathrm{B}`$). The total energy density and pressure are related to density and pressure of a component $`i`$ by $`\rho =_i\rho _i`$ and $`P=_iP_i`$. The component pressures are given in terms of the corresponding component densities: $`P_i=\rho _i/3`$ for photons and neutrinos and $`P_i=0`$ for the curvaton (after the end of inflation), CDM and baryons.

We assume a critical density Universe and that the neutrinos are effectively massless.

The isocurvature perturbations are given by MWU

$$𝒮_i=3(\zeta _i\zeta _\gamma ),$$
(5)
where $`i`$ is one of $`\sigma `$, $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{cdm}`$ or $`\mathrm{B}`$ and

$$\zeta _i=H\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\dot{\rho }_i}.$$
(6)
If there is no energy transfer to and from a fluid so that it satisfies the energy conservation equation:

$$\dot{\rho _i}+3H(\rho _i+P_i)=0,$$
(7)
then its $`\zeta _i`$ is conserved on large scales, $`\dot{\zeta _i}=0`$ WMLL .

The occupation number for a neutrino species ($`i=e`$, $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$) with energy $`E`$ is given by

$$f_i(E)=[\mathrm{exp}(E/T_\nu \xi _i)+1]^1,$$
(8)
where $`T_\nu `$ is the neutrino temperature and the minus is for neutrinos and the plus for anti-neutrinos. The degeneracy parameter is $`\xi _i=\mu _i/T_\nu `$ where $`\mu _i`$ is the chemical potential of species $`i`$. However, using the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution leads to the degeneracy parameter being approximately the same for all three species solar , i.e. $`\xi _i=\xi `$. After positron annihilation, the asymmetry parameter, $`\xi `$, is constant in time LUW . When $`\xi `$ is non-zero, the difference between the number densities of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos is non-zero. We denote this quantity $`n_L`$ as this difference is equal to the lepton number. Given the constraints on charge asymmetry, any non-negligible lepton number must be due to the neutrinos. There can be no neutrino isocurvature perturbation when $`n_L=0`$ as then the neutrino energy density is determined solely by the photon energy density before neutrino decoupling LUW .

Analogously to the case of energy density, Eq. (6), the inhomogeneity of lepton number can be characterized by

$$\zeta _L=H\frac{\delta n_L}{\dot{n}_L},$$
(9)
where as specified before we are using $`\delta n_L`$ in the flat gauge. If the lepton number density is conserved

$$\dot{n}_L+3Hn_L=0,$$
(10)
then $`\dot{\zeta }_L=0`$ on large scales LUW ; DHLDW .

The isocurvature perturbation of the lepton number perturbation is then given by

$$𝒮_\mathrm{L}=3(\zeta _\mathrm{L}\zeta _\gamma ),$$
(11)
which is related to the neutrino isocurvature perturbation by LUW

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{45}{7}\frac{B^2}{B^{}A}𝒮_\mathrm{L},$$
(12)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3.04/3+{\displaystyle \frac{30}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^4\right],`$ (13)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^3\right],`$ (14)
and $`B^{}=1+3(\xi /\pi )^2`$. The $`3.04/3`$ term in the definition of $`A`$ takes into account the non-equilibrium heating of the neutrino fluid and finite temperature QED corrections Dolgov ; bbnxi ; QED .

If the lepton number is created well before the curvaton decay then it will have negligible perturbations ($`\zeta _\mathrm{L}=0`$) and so from Eq. (11)

$$𝒮_\mathrm{L}=3\zeta _\gamma .$$
(15)
We will not make the assumption $`|\xi |1`$, which was used in Ref. curvaton  as we will be also considering the case where $`\xi `$ may be large. To evaluate the effect of $`𝒮_\nu `$ on observations we need to express it in terms of the adiabatic perturbation $`\zeta `$. To do this we can use Eqs. (3), (4) and (6) and that only the photons and neutrinos contribute significantly to the density in the primordial era to get

$$\zeta =(1R_\nu )\zeta _\gamma +R_\nu \zeta _\nu ,$$
(16)
where

$$R_\nu =\frac{\rho _\nu }{\rho _\nu +\rho _\gamma },$$
(17)
which can be evaluated using Dolgov ; bbnxi

$$\rho _\nu =\frac{7}{8}\left(\frac{4}{11}\right)^{4/3}3A\rho _\gamma .$$
(18)
Combining Eq. (16) with Eq. (5) for $`i=\nu `$ we get

$$\zeta =\zeta _\gamma +\frac{1}{3}R_\nu 𝒮_\nu ,$$
(19)
then solving Eq. (19) for $`\zeta _\gamma `$ and substituting into Eq. (15) gives

$$𝒮_L=3\zeta +R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(20)
Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (12) and solving for the neutrino isocurvature perturbation gives

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{135B^2}{45B^2R_\nu 7B^{}A}\zeta .$$
(21)
If the lepton number is created by curvaton decay then LUW

$$\zeta _L=\zeta _\sigma =\frac{\zeta }{r},$$
(22)
where using the sudden decay approximation, $`r\rho _\sigma /(\rho _\sigma +\rho _\gamma )`$ evaluated at the time of curvaton decay. The approximation is accurate up to about 10 % error even when the decay is not sudden MWU . Using Eq. (5) (with $`i=\nu `$), Eqs. (11), (16) and (22) gives

$$𝒮_L=3\frac{1r}{r}\zeta +R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(23)
Substituting Eq. (23) into Eq. (12) and solving for $`𝒮_\nu `$ we get

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{r1}{r}\frac{135B^2}{45B^2R_\nu 7B^{}A}\zeta ,$$
(24)
which is valid even when $`\xi ^2`$ is large. As can be seen, the neutrino isocurvature perturbation resulting from lepton number created by curvaton decay, Eq. (24), differs from the neutrino isocurvature perturbation result when lepton number is created before curvaton decay, Eq. (21), by a factor which is only a function of $`r`$.

The final possibility is for the lepton number to be created after curvaton decay which corresponds to $`r=1`$ in Eq. (24) and so in this case there is no neutrino isocurvature perturbation.

If there is a neutrino isocurvature perturbation it induces a CDM and baryon isocurvature perturbation LUW . In the case where CDM or baryons are created after curvaton decay LUW :

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}=R_\nu 𝒮_\nu ,$$
(25)
where $`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}`$ stands for $`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ or $`𝒮_\mathrm{B}`$ as the effect is the same on either one. When CDM/B is created before curvaton decay there is an additional residual contribution LUW :

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}=R_\nu 𝒮_\nu 3\zeta .$$
(26)
When CDM/B is created by curvaton decay

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}=R_\nu 𝒮_\nu +3\frac{1r}{r}\zeta .$$
(27)
However, to concentrate on the role of neutrino isocurvature perturbations we will only consider the case where baryon number and CDM are created after curvaton decay, Eq. (25).

## III Neutrino Degeneracy Modifications of the Sachs-Wolfe effect

In this section we examine analytically the effect of a neutrino degeneracy in the curvaton scenario.

In the presence of isocurvature perturbations the temperature fluctuations due to the Sachs-Wolfe effect SW ; KSrad1  on large scales are given by gordonlewis

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}=\frac{1}{5}\zeta ^{\text{rad}}\frac{2}{5}\left(R_\mathrm{B}𝒮_\mathrm{B}+R_{\mathrm{cdm}}𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}\right)+\frac{1}{15}R_\nu 𝒮_\nu ,$$
(28)
where $`\zeta ^{\text{rad}}`$ is the value of $`\zeta `$ in the radiation era and

$`R_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{B}}{\rho _\mathrm{B}+\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}},`$ (29)
$`R_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\rho _\mathrm{B}+\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}}.`$ (30)
Substituting the induced baryon isocurvature perturbations Eq. (25) into Eq. (28) and making use of Eqs. (29) and (30) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}=\frac{1}{5}\zeta ^{\text{rad}}\frac{1}{3}R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(31)
The current 95% confidence interval (CI) limits on $`\xi `$ from BBN are bbnxi

$$0.03\xi 0.11.$$
(32)
So in order to determine whether within these limits the isocurvature perturbations can still play a role we can use $`\xi 1`$ which gives from Eqs. (14), (17) and (18) gives

$$R_\nu 0.41.$$
(33)
Substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (31) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\frac{1}{5}\left(\zeta ^{\text{rad}}+\frac{1}{2}𝒮_\nu \right),$$
(34)
which shows that the neutrino isocurvature perturbation has a similar sized effect as the adiabatic perturbation on large scales.

For the lepton number created before curvaton decay with $`\xi 1`$, Eq. (21) gives

$$𝒮_\nu \frac{135}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\zeta $$
(35)
which when substituted into Eq. (34) results in

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\frac{1}{5}\left(1+\xi ^2\right)\zeta ^{\text{rad}}.$$
(36)
Hence in this case the neutrino degeneracy decreases the temperature fluctuations on large scales. However, for the BBN limits of $`|\xi |0.11`$ it follows from Eq. (36) that the isocurvature perturbation has a negligible effect on the temperature fluctuations when the lepton number is created before curvaton decay.

For lepton number created by curvaton decay with $`\xi 1`$, Eq. (24) gives

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{1r}{r}\frac{135}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\zeta .$$
(37)
¿From Eq. (37) and Eq. (34) we then find

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\frac{1}{5}\left(1+\frac{r1}{r}\xi ^2\right)\zeta ^{\text{rad}}.$$
(38)
As can be seen from Eq. (38), in the case where the lepton number is created by curvaton decay, a non-zero $`\xi `$ adds to the magnitude of the fluctuations on large scales as $`0r1`$. Limits on $`r`$ can be placed using the limits on the non-Gaussianity parameter $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}`$ LUW ; curvatonfnl

$$f_{\mathrm{nl}}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{5}{6}r\frac{5}{4r}.$$
(39)
The current WMAP limits two sigma confidence interval is Komatsu

$$58f_{\mathrm{nl}}134.$$
(40)
Inverting Eq. (39) this leads to $`r0.02`$ at two sigma confidence level. So from Eq. (38), it appears that there may be scope for a large contribution by the isocurvature term. We will test this with a full likelihood approach in the next Section.

## IV Data Analysis

The effect of a non-zero $`\xi `$ on all cosmological scales can be obtained by inputting the isocurvature perturbations derived in Eqs. (21) and (24) and the induced baryon and CDM isocurvature perturbations, Eq. (25), into CAMB111http://camb.info/. To account for the effect on the background dynamics the number of massless neutrinos needs to be set to

$$N_\nu =3A$$
(41)
where $`A`$ is defined in Eq. (14). Some example cases are plotted in Fig. 1.

This figure confirms the direction of the effect evaluated analytically on large scales in Eqs. (36) and (38), i.e. a non-zero $`\xi `$ decreases the power on large scales when the lepton number is created before curvaton decay and increases it when the lepton number is created by curvaton decay. As can be see from Fig. 1, there is a similar effect on the extrema of the acoustic peaks but not on the rise and fall of the acoustic peaks. There is also a slight shift in the phase of the oscillations. As can also be seen in Fig. 1, a similar effect of a non-zero $`\xi `$ occurs when there are no isocurvature modes xibg ; bashinskyseljak  but then there is no effect on the Sachs-Wolfe plateau. Note that the decrease or increase is fairly constant over large scales and so is not suitable for resolving the quadrupole problem quad .

The current BBN constraints on $`\xi `$ are given in Eq. (32). They rely on using the large angle solution in which all the $`\xi `$ for the three neutrino species become equal solar . The actual constraint is on $`\xi _e`$, the electron neutrino degeneracy, due to its effect on the neutron to proton ratio prior to BBN. There have been attempts to check the BBN constraint by independently using CMB and other large scale structure data xibg . This has been done in the context of adiabatic perturbations and so the effect is due to the increase of density caused by an greater effective number of neutrinos, Eq. (41).

In this Section we test what the constraints are when lepton number is created before and by curvaton decay. The adiabatic case is equivalent to when lepton number is created after curvaton decay as it corresponds to setting $`r=1`$ in Eq. (24). A modified version of COSMOMC222http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc cosmomc  was used for the likelihood analysis which included WMAP temperature and temperature-polarization cross-correlation anisotropy WMAP , ACBAR ACBAR , CBI CBI , 2dF galaxy redshift survey 2dF  and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Key Project HST  data. The Universe was taken as flat and the neutrinos as massless. Reionization was parameterized using optical depth Kosowsky . Each simulation used five separate Markov chains and the convergence criteria was taken to be the variance of the chain mean divided by the mean of the chain variance to be less than 0.2 for each parameter.

As COSMOMC produces Monte Carlo samples of the output variables, marginalization simply entails extracting the samples of the variables of interest from the multi-dimensional samples. These samples can then be used to evaluate confidence intervals or to give estimates of the probability distribution by using histograms. Functions of the variables can also be analyzed just by taking functions of the corresponding samples.

The different scenarios that were checked were: lepton number created before curvaton decay, Eq. (21), lepton number created by curvaton decay, Eq. (24), and lepton number created after curvaton decay. COSMOMC was modified to take extra variables $`\xi `$ and $`r`$ and their effect on the isocurvature modes, Eqs. (21), (24) and (25), and effective number of neutrinos, Eq. (41), were also added. Modifications were also made to allow the inclusion of a BBN prior on $`\xi `$ which is a Gaussian distribution with mean 0.04 and standard deviation $`0.035`$ bbnxi . The prior for $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}`$ was a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 38 and standard deviation of 48 Komatsu . This then imposed a prior on $`r`$ through Eq. (39).

In the cases where the BBN constraint was not used, only positive values of $`\xi `$ were sampled as then the results were even in $`\xi `$ as Eqs. (21), (24) and (41) are even in $`\xi `$.

The constraints on $`\xi `$ for the various possibilities considered are given in Table 1. The marginalized distributions for $`\xi `$ are also plotted in Fig. 2.

The BBN constraint is still tighter than that obtained by using the CMB, 2dF and HST data on any of the curvaton scenarios.

The case where lepton number is created before curvaton decay is only twice as broad without the BBN constraint. Also, in this case, the isocurvature contribution is almost 10% as large as the adiabatic contribution but this gets dramatically reduced when the BBN constraint is added.

The case when the lepton number is created by curvaton decay is less constraining on $`\xi `$ even though the data do allow about as much positive isocurvature perturbations as negative. This is because there is an additional degeneracy with $`r`$ as seen in Eq. (24) and so also in the two dimensional marginalized distribution of $`\xi `$ and $`r`$ as seen in Fig. 3. Adding the BBN constraint also dramatically decreases the amount of isocurvature perturbations in this case as the smaller values of $`r`$ needed to compensate for the lower $`\xi `$ is disfavored by the WMAP non-Gaussianity constraints on $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}`$. However, smaller values of $`r`$ are more likely with the BBN constraint and these lead to values of $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}`$ large enough in magnitude to possibly be detectable by the Planck satellite which may be sensitive to $`|f_{\mathrm{nl}}|>5`$ planck .

In the case where lepton number is created after curvaton decay, the constraints on $`\xi `$ are the broadest. In this case there are no isocurvature perturbations and a non-zero $`\xi `$ only effects the background dynamics through modifying the effective neutrino number, Eq. (41). This case has been studied before with similar results xibg .

## V Conclusions

We have examined the current cosmological constraints on the neutrino degeneracy $`\xi `$, in the curvaton scenario, using WMAP, ACBAR, CBI, 2dF, HST and BBN data. The expressions for the isocurvature perturbations were evaluated to all orders in $`\xi `$ and the effects of the induced baryon and CDM isocurvature perturbations were accounted for. Analytical formulas were given for the modification of the Sachs-Wolfe effect on large scales.

Comparisons were made with the BBN constraint which results from the effect of the neutrino degeneracy on the pre-BBN proton to neutron ratio and using the large mixing angle solution in which the neutrino degeneracies of the different species take on the same value. It was found that the constraint on $`\xi `$ was comparable to that from BBN when the lepton number was created before curvaton decay. As seen in Fig. 1, a non-zero $`\xi `$ affects the acoustic peaks whose data will dramatically improve in the future. So the CMB constraints on $`\xi `$ may also improve dramatically. Without the BBN constraint, the neutrino isocurvature perturbation was found to be smaller than 10% the size of the adiabatic mode (95% CI), while including the BBN constraint reduced this by a factor of a few. In the case where the lepton number is created by curvaton decay, there is a degeneracy between the value of the curvaton energy density at the time of curvaton decay and $`\xi `$. However, this does not stop the BBN data strengthening the constraint on the isocurvature perturbation as the value of the curvaton energy density at the time of curvaton decay is constrained by the limits on the non-Gaussianity parameter from WMAP. So in this case, the neutrino isocurvature mode is less than about 5% (95% CI) of the adiabatic mode. Unless the BBN constraints on $`\xi `$ become tighter around zero, the case of the lepton number being created by curvaton decay would be unlikely if future observations found $`f_{\mathrm{nl}}<10`$, as this would imply a larger isocurvature perturbation than is observed.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to David Lyth and David Wands for useful comments. CG thanks Antony Lewis for help with COSMOMC. This work was performed on COSMOS, the Origin3800 and Altix3700 owned by the UK Computational Cosmology Consortium, supported by Silicon Graphics/Cray Research, HEFCE and PPARC. CG was supported at the University of Cambridge by PPARC and at the University of Chicago and at the Center for Cosmological Physics by grant NSF PHY-0114422. KM was supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship under the contract number *HPMF-CT-2000-00981* at IAP and by PPARC at the University of Lancaster.


format: text

text:
# Cascade emission of 𝛾-quanta by highly excited nuclei 11footnote 1Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 65, 12–23 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP 38, No. 1, 6-11 (1974)]

## 1 Introduction

Radiative transitions between the lowest levels of nuclei exhibit a great diversity in their intensities and multipolarities. In addition to the usually intense transitions between the “collective” (rotational and vibrational) levels, there are encountered also isomeric $`\gamma `$ transitions, the high degree of hindrance of which may be due to the large change in the nuclear spin and also to other causes. Even a schematic tentative classification and a very cursory discussion of the particular interest that may attach to any particular modification of the radiative transitions between any two concrete energy levels of the nucleus would greatly exceed the scope of the present article. In nuclei that are not too light, however, the number of levels that lend themselves to transitions with $`\gamma `$-quantum emission increases sharply, with increasing excitation energy, and the individual features then become gradually averaged. A well known example may be the observed spectra of $`\gamma `$ rays of radiative capture of thermal neutrons . It is clear that for a sufficiently heavy nucleus, the overall picture of such a phenomenon characterizes not the individual levels, but more readily a certain region of the energy spectrum of the nucleus as a whole. It is natural to assume that rather general laws of phenomenological character come to the forefront here. Unification of the dominant mechanism of the process becomes manifest, e.g., in the fact that these electromagnetic radiation spectra  of many different nuclei exhibit great similarities.

Incidently, at the excitation energy $`8`$ MeV, which we referred to in this case, certain striking qualitative differences still remain. Since they are due to phenomena that are of very great importance in nuclear physics, we shall consider the examples that illustrate this fact in somewhat greater detail. We consider the situations on both sides of osmium ($`Z=76`$), where the spectra of $`\gamma `$ quanta  have been investigated experimentally in sufficient detail. Many nuclei of the chemical elements preceding osmium have spectra of rather standard form, namely the energy distribution of the quanta has a maximum at $`\epsilon 2`$ MeV, after which it drops off rapidly towards the limiting value $`\epsilon =E`$ (the excitation energy of the nucleus in the initial state). However, this “temperature” maximum becomes considerably smoothed out even for the first element following osmium, namely iridium ($`Z=77`$), and the transitions in the hard part of the $`\gamma `$ spectrum are simultaneously smoothed out. This characteristic deformation of the spectrum of quanta is further developed in the case of 78Pt, where, roughly speaking, the areas under both maxima become comparable. The emission spectra of 79Au reveals in practice only one maximum adjacent to the hard edge $`\epsilon =\epsilon _n`$ ($`\epsilon _n`$ is the neutron binding energy). In the elements that follow, 80Hg and 81Tl, the relative area under the hard part of the spectrum continues to increase. It is curious to note that this feature becomes much more sharply pronounced in the case of the doubly magic nucleus 82Pb$`{}_{}{}^{208}{}_{126}{}^{}`$. When the preceding isotope Pb207 captures a thermal neutron, practically 100% of all the radiative transitions go directly to the ground state; in other words, the spectrum of the cascade degenerates into a single line $`\epsilon =\epsilon _n`$.

The picture outlined above is probably brought by about a unique phenomenon that becomes manifest not only in the spectra of the $`\gamma `$-quantum cascades; the equilibrium shape of the nucleus also changes in the immediate vicinity of osmium. The properties of the energy spectrum of spherical nuclei located in the region adjacent to the doubly-magic nucleus are strongly influenced by the residual interaction between the quasiparticles222This residual interaction has a macroscopic structure that influences the behavior of the nucleus as a whole. It was analyzed in .. To the contrary, on the other side of the phase transition point , such an influence apparently ceases to be decisive in any manner. The non-spherical shape of the nuclei in this region is quite natural, for when there is no interaction whatever between the particles the instability of the spherical configuration is proved by direct calculation.

We consider below the properties of electromagnetic radiation of all the nuclei pertaining to this non-spherical “normal” phase (see ).

## 2 Thermodynamics of electromagnetic radiation of excited nuclei

According to Fermi-liquid theory , the behavior of this liquid is determined by quasiparticles that obey the Pauli principle and are sufficiently close to the Fermi boundary. In the state of thermal equilibrium, the usual Fermi distribution holds 333We call attention to the connection between the condition $`T\epsilon _n`$ ($`\epsilon _n`$ is the chemical potential) for the applicability of the theory, on the one hand, and the very possible existence of a compound nucleus, on the other. In the opposite case, the neutrons having a binding energy $`\epsilon _n`$ would be emitted from the nucleus “instantaneously,” bypassing the stage of establishment of thermal equilibrium.

$$n(\epsilon ^{})=\frac{1}{e^{\epsilon ^{}/T}+1},$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon ^{}`$ is the energy of the quasiparticle reckoned from the chemical potential, and $`T`$ is the temperature. We now explain the predominant mechanism of the process. In accordance with the accepted concepts, the quasiparticles move freely inside the nuclear matter. However, when they strike the transition region on the nuclear surface, they are reflected from the latter, i.e., they are accelerated. This makes the emission of electromagnetic quanta possible444We mention also another possibility: radiation could be produced also when quasiparticles collide with one another. However, the number of such collisions is proportional to the cube of the temperature, whereas the effect calculated by us is linear in the temperature (see formula (2) below). Therefore the mechanism of collisions of individual quasiparticles with the “wall” of the nucleus should be regarded as predominant; see also footnote 2..

On the average, we ascribe radiation to an individual quasiparticle in accordance with the law $`f(\epsilon )d\epsilon `$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy of the $`\gamma `$ quantum (the form of the function $`f(\epsilon )`$ will be established below). To go over to the true probability distribution $`w(\epsilon )d\epsilon `$, we must take into account the entire aggregate (1) of the quasiparticles obeying the Pauli principle. Actually this reduces to multiplication by the product $`n(\epsilon ^{})[1n(\epsilon ^{}\epsilon )]`$ and integration over the fermion energies. Simple integration yields

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}n(\epsilon ^{})[1n(\epsilon ^{}\epsilon )]𝑑\epsilon ^{}=\frac{\epsilon }{e^{\epsilon /T}1},w(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\frac{f(\epsilon )\epsilon d\epsilon }{e^{\epsilon /T}1}.$$
(2)
We now consider the question from a somewhat different point of view. The radiation wavelength is long relative to the dimensions of the nucleus and is principally of the electric-dipole type. The average level density of the system changes significantly only over energy intervals of the order of the temperature. In other words, when the excitation energy changes by an amount $`\epsilon T`$, the energy characteristics of the spectrum of the nucleus as a whole, averaged over many quantum states, remain practically constant. Therefore in the limit as $`\epsilon 0`$ there remains only the cubic dependence $`w(\epsilon )\epsilon ^3`$ of the probability of the process on the transition energy, a dependence characteristic of dipole emission. Taking (2) into account we therefore have 555It is well known that owing to recoil of the nucleus as a whole, which has a charge $`Ze`$, the neutron component is also capable of electric dipole emission (see, e.g., ). In fact therefore, both proton and neutron quasiparticles take part in the process in question. However, it is clear from the character of the presented results that the form of the required expressions is determined only by the temperature of the nucleus and explicit allowance for the two-component character of the nuclear matter would not influence them. We therefore start for the time being from a simplified picture of quasiparticles of one type, the statistical distribution of which is given by formula (1).

$$f(\epsilon )=\mathrm{const}\epsilon ^3.$$
(3)
For our purposes there is no need to calculate the absolute value of the probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma /\mathrm{}`$ of the radiation per unit time ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ is the radiative width). We can deduce even from (2) and (3), however, how this quantity depends on the temperature of the nucleus (or on the excitation energy; see (15)). Since the constant factor in the right-hand side of (3) depends neither on $`\epsilon `$ nor on $`T`$, the integration of the second formula of (2) yields

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma T^5.$$
(4)
The $`\gamma `$-quantum energy distribution $`w(\epsilon )d\epsilon `$ will now be renormalized to a unit total probability of its radiation

$$w(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\frac{1}{24\zeta (5)T^5}\frac{\epsilon ^4d\epsilon }{e^{\epsilon /T}1},_0^{\mathrm{}}w(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon =1.$$
(5)
Here

$$\zeta (s)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{s1}dx}{e^x1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^s}$$

is the Riemann $`\zeta `$ function. We need also the average energy $`\overline{\epsilon }(T)`$ of the quantum emitted by the nucleus with temperature $`T`$,

$$\overline{\epsilon }=_0^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon w(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon =\frac{\pi ^6}{189}\frac{T}{\zeta (5)}4.91T.$$
(6)
As the nucleus radiates, it becomes cooler; the running values of the excitation energy and of the temperature will be denoted by $`E^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$, respectively. For the average number $`\nu `$ of the quanta in the cascade we obtain

$$\nu =_0^E\frac{dE^{}}{\overline{\epsilon }(T^{})}=\frac{189\zeta (5)}{\pi ^6}_0^E\frac{dE^{}}{T^{}}\frac{S}{4.91},$$
(7)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the initial state of the nucleus and $`S`$ is its entropy. Relation (7) makes it possible to determine the latter from experiment.

How are the probability distributions (5) of different quanta of the cascade interrelated? Since the function $`w(\epsilon ,T)`$ depends on $`T`$ as a parameter, its form is determined by the prior history and by the total energy of the entire preceding radiation that caused the nucleus to cool down to the temperature in question. However, reasoning somewhat formally, such a relation between the $`\gamma `$ quanta of the cascade is due to the fact that each of them is characterized by an energy $`\epsilon `$. We now change over to another variable $`s`$, which is the entropy carried away by the quantum from the nucleus. Obviously, $`s=\epsilon /T`$, and the distribution (5) can be rewritten in the form

$$w(s)ds=\frac{1}{24\zeta (5)}\frac{s^4ds}{e^s1}$$
(8)
Thus, in terms of $`s`$ the $`\gamma `$ quanta are statistically independent. This simplifies very greatly the calculation of the fluctuations of the number of quanta in the cascade. We write down the corresponding mean values

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{s}=& _0^{\mathrm{}}sw(s)𝑑s=\frac{\pi ^6}{189\zeta (5)}4.91,\overline{s^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}s^2w(s)𝑑s=30\frac{\zeta (7)}{\zeta (5)}29.2,\hfill \\ & \overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }s)^2}=\overline{s^2}\overline{s}^25.11\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
(the first of these formulas, in fact, is a restatement of (6) in terms of other units).

We consider next a portion of the cascade consisting of $`\nu ^{}`$ successively emitted quanta. For the fluctuation of the entropy $`S^{}`$ pertaining to this section we have the expressions

$$\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }S^{})^2}=\nu ^{}\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }s)^2}5.11\nu ^{},\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{S^{}}{\nu ^{}}\right)^2}\frac{5.11}{\nu ^{}}.$$
(10)
The last of the formulae (10) determines the fluctuation of the entropy $`S^{}/\nu ^{}`$ per $`\gamma `$ quantum. The same quantity admits also of another definition: the considered section can be determined by specifying the constant $`S^{}`$, and the number of quanta needed to produce this entropy drop can be regarded as fluctuating. Therefore

$$\overline{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{S^{}}{\nu ^{}}\right)^2}=\frac{S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\nu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^{})^2}.$$
(11)
Combining (11) with (10) and taking (7) into account, we extend the final formula to include the entire cascade:

$$\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu )^2}=\left\{30\frac{\zeta (7)}{\zeta (5)}\left[\frac{\pi ^6}{189\zeta (5)}\right]^2\right\}\frac{\nu ^3}{S^2}0.0433S.$$
(12)
Here we have one other method of measuring the entropy of the initial nucleus, but this time from fluctuations of the number of the $`\gamma `$ quanta per cascade (cf. (7)). Eliminating $`S`$ from (7) and (12), we obtain the relation

$$\sqrt{\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }\nu )^2}}0.461\sqrt{\nu },$$
(13)
which may turn out to be useful to verify the mechanism of the process.

The energy spectrum $`W(\epsilon )d\epsilon `$ for the $`\gamma `$ quanta of the entire cascade is made up of distributions of the type (5) for each of them. Taking also (6) into account, we have

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon =d\epsilon _0^Ew(\epsilon ,T^{})\frac{dE^{}}{\epsilon (T^{})}=d\epsilon \epsilon ^4\frac{63}{8\pi ^6}_0^T\frac{C(T^{})dT^{}}{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}(e^{\epsilon /T^{}}1)}$$
(14)
where $`C(T)=dE/dT`$ is the specific heat of the nucleus. Its dependence on the temperature is determined by the formulas

$$E=\frac{1}{2}aT^2,C=S=aT=\sqrt{2aE},$$
(15)
which follows from the Fermi-liquid theory  (see also , where rather weighty arguments were first advanced favoring such an equation of state of the nucleus). Substituting (15) in (14) and introducing the integration variable $`x=\epsilon /T^{}`$, we obtain ultimately

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon =d\epsilon \frac{63}{8\pi ^6}a_{\epsilon /T}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^3dx}{e^x1},_0^{\mathrm{}}W(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon =\nu $$
(16)
(in practice it frequently turns out to be convenient to express the coefficient $`a`$ in terms of the thermodynamic quantities of the initial state of the nucleus in accordance with (15)). The integral in this formula

$$J(y)=_y^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^3dx}{e^x1}=\frac{\pi ^4}{15}\frac{y^3}{3}D(y)$$
(17)
can be easily investigated. It is expressed in terms of the Debye function $`D(y)`$, which determines the well-known interpolation for the specific heat of a solid (see, e.g. ).

In addition to the number of quanta $`W(\epsilon )`$ per unit change of the variable $`\epsilon `$, we introduce also the distribution of the energy $`(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\epsilon W(\epsilon )d\epsilon `$ and the spectrum of the $`\gamma `$ quanta of the cascade:

$$(\epsilon )d\epsilon =d\epsilon \frac{63}{8\pi ^6}a\epsilon J\left(\frac{\epsilon }{T}\right),_0^{\mathrm{}}(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon =E.$$
(18)
Taking (16), (7), and (15) into account, we obviously have

$$\overline{\overline{\epsilon }}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon }{_0^{\mathrm{}}W(\epsilon )𝑑\epsilon }=\frac{\pi ^6}{189\zeta (5)}\frac{E}{S}=\frac{\pi ^6}{189\zeta (5)}\frac{T}{2}2.45T$$
(19)
for the quantum energy $`\overline{\overline{\epsilon }}`$ averaged over the spectrum (cf. (6)). The function $`(\epsilon )`$ has a maximum 666To the contrary, the theoretical expression for $`W(\epsilon )`$, determined by formula (16), is a monotonic function. When its maximum is observed in experiment (see the Introduction above), this is due to the fact that the theory is not applicable to the softest part of the spectrum. With respect to the presently available experimental data, the main shortcoming of the proposed theory is the narrowness of the region of its applicability. The corresponding criterion will be obtained below, see formulas (25) and (26). The pertinent questions will be analyzed in greater detail in the concluding sections of the article.. To determine its position, we equate the derivative to zero. The transcendental equation

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^3dx}{e^x1}=\frac{y^4}{e^y1}$$
(20)
is easy to solve: $`y2.89T`$. Thus,

$$\epsilon _{max}2.89T.$$
(21)
This is possibly one of the most convenient methods of determining the temperature of a nucleus.

In view of the importance of the question, we present also a convenient formula that expresses the initial spectrum $`W(\epsilon )`$ directly in terms of $`\epsilon _{max}`$:

$$W(\epsilon )0.137\frac{E}{(\epsilon _{max})^2}J\left(\frac{\epsilon }{T}\right).$$
(22)
The limits of applicability of the theory are determined by the requirement

$$\overline{\epsilon }(T^{})E^{}.$$
(23)
In this sense, the nature of the violations near the hard edge $`\epsilon E^{}`$ of the spectrum is quite clear. The energy conservation law forbids the emission of quanta with $`\epsilon >E`$, and the theoretical expressions (16) and (18) lead us to nonzero intensities, although they do prove to be exponentially small. However, in the softest regions of the spectrum, the theory also ceases to be valid. Indeed, according to (6) the characteristic energy $`\overline{\epsilon }(T^{})`$ for the $`\gamma `$ quantum is proportional to the temperature of the radiating nucleus, since its excitation energy $`E^{}`$ depends on the temperature quadratically (see (15)), i.e., it decreases more rapidly.

To make the criterion more precise, it is simplest to take into account the fact that, according to (6) and (7), we have the proportion

$$\overline{\epsilon }(T^{})/T^{}=S/\nu .$$
(24)
Replacing the numerator of the left-hand side by the running excitation energy $`E^{}`$, we transform the resultant relation in accordance with (15):

$$\frac{E^{}}{T^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2aE^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{S^2}{E}}\sqrt{E^{}}=\frac{S}{2}\sqrt{\frac{E^{}}{E}}.$$

We now equate the result to the right-hand side of (24):

$$\frac{S}{2}\sqrt{\frac{E^{}}{E}}=\frac{S}{\nu },E^{}=4\frac{E}{\nu ^2}.$$

We have obtained here the excitation energy at which $`\epsilon E^{}`$; it determines the lower limit (with respect to the energy of the emitted quantum) of the applicability of the theory. Therefore the sought criterion takes the form

$$4E/\nu ^2\epsilon E.$$
(25)
Consequently, the region of thermal emission of the nucleus exists under the condition

$$\nu ^24.$$
(26)
## 3 Comparison with experiment. Effective mass of the nucleon (quasiparticle)

The region of heavy non-spherical nuclei, in which sufficiently systematic experimental investigations of the $`\gamma `$-cascade spectra were made, extends from samarium-gadolinium to osmium777lt is difficult to identify more specifically the chemical element pertaining to its lower limit, since the phase state of the nucleus is more sensitive here to the number of neutrons $`N`$. To the contrary, for the spherical nuclei in the vicinity of lead, the position of the phase-transformation point depends to a greater degree on the number of protons. Insofar as can be judged from the experimental data, osmium ($`Z=76`$) is located precisely at the point of transition of the non-spherical nuclei to spherical ones, or, at any rate, is very close to it; see also the Introduction.. A comparison of the data of  with the theory developed in the preceding section was made for the spectra of radiative capture of thermal neutrons by ten different nuclei. According to formula (21) (see also the texts pertaining thereto) we determined the temperature of the initial compound nucleus. Since its excitation energy $`E=\epsilon _n`$ is also known, relations (15) enable us to calculate the entropy and the specific heat. All these results are listed in the table.

The condition (26) may not be well satisfied in the case of capture of thermal neutrons. From this point of view, an advantageous method of monitoring the obtained temperatures is a comparison of the theoretical spectra of the $`\gamma `$ quanta with the experimental ones. The figure shows the measured spectra  (in units of quanta/MeV) with those calculated by formula (22). There is apparently a definite correlation with the total number $`\nu `$, calculated in accordance with (7), of the “evaporation” quanta in the cascade (i.e., due to the considered thermal mechanism). To the extent that the area under the theoretical spectrum $`W(\epsilon )`$ approaches $`2`$, the agreement, generally speaking, becomes much worse. To the contrary, even at $`\nu 4`$ satisfactory agreement is observed in a certain spectral region that does not contradict the criterion (25) 888We mention in this connection the compound actinide nucleus Th233. The following results were obtained for it: $`T=0.72`$ MeV, $`E=4.96`$ MeV, $`\nu =2.8`$; the agreement over the spectrum turned out to be poor. The case of the even-even nucleus Sm150 is curious in the following respect: it is well known that in accordance with the spectroscopic data it is spherical in the ground state, but the Curie point lies very close to its position in the periodic table. In this case, the characteristics of the $`\gamma `$-quantum cascade (see the table and the figure) do not deviate in any striking manner from the general picture, and consequently, at $`E=8`$ MeV we already have a non-spherical phase (see also the introduction). It is still difficult to indicate more accurately the excitation energy at which the phase transition takes place. To avoid misunderstandings, we note that there is apparently no phase transition whatever when non-spherical nuclei are excited; see .. On the whole, qualitative considerations suggest that, owing to the excessively small number of the quanta in the cascade, the method considered here may overestimate somewhat the nuclear temperature.

The meaning and accuracy of the “radiative” temperature, i.e., the one calculated from the position of the maximum in the spectrum $`(\epsilon )`$; see formula (21) and the table), will be easier to analyze if account is taken of certain features of the thermodynamics of such a cooled body as a concrete nucleus. Owing to the absence of fluctuations of its total energy $`E`$, the equilibrium temperature of such a system becomes to a certain degree an approximate concept. The scale of the related temperature uncertainty is given by the well known thermodynamic formula (see )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=T/\sqrt{C}$$
(27)
for its fluctuation. The calculated values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ are given in next to the last column of the table.

The statements made above pertain to a definite nucleus with fixed composition. One cannot exclude, e.g., the possibility that such limitations may become less stringent when an attempt is made to ascribe a common temperature to an entire aggregate of relatively close nuclei. It is therefore of interest to verify whether an appreciable averaging of the radiative temperature takes place over the entire atomic-weight interval $`150A188`$ where the comparison was made. Using (15), we reduce all the temperatures to a single excitation energy, say $`E=8`$ MeV. We can then see that the swing of the fluctuations is in fair agreement with the thermodynamic estimates of the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. Thus, the characteristic period of the fluctuations along the $`A`$ axis is apparently small in comparison with the region of nuclei under consideration, so that the averaging referred to above indeed has time to occur 999This can also be confirmed qualitatively by means of theoretical estimates. The variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ of the temperature is closely related with the thermodynamic fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ of the entropy of the closed system (see ). On the other hand, in the particular case of an energy spectrum of the Fermi-liquid type, the entropy, in order of magnitude, can be interpreted as the number of quasiparticles that fall in the zone of the temperature smearing of the Fermi distribution. By connecting the addition of not too large a number of nucleons to the nucleus, on the one hand, with the possible change of the entropy of the quasi-particle, on the other, we estimate the characteristic period of the fluctuations. It turns out that about two such periods are subtended by the investigated interval $`150A188`$. We do not present details of these qualitative estimates.. We are nevertheless left with the question of the systematic overestimate of the temperature of the nucleus when the values of $`\nu `$ are too small (see above).

To highlight the distinction between the random (fluctuation) and systematic errors more lucid, it is desirable to determine from experiment a quantity that characterizes directly, if possible, the nuclear Fermi liquid as such. Satisfying these requirements is the effective mass $`m^{}`$; its value is also of definite interest in itself. The effective mass determines the specific heat and the entropy of the Fermi liquid . The combinatorial expression for the entropy reduces to an integral that can be calculated without difficulty (the well-known problem of the specific heat of a degenerate Fermi gas reduces to a similar procedure; see, e.g. ). Summing the contributions from the neutron and proton quasiparticles, we have

$$S=\frac{4\pi }{9}\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{}^2}m^{}(\rho _f^N+\rho _f^Z)T.$$
(28)
Just as in many other problems of nuclear physics, an important role is played by the dimensionless variable

$$\rho _f=k_fR1,$$
(29)
where $`k_f`$ is the limiting momentum of the quasiparticles of the corresponding type and $`R`$ is the radius of the nucleus (more accurately, of equivalent volume). When (28) is compared with (15), it is convenient to express the coefficient $`a`$ in the temperature dependence of the specific heat in terms of the energy and the temperature. We then obtain for the effective mass

$$\frac{m^{}}{m_n}=\frac{9/\pi }{\rho _f^N+\rho _f^Z}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_nR^2}\frac{E}{T^2},$$
(30)
where $`m_n`$ is the mass of the free nucleon. The question of the connection between the “limiting momentum” $`\rho _f`$ (see (29)) and the number of true particles in the nucleus was considered earlier . The corresponding formula is

$$N,Z=\frac{4}{9\pi }\rho _f^3s\rho _f^2+q\rho _f.$$
(31)
Since the relative accuracy of such an approximate expansion becomes better with increasing number of nucleons, it is most natural to use data concerning the magic numbers $`82`$ and $`126`$. This yields $`s=1.1`$ and $`q=6.8`$ for the values of the parameters that enter in (31) 101010Notice should be taken of the following: the expansion (31), and incidentally the very concept of the radius $`R`$ of the nucleus, is of macroscopic accuracy. Therefore the contributions of the lowest power of $`\rho _f`$ to the number of particles (e.g., terms of order $`\rho _f^01`$) are disregarded here. We obtained initially the magic values $`\rho _f`$ (see , formula (19)), so that $`s`$ and $`q`$ were determined on the basis of data pertaining to spherical nuclei. It is easy to see, however, that relation (31), with the same values of the parameters, remains valid also for the case of non-spherical nuclei. Indeed, the first term in the right-hand side is the quasiclassical limit for the number of cells in phase space; it depends only on the volume of the system. The second (surface) term, on the other hand, can generally speaking be influenced by the deformation. For equilibrium deformations of non-spherical nuclei, however, we have $`\alpha \rho _f^1`$, and consequently the relative change in the area of the surface of the nucleus is only a quantity of the order of $`\alpha ^2\rho _f^2`$. This would yield, in final analysis, a correction of the order of unity to the number of nucleons in the nucleus. Thus, the actually realized equilibrium deformations exert no microscopic influence on the form of the function $`N(\rho _f)`$, and the possible corrections would lie beyond the limits of the accuracy of (31)..

We assume

$$R=1.210^{12}A^{1/3}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(32)
The effective-mass values determined from (30) and (31) are given in the last column of the table. The arithmetic mean is $`m^{}/m_n=0.72`$ (the point pertaining to the nucleus Th233 is also taken into consideration here; see footnote 7). This result, however, was influenced by a systematic error, which lowers the effective mass of the quasiparticle. Indeed, there is a striking correlation between the ratio $`m^{}/m_n`$ calculated by this method and the number of quanta $`\nu `$ (see the table and the figure). Consequently, a certain overestimate of the temperatures at extremely small $`\nu `$, referred to above, indeed took place. In this case this source of error seems even somewhat exaggerated, since the right-hand side of (30) contains the square of the temperature. On the other hand, in the region $`\nu =3.54.1`$, the criterion (26) already seems to be fulfilled satisfactorily, as is confirmed also by the good agreement over the spectra (see the figure). The best value is therefore probably the one calculated for the six pertinent nuclei

$$m^{}/m_n=0.87\pm 0.04$$
(33)
(we give here the purely statistical mean-squared variance).

## 4 Conclusions

1. The known treatment of the spectra of the evaporation neutrons by the detailed-balance principle (see, e.g., ) makes it possible to carry out relatively rough estimates of the nuclear temperature. The thermodynamics of electromagnetic radiation of nuclei, which was developed in the present paper, is apparently more quantitative in character. Therefore, given the corresponding experimental data, it will be possible to measure more systematically and quantitatively the temperature of other thermodynamic quantities at different excitation energies.

2. At the present time, however, such a program could be realized only in part for one of the regions of the non-spherical nuclei (see the preceding section). Another interesting region begins with radium. Since many of the actinides in this region are fissile, a study of the captured quanta should be carried out under conditions of anticoincidences with fission fragments.

An even more noticeable shortcoming of the experimental data is due to their limitation with respect to the excitation energy. At $`E8`$ MeV (the energy of a thermal neutron), the conditions for the applicability of the theory are frequently not very favorable, owing to the excessively low number of $`\gamma `$ quanta in the cascade (see the preceding section, and also (26) and footnote 5). Observation of electromagnetic radiation of much more strongly excited nuclei is hindered by the evaporation of neutrons. Therefore, for all their complexity, the performance of corresponding experiments for anticoincidence with neutrons is extremely desirable. They make it possible to overcome finally those difficulties in the reduction of the experimental data, which we attempted to analyze in the preceding section111111At large $`E`$, the region where the criterion (25) is satisfied becomes much wider. This makes it possible, in particular, to verify and refine the result (33) for the effective mass of the nucleon (quasiparticle). We call attention to a possible more profound shortcoming of the proposed method of measuring the effective mass, namely, the right-hand side of (30) is inversely proportional to the square of the nuclear radius $`R`$. It is clear that a transition to higher excitation energies does not change the situation in this respect. The value (32) assumed above seems to agree fairly well with the data on the scattering of electrons and on the internal structure of the nuclei. However, the isotropic Fermi liquid is an object that is rather exotic and is not frequently encountered in nature, so that the value of the effective mass in a nuclear Fermi liquid can be of certain fundamental interest. From this point of view, the question of the choice of the best value of $`R`$ can still not be regarded as completely solved.. One can even hope that further development of the theory (see, in particular, the next item), such experiments will cast light on the interesting question of the phase transition that takes place when a spherical nucleus is sufficiently excited.

3. Spherical nuclei owe their very existence to the residual interaction between the quasiparticles. In  there were established only the most general, macroscopic features of its structure. It may turn out, however, that the form of the thermodynamic relations at low temperatures follows from it in a sufficiently unique manner. After establishing the dependence of the specific heat on the temperature (it is apparently not described by formula (15) in the given case), one can attempt to develop also the theory of radiation of such nuclei.

Qualitative considerations give grounds for assuming that spherical nuclei are characteristics by relatively high temperatures, and accordingly, by low entropies. Therefore, in particular, the region most easily accessible to practice, $`E=68`$ MeV, calls for a critical review. If it turns out that at such excitation energies the fluctuations are still large, then the thermodynamic relations will probably be suitable here only for rough estimates.

We are grateful to A.I. Baz’, V.V. Vladimirskii, I.I. Gurevich, M.V. Kazarnovskii, A.A. Ogloblin, I.M. Pavlichenkov, V.P. Smilga, and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan for a discussion of the results.

Figure caption

The experimental spectra of the $`\gamma `$-quantum cascades are shown by solid lines, and the theoretical ones by dashed ones. The peaks in the soft parts of the spectra are not of thermal origin; some of them could not be drawn at all in the chosen scale.


text:
# Extending states on finite concrete logics

## 1 Introduction

The question of extending states on quantum logics is sometimes surprisingly combinatorially involved. In spite of the progress made by the authors referred to in the abstract above, several questions remain open (see e.g.  and ). It therefore seems helpful to have the situation clarified in the “testing” case of the logic of even-number-element subsets of a set. This is what we intend to do in this note. Our results may partially overlap with the results of the previous effort but we are not aware of them being explicitly formulated elsewhere.

## 2 Notions and results

We shall exclusively deal with finite concrete (= set representable) quantum logics and states (= probability measures) on them as defined below. Standardly, for a set $`X`$ we stand $`\mathrm{exp}(X)`$ for the (Boolean) power algebra of $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`X`$ be a finite set. A collection $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}X`$ is said to be a *concrete quantum logic* (abbr. a *logic*) if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. $`X\mathrm{\Delta }`$;
2. if $`A\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`A^c\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`A^c`$ denotes the complement of $`A`$ in $`X`$);
3. if $`A,B\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`AB=\mathrm{}`$, then $`AB\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Let $`m:\mathrm{\Delta }IR`$ be a mapping from a logic into the set of real numbers. We say that $`m`$ is a *signed measure* on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if $`m(AB)=m(A)+m(B)`$ provided that $`A,B\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. A signed measure $`m:\mathrm{\Delta }IR`$ is said to be a *state* if $`m(A)0`$ for any $`A\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m(X)=1`$.

The chief question we ask here reads as follows: Having given a (concrete) logic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a set $`X`$ and having given a state $`s`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, when can we extend $`s`$ as a state (resp. as a signed measure) over the entire algebra $`\mathrm{exp}X`$? Expressed more formally, given a state $`s`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, when can we find a state $`t`$ (resp., a signed measure $`t`$) on the Boolean algebra $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ such that $`t`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ equals to $`s`$? Let us observe first that certainly not always. In fact, we even do not have the “weak” extensions (= extensions of states to signed measures) of two-valued states at our disposal as the following simple example shows.

###### Example 2.2

Let $`X=\{1,2,\mathrm{},6\}`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the smallest concrete logic on $`X`$ containing the following four sets:

$$A=\{1,2,3\},B=\{2,3,4\},C=\{3,4,5\},D=\{1,3,5\}.$$

Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\mathrm{},A,A^c,B,B^c,C,C^c,D,D^c,X\}`$ (for the reader acquainted with the theory of orthomodular lattices, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a representation of the orthomodular lattice $`MO_4`$). Let us take the (two-valued) state $`s:\mathrm{\Delta }\{0,1\}`$ defined as follows:

$$s(A)=0,s(B)=1,s(C)=0,s(D)=1.$$

We claim that this state $`s`$ cannot be extended over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as a signed measure. Indeed, suppose that $`m:\mathrm{\Delta }IR`$ is a signed measure which extends $`s`$. Then

$$m(A)+m(B^c)+m(C)+m(D^c)=2m(X),$$

and, analogously,

$$m(A^c)+m(B)+m(C^c)+m(D)=2m(X).$$

But if in the left-hand side we replace $`m`$ by $`s`$, we obtain $`0`$ in the first equality, and we obtain $`4`$ in the second. A contradiction, thus, such an extension $`m`$ of $`s`$ does not exist.

It turns out, however, that many concrete logics do allow for the latter kind of extension. Such are for instance the logics of the following type (the conceptual value of these logics within various questions of quantum theories has been indicated in , , , etc.). Given a finite set $`X`$ of even cardinality, we denote by $`X_{even}`$ the concrete logic of all subsets of $`X`$ whose cardinality is even.

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`X`$ be a finite set of an even cardinality. Let $`s`$ be a state on $`X_{even}`$. Then $`s`$ can be extended as a signed measure over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$.

Proof:  We can suppose that $`\text{card}X4`$ (otherwise, the result is trivial). Take an arbitrary triple $`x,u,v`$ of distinct elements of $`X`$. Let

$$\overline{m}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(s(\{x,u\})+s(\{x,v\})s(\{u,v\})).$$

We claim that $`\overline{m}(x)`$ is independent of the choice of $`u,v`$. Further, we claim that letting $`x`$ vary in $`X`$, we have defined a mapping $`\overline{m}:XIR`$ with the property that upon setting $`m(A)=_{aA}\overline{m}(a)`$ for any subset $`A`$ of $`X`$, this $`m`$ constitutes a signed measure which extends $`s`$.

Let us first check that our definition of $`\overline{m}`$ is correct, i.e. let us show that $`\overline{m}(x)`$ does not depend upon the choice of $`u,v`$. Take first a couple $`v,w`$ such that $`x,u,v,w`$ are distinct. Let us show that both the couples $`u,v`$ and $`v,w`$ define the same $`\overline{m}(x)`$. Write

$$f(x,u,v)=s(\{x,u\})+s(\{x,v\})s(\{u,v\}).$$

We want to show that $`f(x,u,v)=f(x,v,w)`$. Let us compute the difference

$`f(x,u,v)f(x,v,w)`$ $`=s(\{x,u\})+s(\{x,v\})s(\{u,v\})`$
$`s(\{x,v\})s(\{x,w\})+s(\{v,w\})`$
$`=\left(s(\{x,u\})+s(\{v,w\})\right)\left(s(\{x,w\})+s(\{u,v\})\right)`$
$`=s(\{x,u,v,w\})s(\{x,u,v,w\})=0.`$
Further, for a general element $`tX`$ distinct from $`x,u,v,w`$, we have $`f(x,u,v)=f(x,v,w)=f(x,w,t)`$, proving independence of the value $`\overline{m}(x)`$ on the choice of $`u`$ and $`v`$. Let us check that $`m`$ defined as above extends $`s`$. Take a set $`A=\{x,y\}X`$. Then we can find $`u`$ and $`v`$ such that $`x,u,v,w`$ are distinct and therefore

$`m(A)`$ $`=\overline{m}(x)+\overline{m}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(f(x,u,v)+f(y,u,v)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(s(\{x,u\})+s(\{x,v\})s(\{u,v\})+s(\{y,u\})+s(\{y,v\})s(\{u,v\})\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2s(\{x,y,u,v\})2s(\{u,v\})\right)=s(\{x,y\}).`$
The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us comment shortly on the previous result. Firstly, in the logic $`X_{even}`$ we generally cannot extend states as states (see also \[1, Th. 3.5.1(v)\]).

###### Example 2.4

Let $`X=\{1,2,\mathrm{},2k\}`$, $`k`$, $`k2`$. Consider the state $`s`$ on $`X_{even}`$ such that $`s(\{1,c\})=0`$ and $`s(\{b,c\})=\frac{1}{k1}`$ for all $`b,cX\{1\}`$, $`bc`$. If $`m`$ is any signed measure on $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ extending $`s`$ we have $`m(\{1\})=\frac{1}{2(k1)}`$ and $`m(\{c\})=\frac{1}{2(k1)}`$ for all $`cX\{1\}`$.

Secondly, observing that each two-valued state on $`X_{even}`$, with $`\text{card}X6`$, has to be a Dirac state (i.e. a state sitting in a point), we see that there must be extreme states on $`X_{even}`$ which are not two-valued (in fact, in  we have constructed some). And, thirdly, it is worthwhile observing that Th. 2.3 can also be proved, like many extension theorems which happen to hold, by the well-known criterion of Horn and Tarski (see e.g. \[1, Def. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and Th. 3.2.5, 3.2.10\]). In the case of Th. 2.3 it would present another proof of a similar complexity. A minor advantage of the proof method used in Th. 2.3 is that it gives the result for group-valued measures for the groups which allow for dividing by $`2`$. Observe in passing that, for instance, the extension problem of course-grained measures as treated in  and  finds in our opinion the Horn-Tarski criterion an effective proof device (see ).

The logics of $`X_{even}`$ present a distinguished example of so-called difference-closed concrete logics. The latter logics were introduced in  under the name of symmetric concrete logics. In this note, let us use our notation (in our opinion more suggestive).

###### Definition 2.5

A concrete logic $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a set $`X`$ is said to be *difference-closed* if it is closed under the formation of symmetric differences, i.e., if for any couple of $`A,B\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have

$$A\delta B=(AB)(BA)\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

It seems natural to conjecture that Th 2.3 can be generalized to all (finite) difference-closed logics. However, this is not the case.

###### Example 2.6

Let $`X=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},9\}`$. Consider the smallest concrete logic $`L`$ of subsets of $`X`$ which is difference-closed and contains the sets $`A=\{0,1,4,7\},B=\{0,2,5,8\},C=\{0,1,2,3\}`$ and $`D=\{0,4,5,6\}`$. (For the reader acquainted with the theory of orthomodular lattices, the logic $`L`$ is a representation of $`MO_{15}`$(thus, difference-closed logics can be lattices without being Boolean). The logic $`L`$ has 15 mutually non-disjoint elements consisting of 4 points and 15 elements consisting of 6 points that constitute the complements of the former ones).

Let $`s`$ be a state on $`L`$ such that $`s(A)=s(C)=s(A\delta B)=1`$ and $`s(B)=s(D)=s(C\delta D)=0`$ (there obviously are such states). Let us show that $`s`$ cannot be extended as a signed state on $`\mathrm{exp}X`$.

Looking for a contradiction, suppose that $`m`$ is such an extension. Since $`AB=CD=\{0\}`$, we obtain

$$2m(\{0\})=s(A)+s(B)s(A\delta B)=0,$$

and, also,

$$2m(\{0\})=s(C)+s(D)s(C\delta D)=1.$$

We have reached a contradiction, verifying the required property.

When we find ourselves within the area of difference-closed concrete logics, it seems of interest to deal with rather special states.

###### Definition 2.7

Let $`L`$ be a difference-closed concrete logic on a set $`X`$ and let $`s:\mathrm{\Delta }[0,1]`$ be a state on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We say that $`s`$ is subadditive if $`s(A\delta B)s(A)+s(B)`$ for any pair $`A,B\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The following result indicates the meaning of subadditivity in our context.

###### Theorem 2.8

Let $`X`$ be a finite set and let $`L=(X,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a difference-closed concrete logic. Let $`s`$ be a state on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which allows for an extension, $`m`$, over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as a signed measure. Let the intersections of pairs of sets of $`L`$ generate all atoms of a Boolean algebra on $`X`$. Then $`s`$ is subadditive if and only if $`m`$ is a state.

Proof:  Compute $`s(A)+s(B)s(A\delta B)`$. We obtain

$`s(A)+s(B)s(A\delta B)`$
$`=m(AB)+m(AB)+m(BA)+m(AB)m(AB)m(BA)`$
$`=2m(AB).`$
We therefore see that $`m(AB)`$ is nonnegative precisely when $`s(A)+s(B)s(A\delta B)`$ is nonnegative, which occurs precisely when $`s`$ is subadditive. We see that the extension $`m`$ is a state on the Boolean algebra generated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. By the classical theorem, $`m`$ can be further extended over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as a measure. The proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

Getting back to Th 2.3 interplayed with Th 2.8, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Theorem 2.9

Let $`X`$ be a set of even cardinality. Let $`s`$ be a state on $`X_{even}`$. Then $`s`$ can be extended over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as a state if and only if $`s`$ is subadditive.

A natural question arises if a difference-closed logic allows for extensions of states over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as signed measures. Regretfully, it is not the case. We demonstrate it in our final result.

###### Example 2.10

Let us again consider the logic $`L`$ of the previous Ex. 2.6. Let us consider the state $`s`$ defined by setting

$$s(A)=\frac{1}{3},s(B)=\frac{1}{4},s(C)=\frac{2}{5},\text{and}$$

$$s(Y)=\frac{1}{2}\text{ for any }Y\{A,B,C,A^c,B^c,C^c\}.$$

It is not difficult to check that $`s`$ is a subadditive state on $`L`$. This state $`s`$ cannot be extended over $`\mathrm{exp}X`$ as a signed measure. Indeed, let $`m`$ be such an extension. Then

$$2m(\{0\})=m(A)+m(B)m(A\delta B)=s(A)+s(B)s(A\delta B)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{12},$$

whereas, analogously,

$$2m(\{0\})=m(C)+m(D)m(C\delta D)=s(C)+s(D)s(C\delta D)=\frac{2}{5}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}=\frac{2}{5}.$$

This is a contradiction.

Acknowledgement. The authors want to express their gratitude to the referee for valuable suggestions which corrected the original version.

Anna De Simone
Dipartimento di Matematica e Statistica
Universitá Federico II di Napoli
Complesso Monte S. Angelo
Via Cintia - 80126 Napoli Italy
email: annades@unina.it

Mirko Navara
Center for Machine Perception
Department of Cybernetics
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Czech Technical University
Technická 2
166 27 Prague, Czech Republic
email: navara@cmp.felk.cvut.cz

Pavel Pták
Department of Mathematics
Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Czech Technical University
Technická 2
166 27 Prague, Czech Republic
email: ptak@math.feld.cvut.cz


text:
# 1 Shown are the distributions of the NSM-to-UMIST 95 abundance ratios calculated for e- (left panel) and CO (right panel) over the disk.

Baltic Astronomy, vol. 12, XXX--XXX, 2003.

ON THE FEASIBILITY OF DISK CHEMICAL
MODELING

D. Semenov1, Y. Pavluchenkov2, Th. Henning3, E. Herbst4, and
E. van Dishoeck5

1   Astrophysical Institute and University Observatory, Schillergäßchen 3, 07745 Jena, Germany

2   Insitute for Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Pyatnitskaya ul. 48, 119017 Moscow, Russia

3   Max Planck Insitute for Astronomy, Königstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

4   Departments of Physics, Chemistry, and Astronomy, Ohio State
University, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1173

5   Sterrewacht Leiden, PO Box 9513, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Received October 30, 2003

## Abstract

In this paper, we compare the results of the modeling of a protoplanetary disk chemical evolution obtained with the UMIST 95 and “New Standard Model” (NSM) chemical databases. Assuming the same initial conditions, it is found that the substitution of one chemical network by another causes almost no difference for the disk ionization degree. In contrast, the NSM and UMIST 95 abundances of CO can differ by a factor of a hundred at some regions of the disk surface. However, relevant CO vertical column densities differ much less, at most by a factor of a few. In addition, we synthesize the single-dish CO(J=3-2) line by means of the 2D line radiative transfer for both considered chemical networks. It is shown that the intensity of this line in the case of the UMIST 95 abundances is lower compared to the NSM case by $`15\%`$.

Key words:  astrochemistry – line: profiles – radiative transfer – planetary systems: protoplanetary disks

1.   INTRODUCTION

Nowadays computational facilities allow to perform extensive simulations of the chemical evolution of various cosmic objects, like (collapsing) protostellar clouds or protoplanetary disks (e.g., Li et al. 2002; Aikawa et al. 2002). In these studies usually either the UMIST 95 (Millar et al. 1997) or “New Standard Model” (Aikawa & Herbst 1999) database of chemical reactions is utilyzed. As the result of the modeling, time-dependent abundances of chemical species as well as their column densities can be obtained and faced with observational data. However, due to the lack of the full information about the physical conditions in the object under investigation and/or the complexity of the feasible modeling itself, typically these values are calculated with a certain (unknown) degree of accuracy. Therefore, it would be very useful to estimate, even approximately, how high it could be. The primary goal of this study is to verify how sensitive are the computed molecular abundances in the case of a protoplanetary disk chemistry to the adopted set of chemical reactions. Second, if such a difference exists for a certain species, we find by means of the reduction technique which chemical reactions are responsible for that. Finally, we study how such an abundance difference may affect the results of line radiative transfer calculations using the 2D line radiative transfer code “URAN(IA)”.

2.   DISK MODEL

2.1.   Disk physics

We used essentially the same disk physical and chemical model as described in Semenov et al. (2004) (herefater Paper I). Briefly, the 1+1D flared steady-state accretion disk model of D’Alessio et al. (1999) is adopted with a radius of 373 AU, accretion rate $`\dot{M}=10^7M_{}`$ yr-1, and viscosity parameter $`\alpha =0.01`$. The central star is assumed to be a classical T Tau star with an effective temperature $`T_{}=\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, mass $`M_{}=0.5M_{}`$, and radius $`R_{}=2R_{}`$. We took into account the illumination of the disk by the stellar UV radiation with the intensity $`G_{}=10^4G_0`$ at 100 AU, where $`G_0`$ is the intensity of the mean interstellar UV field by Draine (1978) as well as interstellar UV radiation, but neglected stellar X-rays. The cosmic rays are considered as another ionizing source with $`\zeta _0=1.310^{17}`$ s-1 unattenuated ionization rate. To calculate the propogation of the UV radiation and cosmic rays through the disk, Eqs. (2)–(3) from the Paper I are used. We did not take into account ionization by the decay of radionucleides.

2.2.   Chemical model

Contrary to Paper I, a gas-grain chemistry without surface reactions is considered. In addition to our model which is based on the UMIST 95 ratefile, we adopted the NSM network (Herbst, priv. communication). The latter was extended by a set of reactions of dissociative recombinations on neutral and negatively charged grains as well as grain charging processes. We added a reaction of the H2 photodissociation from the NSM model to our UMIST 95 network with unattenuated rate $`k_0=3.410^{11}`$ cm3 s-1. All the rest parameters of the chemical model from Semenov et al. (2004) were the same. As the initial abundances, we used the same set of the “low metals” abundances from Wiebe et al. (2003) for the entire disk.

3.   RESULTS

With the disk physical model and two chemical networks described in the previous section, we modeled the disk chemistry for 1 Myr evolutionary time span. The 2D disk distributions of the NSM-to-UMIST 95 ratio of the resulting fractional ionization and CO abundances are plotted in Figure 1, left and right panels, respectively. As clearly seen, there is no difference for disk ionization degree in the entire disk but one small region, $`r350`$ AU, $`z235`$ AU, where it can reach a factor of 200. On the constrary, $`n^{\mathrm{NSM}}\left(\mathrm{CO}\right)/n^{\mathrm{UMIST}}\left(\mathrm{CO}\right)>1`$ and can be as high as about 100 in the disk surface, $`\mathrm{log}\left(z/Z\right)0.4`$. However, the maximum CO gas-phase concentration is reached in the disk intermediate layer, $`1.0<\mathrm{log}\left(z/Z\right)<0.3`$, where both the UMIST 95 and NSM networks give approximately the same values of the carbon monoxide abundances. Therefore, the corresponding CO vertical column densities do not deviate much, at most by a factor of several for the disk inner and outer radii (see Figure 2, left panel). Using the UMIST 95 and NSM disk abundances of CO, we synthesized the single-dish CO(J=3-2) spectra with the 2D line radiative transfer code “URAN(IA)” (Pavluchenkov et al. 2003), which are plotted in Figure 2, right panel. It can be clearly seen that the intensities of this line differ by about 15%, which is lower than typical 30%–50% uncertainty of the observational data.

To figure out what is the reason for the difference in CO disk abundances, we used the reduction technique from Wiebe et al. (2003) and isolated two small subsets of primary carbon monoxide formation and destruction routes for both chemical networks. Surprisingly, it is found that these two sets contain nearly the same chemical reactions but some of them differ by the adopted rate coefficient values. Among the reactions with different rates, we designated three most important ones, which are listed in Table 1. Note that the corresponding rate values are given for the disk location $`r=10`$ AU, $`z=3.15`$ AU, where gas temperature and particle density are $`T=143`$ K and $`n=3.310^7`$ cm-3, the UV intensity and visual extinction are $`G_{}=9.110^5`$ and $`A_\mathrm{V}=1.2^\mathrm{m}`$, and ionization rate is $`\zeta =7.4510^{18}`$ s-1.

| Table 1. Chemical reactions which cause the most of the CO disk abundance difference. | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reaction | UMIST 95 rate, cm3 s-1 | NSM rate, cm3 s-1 |
| C+ \+ OH $``$ CO+ \+ H | $`7.710^{10}`$ | $`8.310^9`$ |
| CO+ \+ H $``$ CO + H+ | $`7.510^{10}`$ | $`9.010^{11}`$ |
| CO + $`h\nu `$ $``$ C + O | $`9.110^6`$ | $`1.410^6`$ |

4.   SUMMARY

The sensitivity of the results of the disk chemical modeling to the applied chemical databases is investigated. It is found that the modeled disk fractional ionizations are nearly identical for both the UMIST 95 and NSM networks, while the CO abundances can vary by a factor of a hundred in some parts of the disk. However, the corresponding vertical column densities of CO do not show such a strong variation with the adopted set of chemical reactions. Consequently, it results in a small ($`15\%`$) difference between the synthetic single-dish CO(3-2) line intensities obtained with two considered chemical sets.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. DS was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG project ”Research Group Laboratory Astrophysics” (He 1935/17-2), the work of YP was supported by the RFBR grants 01-02-16206 and 02-00-04008.

REFERENCES Li Z.–Y., Shematovich V. I., Wiebe D. S., Shustov B. M. 2002, ApJ, 569, 792

Aikawa Y., van Zadelhoff G.–J., van Dishoeck E. F., Herbst E. 2002, A&A, 386, 622

Millar T. J., Farquhar P. R. A., Willacy K. 1997, A&AS, 121, 139

Aikawa Y., Herbst E. 1999, A&A, 351, 233

Wiebe D. S., Semenov D. A., Henning Th. 2003, A&A, 399, 197

Semenov D. A., Wiebe D. S., Henning Th. 2004, A&A, submitted

D’Alessio P., Calvet N., Hartmann L. et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 893

Draine B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595

Pavluchenkov Y., Shustov B. M. et al. 2003, Astronomy Reports, in prep.