text:
# Physical parameters and emission mechanism in Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1 Introduction

At present, there is a tendency to divide the problem of Gamma-Ray Bursts into two separate problems: the nature of the central engine and the origin of GRB emission. While the former question is still far from being settled, the multi-wavelength observations (e.g., Frail et al. 1997; Metzger et al. 1997; Reichart 1997; Waxman 1997; see also Piran 1999 for a review), which become available in the past few years, give strong support to the fireball shock model (Rees & Mészáros 1992, 1994). In its most general form, this model considers GRB emission as the result of energy dissipation in relativistic shock waves and assumes that all the energy is initially accumulated in the form of ultrarelativistic outflow (fireball) with a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ greater than 100 (Baring & Harding 1995). The fraction of energy carried directly by the emission from the fireball photosphere is small unless $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^5`$ (Derishev, Kocharovsky & Kocharovsky 1999).

The fireball model became widespread and almost undisputed, but in its details there is no agreement among theorists. Even the principal question about the main emission mechanism has not yet received a definite answer, although synchrotron and inverse Compton emission are the favourites (e.g., Paczyński & Rhoads 1993; Mészáros, Laguna & Rees 1993; Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998). The existing uncertainty complicates the correct interpretation of the growing number of dissimilar multi-wavelength observations.

In this paper we derive constraints on the physical parameters in the GRB emitting region and present new arguments in favour of the synchrotron emission mechanism. There are two arguments widely discussed in the literature in this connection. First, the observed polarization in afterglow emission (Covino et al. 1999; Wijers et al. 1999) is thought to be indicative of synchrotron mechanism. Second, it was argued that the electron cooling time is too long to be compatible with high radiative efficiency if one assumes self-Compton mechanism as the main source of sub-Mev radiation (Piran 1999). Both arguments are not very restrictive because: a) polarization may be produced by inverse Compton scattering as well if the radiation background and/or electron distribution is anisotropic, b) the strongest limit on the bulk Lorentz factor imposed by cooling time considerations is for the external shock model, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<300400`$, which is still above the generally accepted lower limit of $`100`$. In this paper we show that the additional requirement of high efficiency in sub-MeV gamma-rays relative to other spectral domains pushes the upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to an unacceptable value of $`25`$ unless the sub-MeV radiation is generated by synchrotron rather than by a self-Compton mechanism.

There is also an argument against a synchrotron-self-Compton model: it is sometimes considered as insufficiently flexible to account for different low-energy spectral indices provided the electrons form a cooling distribution. Below we show that this argument is rather weak since a broad range of spectral indices may be accommodated within the framework of synchrotron-self-Compton model as long as the cooling distribution is calculated consistently with total losses.

We introduce the minimum number of a priori assumptions and avoid the considerations which would require the electron acceleration mechanism to be specified. All the assumptions used are explicitly listed in the second section, followed by a brief discussion and a comparison with other approaches frequently used in the literature. The basic analysis is presented in the third section, and the implications are discussed in the forth section.

For numerical estimates we take GRB energy $`E_{\mathrm{GRB}}=10^{52}`$ erg and duration $`t_{\mathrm{GRB}}=10`$ s. All other values are measured in the shock comoving frame unless the opposite is stated. It should be noted that for two bursts, GRB971214 and GRB990123, the estimated value of energy release approaches $`10^{54}`$ ergs assuming isotropic emission. Since it is very divergent from the average value ($`10^{51}10^{52}`$ ergs) inferred from the analysis of the logN-logS curve (Reichart & Mészáros 1997), these bursts may be of different origin.

## 2 Model assumptions

1. Most GRB emission is in the form of soft gamma-rays, i.e., below several MeV. – It would naturally explain why GRB phenomenon was first detected in this spectral range. The observation of optical emission from GRB990123 (Akerlof et al. 1999), made simultaneously with the burst of gamma-rays, confirms our first assumption. However, observations do not exclude the possibility that the main part of GRB emission may be concentrated in photons with energies greater than 1 TeV, and hence escapes detection because photons in this energy range are strongly absorbed by infrared background radiation (Primack et al. 1999).

2. A major part of the fireball kinetic energy is converted into electromagnetic radiation during the main GRB pulse. – GRB afterglows decline faster than $`t^1`$ and do not contribute significantly to the total energy budget (Galama et al. 1998). However, it is possible that the adiabatic regime of the shock deceleration persists for a very long time, so that the bulk of GRB energy has never been observed. Another reason to make the second assumption is not to increase the energy requirements, which are already rather restrictive unless the fireball forms a narrow jet (e.g., Mészáros, Rees & Wijers 1999).

3. GRB emission is generated by relativistic electrons and positrons, which are continuously injected with the initial Lorentz factor $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$. Acceleration of an electron takes a very short time compared to the shock expansion timescale and electron cooling timescale. – This same assumption implies that we refer to the synchrotron-self-Compton model of GRB emission. Comparison with the other emission models favours the synchrotron-self-Compton one, which indeed can account for high radiative efficiency.

If one does not postulate the high efficiency of energy conversion into electromagnetic radiation, then the number of available emission mechanisms increases dramatically (e.g., Shaviv & Dar 1995; Panaitescu, Spada & Mészáros 1999) and it becomes almost impossible to choose only one of them on the basis of limited observational data. At the same time, any model with low efficiency is problematic, as it can hardly compete with blackbody photospheric emission in the 10-100 keV range.

Evolution of the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _e`$ (index $`e`$ denotes both electrons and positrons) is governed by the acceleration and losses. The Lorentz factor grows until the losses compensate the acceleration term. Thus, electron acceleration is terminated at approximately the same Lorentz factor, $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$, which is close to the value that equilibrates acceleration and radiative losses.

Some authors, however, prefer to consider electron injection with a power-law spectrum, $`dn_e(\gamma _e)/dt\gamma _e^q`$, extending from $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to infinity (e.g., Sari et al. 1998). The spectrum is integrable ($`q>2`$) and hence most of the energy is concentrated near $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$. In order not to contradict our second assumption, the radiative deceleration timescale for an electron with the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ must be smaller than the GRB duration measured in the shock comoving frame. In this case, it can be shown that the contribution of electrons with $`\gamma _e\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ or $`\gamma _e\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to GRB bolometric luminosity is small. It follows from the above consideration that the choice of electron injection spectrum does not matter unless the question about the exact shape of GRB spectrum is addressed; note that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the approach of Sari et al. corresponds to $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ in ours and that the peak in the observed spectrum is at the energy determined by the electrons with $`\gamma _e\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$.

4. The energy dissipated in the shock is efficiently redistributed all over the shocked gas by large-scale turbulence and then transferred to radiating particles on a longer timescale. – We are considering a quasi-stationary problem, when the energy is stored in heavy particles (protons) and there is a continuous supply of relativistic electrons which replace those that have decelerated. The reason why we used a quasi-stationary formulation is that the bottle-neck in the energy transfer path (from protons to large-scale turbulence, then to electrons, then to radiation) is, most likely, at the first two chains, i.e., in a typical GRB, electrons are able to radiate at a much higher rate than they can gain energy from protons or large-scale turbulence.

5. The fireball is isotropic. – This is a good approximation even for a jet if it has an opening angle $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. If the central engine generates a jet-like outflow, then the value of $`E_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$ is not the actual GRB energy but rather the energy calculated assuming isotropic emission. Therefore, the unknown beaming factor does not affect our results.

## 3 Physical parameters in GRB shocks

For the synchrotron-self-Compton model one may represent the luminosity of a single highly relativistic electron in the following form (Ginzburg 1987, Rybicki & Lightman 1979):

$$(\gamma _e)=\frac{4}{3}\gamma _e^2c\left[\sigma _T(w_\mathrm{m}+w_{\mathrm{lr}})+\sigma w_{\mathrm{hr},\omega }𝑑\omega \right].$$
(1)
Here $`w_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{lr}}`$ are the energy densities of magnetic field and low-energy radiation, respectively, $`w_{\mathrm{hr},\omega }`$ is the spectral energy density of high-energy radiation, $`\sigma _T`$ the Thomson scattering cross-section. The boundary between low-energy and high-energy photons is the Klein-Nishina cut-off at $`\mathrm{}\omega m_ec^2/\gamma _e`$. Above the cut-off, the transport cross-section $`\sigma `$ is a function of $`\gamma _e\omega `$. It decreases as $`(\gamma _e\omega )^2`$ for $`\gamma _e\mathrm{}\omega m_ec^2`$ and approaches $`\sigma _T`$ in the opposite limit.

The relative efficiency of Comptonization and synchrotron emission is determined by the Compton $`y`$ parameter (Sari, Narayan & Piran 1996)

$$y=\sigma _TL_1^{\mathrm{}}(\gamma _e^21)n_e(\gamma _e)𝑑\gamma _e\gamma _\mathrm{p}^2\sigma _Tn_eL,$$
(2)
where $`n_e`$ is the number density of electrons with the Lorentz factors $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ and $`L`$ is the size of the emitting region. For example, when electromagnetic radiation passes through a layer filled with relativistic electrons and the energy of incident photons satisfies the relation $`\epsilon m_ec^2/\gamma _e`$ (the classical regime), the power of comptonized radiation relative to the power of incident radiation is given by $`L_{\mathrm{ic}}/L_{\mathrm{in}}\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}4y/3`$. Below, we will call $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ the optical depth for inverse Comptonization. In general, this relation contains a numerical factor which is different from 4/3 and depends on the geometry of a source.

The condition $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}=1`$ (together with $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}<m_ec^2/\epsilon `$) means that the source radiates via inverse Compton scattering as much energy as via the other emission mechanisms. If the comptonized photons may in turn scatter off electrons in classical regime (i.e., their energy is below the Klein-Nishina cut-off), the cascade Comptonization is possible. For any $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}<1`$ most of the energy will be carried by incident radiation. Otherwise, the largest fraction of bolometric luminosity is due to $`k`$ times comptonized photons, where $`k`$ is the minimum number of consequent up-scatterings, which rises an average photon energy above the Klein-Nishina cut-off. The latter statement is valid when the integral term in Eq. (1) is ignored. This is possible even for $`w_{\mathrm{hr}}w_{\mathrm{lr}}`$ thanks to a very rapid decrease in the transport cross-section $`\sigma `$. It should be noted, however, that this simplification may not be applied in some cases, as discussed below.

Let us consider a relativistic shock with the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which radiates an energy $`E_r`$ during a time interval $`\tau `$ (in the observer frame). The values of $`E_r`$ and $`\tau `$ are either the total GRB energy $`E_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$ and duration $`t_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$ (in the external shock model), or the energy and duration of individual pulses (in the model of internal shocks), which constitute together what we call a GRB. As measured in the comoving frame, bolometric luminosity of the source is $`E_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\tau `$. Given the expression for the integral luminosity of a single particle (1), one easily arrives at the following relation:

$$\frac{E_r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\tau }=\frac{4}{3}\gamma _\mathrm{p}^2\sigma _TN_ec(w_\mathrm{m}+w_{\mathrm{lr}}),$$
(3)
where $`N_e`$ is the total number of electrons with $`\gamma _e\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ in the GRB shell. The product $`N_e(w_\mathrm{m}+w_{\mathrm{lr}})`$ may be represented in the form $`n_e(W_\mathrm{m}+W_{\mathrm{lr}})`$, where $`W_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{lr}}`$ are the total energy of magnetic field and low-energy radiation in the emitting region. Certainly, the sum $`W_\mathrm{m}+W_{\mathrm{lr}}`$ cannot exceed a fraction of the bulk kinetic energy which is transferred to the particles at the shock front. According to the assumption 2, this fraction, $`E_i`$, is of the order of $`E_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears because $`E_i`$ is measured in the comoving frame.

Most of the remaining factors in the right-hand side of Eq. (3) can be substituted from Eq. (2), where the thickness of the emitting region behind a relativistic shock grows during the time interval $`\tau `$ up to $`L\mathrm{\Gamma }c\tau `$ (in the comoving frame). Finally, Eq. (3) yields

$$\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}\frac{E_r/\mathrm{\Gamma }}{E_i}1.$$
(4)
Thus, there is only one possibility to satisfy all the adopted assumptions: the observed sub-MeV emission from GRBs should be well above the Klein-Nishina cut-off for electrons in the emitting region in order not to generate too much ultra-hard radiation via the inverse Compton process.

To specify this requirement quantitatively, it is necessary to know the low-energy portion of the GRB spectrum. If it is a power-law with the index $`\alpha `$ ($`\omega I_\omega \omega ^\alpha `$), then according to assumption 1 we have

$$\left(\frac{\gamma _\mathrm{p}\epsilon _p}{\mathrm{\Gamma }m_ec^2}\right)^\alpha ^{}\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}\gamma _\mathrm{p}2.5\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{1/\alpha ^{}},$$
(5)
where we use the fact that the observed spectrum of an average GRB has a maximum at $`\epsilon _p200`$ keV. In Eq. (5) $`\alpha ^{}=\text{min}\{\alpha ,2\}`$: for spectra rising steeper than $`\omega ^2`$ the contribution of photons near $`\epsilon _p`$ to the inverse Compton cooling rate dominates, despite a much smaller transport cross-section $`\sigma `$.

When synchrotron-self-Compton mechanism is the main one operating in the source, the maximum of the observed GRB spectrum is at

$$\epsilon _p0.4\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{4}{3}\gamma _\mathrm{p}^2\right)^{k+1}\frac{\mathrm{}eB}{m_ec},$$
(6)
where $`k`$ is the number of Comptonization cascades; $`k=0`$ corresponds to the synchrotron radiation. The magnetic field strength may be estimated from Eq. (3), where one has to establish the relation between $`w_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{lr}}`$. Given the expression (1) for the synchrotron luminosity ($`w_{\mathrm{lr}}=w_{\mathrm{hr}}=0`$) of a single particle, the energy density of synchrotron radiation is

$$w_{\mathrm{sy}}\frac{4}{3}\gamma _\mathrm{p}^2\sigma _Tc\frac{B^2}{8\pi }n_e\frac{L}{c}=\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}w_\mathrm{m}.$$
(7)
This relation follows directly from Eq. (1). It is well-known that each subsequent cascade of Comptonization also leads to a $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ times increase in the energy density of comptonized photons. Finally, one obtains

$$w_{\mathrm{lr}}+w_\mathrm{m}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^j\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^k\frac{B^2}{8\pi },$$
(8)
where the approximate equality is for $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}1`$.

After some algebra, i.e., deriving the magnetic field strength from Eq. (8) with the help of the relation (3) and substituting $`B`$ in Eq. (6), one has the following result

$$\gamma _\mathrm{p}\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\frac{1}{k+1}}\left(\frac{2.5m_ec\epsilon _p}{e\mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(k+1)}}\left(\frac{c^3\tau ^3}{2E_r}\right)^{\frac{1}{4(k+1)}},$$
(9)
which should be compared with the requirement (5). Thus,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{4}}\frac{\sqrt{3}\epsilon _p}{2m_ec^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\frac{k}{k+1}}\left(\frac{2.5m_ec\epsilon _p}{e\mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(k+1)}}\left(\frac{c^3\tau ^3}{2E_r}\right)^{\frac{1}{4(k+1)}}.$$
(10)
Because we know that $`\alpha ^{}2`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}1`$ (see Eq. (4)), the conclusion is straightforward: $`k=0`$, except the extreme case

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{3\epsilon _p^2}{4m_e^2c^4}\left(\frac{2.5m_ec\epsilon _p}{e\mathrm{}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{c^3\tau ^3}{2E_r}\right)^{1/4}\hfill \\ 25\frac{t_1^{3/4}}{E_{52}^{1/4}}\left(\frac{\tau }{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}\right)^{1/2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
That is, the radiation which is observed from GRBs in the sub-MeV spectral range is generated by a synchrotron mechanism.

Substituting $`k=0`$ into Eq. (10) we find that the value of $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ must fit in the following window

$$1\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{4}}300\left(\frac{\epsilon _p}{m_ec^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\frac{t_1^3}{E_{52}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{\tau }{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(12)
where $`t_1`$ is the duration of GRB in units of 10 s, $`E_{52}`$ the burst energy in units of $`10^{52}`$ erg, and for simplicity the luminosity in peaks, $`E_r/\tau `$, is assumed to be of the order of the average luminosity, $`E_{\mathrm{GRB}}/t_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$. Equation (12) gives a lot of freedom for $`\alpha ^{}2`$. However, we suppose that the spectrum is much flatter, with $`\alpha `$ not larger than unity, which is true for the majority of GRBs (Tavani 1996). In this case, the result of our analysis becomes more definite: the optical depth for inverse Comptonization is between 1 and 30, approaching 100 in extreme cases. Consequently, the magnetic field strength $`B`$ is rather close to its equipartition value (here we mean the equipartition with the energy stored in protons),

$$B\left[\frac{2E_r}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c\tau )^3\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}}\right]^{1/2}\frac{E_{52}^{1/2}}{t_1^{3/2}\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{1/2}}\frac{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{\tau }\frac{10^9}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3}\text{G}.$$
(13)
An estimate of $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ may be obtained from Eq. (9):

$$\gamma _\mathrm{p}200\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{1/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{t_1^3}{E_{52}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{\tau }{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(14)
A significant fraction of the total GRB energy is converted via inverse Compton scattering into ultra-hard emission. The typical energy of comptonized photons corresponds to the Klein-Nishina cut-off at

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{ic}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma _\mathrm{p}m_ec^210^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(\frac{t_1^3}{E_{52}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{\tau }{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{TeV}$$
(15)
in the observer frame. The ratio of energy carried by the ultra-hard radiation to the energy carried by the sub-MeV radiation is

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta E_{\mathrm{ic}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }m_ec^2}{\gamma _\mathrm{p}\epsilon _p}\right)^\alpha \tau _{\mathrm{ic}}\hfill \\ \left[1.310^2\left(\frac{E_{52}}{t_1^3}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{\tau }\right)^{1/2}\right]^\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
For sufficiently flat spectra ($`\alpha <1`$), which are considered here, the relative energy content of ultra-hard radiation is always non-negligible. In the external shock model one has $`\delta E_{\mathrm{ic}}1\%`$. Moreover, in the model of internal shocks, in which $`\tau 110`$ ms (presumably), the value of $`\delta E_{\mathrm{ic}}`$ should be close to its limiting value of unity set by the assumption 1, independently on the spectral index $`\alpha `$.

## 4 Implications of the analysis

The principle outcome of the above analysis is that the observed sub-MeV emission in GRBs is generated by the synchrotron mechanism. However, the limits given in Eq. (12) become mutually exclusive if

$$\left(\frac{\epsilon _p}{m_ec^2}\right)^3\left(\frac{t_1^3}{E_{52}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\tau }{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}<10^5.$$
(17)
The bursts having parameters in this domain can radiate only a minor part of the available energy in the sub-MeV spectral range. Therefore, Eq. (17) defines the synchrotron-self-Compton (SSC) constraint for Gamma-Ray Bursts.

There are two implications of the SSC constraint. It may be treated as a lower limit on GRB duration (the external shock model, $`\tau =t_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$):

$$t_{\mathrm{GRB}}>510^3E_{52}^{1/3}\left(\frac{m_ec^2}{\epsilon _p}\right)^2\text{s}0.03\text{s}.$$
(18)
On the other hand, Eq. (17) determines the shortest possible variability timescale $`\tau `$ in the model of internal shocks:

$$\tau >10^5\left(\frac{m_ec^2}{\epsilon _p}\right)^3\left(\frac{E_{52}}{t_1^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}t_{\mathrm{GRB}}10^3\text{s}.$$
(19)
A variability significantly shorter than the limiting duration 1 ms – if observed in GRB lightcurves – favours propagation effects or coherent emission mechanisms as a primary explanation for short-time pulsations in GRBs.

In order not to contradict assumption 2, the deceleration timescale for an electron with the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ must be smaller than the GRB duration measured in the shock comoving frame. Since we know the relations between $`B`$, $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ and the parameters characterizing a GRB ($`E_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), it is possible to use this constraint to set limit on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\sigma _T}{4\pi \sqrt{3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{2.5\epsilon _p}{e\mathrm{}m_ec}\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}\left(\frac{2E_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}c^3t_{\mathrm{GRB}}^3}\right)^{\frac{3}{16}}\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{\tau }\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}t_{\mathrm{GRB}}^{\frac{1}{4}}\hfill \\ 1.210^3\frac{E_{52}^{3/16}}{\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}^{3/16}t_1^{5/16}}\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{\tau }\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Exactly the same limit may be derived from the requirement that the total energy of the accelerated electrons does not exceed the GRB energy. It follows from the above analysis that the accelerated electrons, in the general case, are not in equipartition with the magnetic field.

An important question to be addressed in the theory of synchrotron emission is why the value of $`\epsilon _p`$ is nearly invariant. This problem may be reformulated as a question regarding the electron acceleration mechanism. The simplest reasonable suggestion is that $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ is a function of magnetic field strength $`B`$, which is given by Eq. (13). To eliminate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-dependence (the strongest one in Eq. (6)), the acceleration mechanism should provide $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}B^{1/3}`$. In this case, $`\epsilon _p`$ preserves a weak dependence on $`E_r`$ and $`\tau `$, $`\epsilon _pE_r^{1/6}\tau ^{1/2}`$, where the dependence on $`\tau `$ is likely to be hidden by a stronger effect of the cosmological time dilation.

Several per cent (a few tens per cent is a more likely figure) of the total GRB energy must be converted in the ultra-hard spectral domain via the inverse Compton scattering. The location of the maximum in the spectrum of comptonized radiation is model-dependent. In the model of internal shocks, the maximum (see Eq. (15)) may be at energies as low as $`10^6\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ TeV$`10100`$ GeV, so that the number fluence of ultra-hard photons should be of the order of $`10^3`$ km<sup>-2</sup> even for the weakest bursts. However, the uncertainty in theoretical predictions is large: the maximum in the spectrum of inverse Compton radiation may be located at $`10^3`$ TeV. On the other hand, in the external shock model, the location of the maximum is more definite, namely, $`10^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ TeV$`1100`$ TeV. In this case the ultra-hard emission is inaccessible for direct observation because photons above several hundred GeV are strongly absorbed by the infrared background radiation (Primack et al. 1999), and the observed fluence below 1 TeV is determined by the spectral slope of comptonized radiation in TeV energy range. To date, there is only one indication of sub-TeV emission accompanying GRBs (Atkins et al. 2000).

According to our estimates, in both models, the GRB source may be optically thick for the two-photon absorption of the highest energy quanta. Qualitative results of the two-photon absorption are the following (details will be discussed elsewhere). Each of the absorbed photons produces an electron-positron pair, in which the daughter particles have roughly equal energies. Electrons and positrons have a larger interaction cross-section than photons have. Therefore, if the optical depth for interaction of initial ultra-hard quanta is larger than unity, the same is true for daughter electrons (positrons). The first photon scattered off by one of these energetic particles takes away about a half of its energy, and in turn may be absorbed. Step by step, the radiation becomes softer until the absorption threshold is reached. It is this spectral domain where the bulk of energy initially contained in the ultra-hard radiation is concentrated. If the absorption threshold is below 1 TeV, then the reprocessed radiation may reach the Earth. A similar picture arises if one considers the reprocessing of the ultra-hard photons via interaction with soft GRB radiation scattered in interstellar medium (Derishev, Kocharovsky & Kocharovsky 2000).

The result $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}130`$ seems surprising since $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ is an integral characteristic of the emitting region, while it depends on $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$, which is determined by the balance between acceleration and losses and, therefore, is defined by local conditions. Such a fine tuning in the external shock model may result from the following. We have already noted that the statement $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}=1`$ means that the energy densities of the magnetic field and synchrotron radiation are equal in the emitting region. Since this region expands with a relativistic velocity, a large fraction of newly born synchrotron photons cannot escape it until a GRB shell as a whole is decelerated to a Lorentz factor much smaller than the initial one. During the initial deceleration stage the synchrotron radiation is accumulated to the point at which its energy density becomes nearly equal to the thermal energy density of plasma. If strong turbulence in a GRB shell rapidly builds up a magnetic field of a strength close to the equipartition value, then the approximate correspondence between the energy density of magnetic field and that of synchrotron radiation is established automatically, thus explaining why $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}1`$. In the model of internal shocks, it is usually assumed that the Lorentz factor of successive shells differs by a factor of few. Nearly all generated radiation remains within the emitting region and the condition $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}1`$ is satisfied automatically.

The situation when $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}>1`$ and, at the same time, the synchrotron emission is the most efficient cooling mechanism in the portion of electron distribution with the highest luminosity yields the largest flexibility in spectral shapes of synchrotron radiation. So far, we considered the low-energy spectral slope as an independent parameter, assuming only that $`\alpha 2`$. The complete theory of synchrotron-self-Compton emission, however, should give a definite prediction of $`\alpha `$.

In the simplest approximation only the synchrotron losses are taken into account, so that partially decelerated electrons form the following distribution below $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$:

$$n_e(\gamma _e)=\frac{m_ec^2}{(\gamma _e)}\frac{dn_e}{dt}=n_e\frac{\gamma _\mathrm{p}}{\gamma _e^2}.$$
(21)
For a power-law electron distribution, $`n_e(\gamma _e)\gamma _e^q`$, the synchrotron spectrum is also a power-law, $`\omega I_\omega \omega ^{\frac{q+3}{2}}`$. Distribution (21) gives the well-known result, $`\omega I_\omega \omega ^{1/2}`$.

A different approximation works well when the integral term in Eq. (1) dominates. In this case, the main contribution to the integral is from photons near the Klein-Nishina cut-off whose frequency scales as $`\gamma _e^1`$. Looking for a power-law solution, we find that $`\gamma _e^{2\alpha }`$ if $`\omega I_\omega \omega ^\alpha `$, and that $`n_e(\gamma _e)\gamma _e^{\alpha 2}`$ consequently. Thus, $`\alpha =(\alpha +1)/2`$ and the final result is

$$n_e(\gamma _e)=\frac{n_e}{\gamma _e}\text{and}I_\omega =const.$$
(22)
As follows from the above analysis, the GRB sources are at the border between these two limiting cases. Namely, the synchrotron losses dominate for electrons with $`\gamma _e\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$, but the inverse Compton losses become dominant for less energetic electrons because the Klein-Nishina cut-off is shifted to higher photon energies, giving greater $`w_{\mathrm{lr}}`$. The fact that all GRBs belong to the transition zone between two limiting cases makes theoretical analysis more complicated, but also allows for a wider range of solutions.

Let us consider one example to illustrate this. Suppose that electrons with the Lorentz factors between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ lose their energy mainly due to synchrotron radiation. The electrons in this range form the distribution (21) and produce the corresponding spectrum $`\omega I_\omega \omega ^{1/2}`$, which extends from $`\epsilon _p`$ down to $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}/\gamma _\mathrm{p})^2\epsilon _p`$. If the Klein-Nishina cut-off, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{n}}`$, lies somewhere between $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}/\gamma _\mathrm{p})^2\epsilon _p`$ and $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}/\gamma _\mathrm{p})\epsilon _p`$ for $`\gamma _e\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$, then the relative importance of the integral term in Eq. (1) grows until $`\gamma _e<\gamma _{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{n}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{n}}/\epsilon _p`$. Electron distribution between $`\gamma _{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{n}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}`$ is determined by the spectral slope in the region just below $`\epsilon _p`$, where, in this case, the spectral index is $`\alpha =1/2`$. Hence, electron distribution is given by $`n_e(\gamma _e)\gamma _e^{3/2}`$ (see the discussion of Eq. (22)) and the synchrotron spectrum generated by these electrons has an index $`\alpha =3/4`$ between energies $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{ic}}/\gamma _\mathrm{p})^2\epsilon _p`$ and $`(\gamma _{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{n}}/\gamma _\mathrm{p})^2\epsilon _p`$. At the lowest energies, the spectral index is again $`\alpha =1/2`$, since the inverse Compton losses saturate when the Klein-Nishina cut-off is shifted above $`\epsilon _p`$.

The GRB spectrum below $`\epsilon _p`$ is a broken power-law consisting of two portions with the spectral index $`1/2`$ separated by a steeper part with $`\alpha =3/4`$. Therefore, in addition to the well-known cooling break in the synchrotron spectrum there are two others – the lower-energy Klein-Nishina break, below which the ratio of synchrotron to inverse Compton losses levels off, and the higher-energy Compton break, above which synchrotron losses overcome inverse Compton ones. Locations of all spectral breaks are time-dependent both during the main pulse and at the afterglow stage, and if one is limited to a narrow-band observations, the transition from one spectral slope to another could be interpreted as a change in the decline rate of a lightcurve. A similar effect may appear for a bolometric lightcurve when the balance between synchrotron and inverse Compton emissivities is shifted in favor of the latter.

One more effect may alter the appearance of the low-energy part of the GRB spectrum – the synchrotron self-absorption. With the help of expressions for $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{ic}}`$, it is not difficult to estimate the self-absorption threshold energy (Zheleznyakov 1996). It takes the highest value in the model of internal shocks, but even in this model the threshold is hardly above 500 eV in the observer frame.

## 5 Conclusions

The analysis in this paper relies to a large extent upon several assumptions which have not received yet direct observational confirmation. However, we put forward a number of reasons why these assumptions are consistent with the known properties of GRBs. Our investigation reveals that, in the range of parameters typical for the detected bursts, there is no other possibility that accounts for the sub-MeV radiation than synchrotron emission of electrons accelerated in relativistic shocks. On this basis, we make several definite predictions of physical parameters in relativistic shocks of GRB origin.

One of the most important conclusions is that physical conditions in GRB emitting regions are qualitatively similar. Namely, there is not so much freedom in the magnetic field strength, which is close to its equipartition value, and in the Lorentz factor of accelerated electrons (Eq. 9). The main uncertainty in the energy of comptonized photons arises from differences between external and internal shock models and from poor knowledge of the bulk Lorentz factor. The inverse Compton losses always play a significant role, so that the ultra-hard emission above 100 GeV contains from several to tens per cent of the total GRB energy.

We demonstrate that a steady-state electron distribution consistent with the Compton losses may produce different spectral indices, ranging from the widely accepted 1/2 to 1. In many GRBs, the competition between inverse Compton and synchrotron losses should produce rather complex (power-laws with several breaks) spectra in the X-ray and soft $`\gamma `$-ray ranges. The time evolution of spectral breaks, as well as transition from predominantly synchrotron losses to predominantly inverse Compton losses, may account for the changes in the decline rate observed in the lightcurves of several GRB afterglows.

The prevalence of a synchrotron emission mechanism in GRBs imposes the strict limitation on the burst parameters, which may be called a synchrotron-self-Compton constraint. The physical meaning of this constraint is that there cannot be radiatively efficient bursts with arbitrary small duration or arbitrary fast variability. The requirement of high radiative efficiency also limits the Lorentz factor of GRB fireballs to a value not larger than $`10^310^4`$, depending on the model (external or internal shocks, respectively). So, the range of admissible Lorentz factors in the GRB case is limited from both sides.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (the project 99-02-18244) and by the Russian Academy of Science through a grant for young scientists.


format: text

text:
# References

COLBY 00-03

May 2000

Lorentz and CPT Tests in Atomic Systems 111Presented at Symmetries in Subatomic Physics, Adelaide, Australia, March 2000.

Robert Bluhm
Physics Department, Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901 USA

> Abstract. A review of Lorentz and CPT tests performed in atomic systems is presented. A theoretical framework extending QED in the context of the standard model is used to analyze a variety of systems. Experimental signatures of possible Lorentz and CPT violation in these systems are investigated. Estimated bounds attainable in future experiments and actual bounds obtained in recent experiments are given.

INTRODUCTION

Many of the shapest tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry have been performed in atomic systems . Although many of these experiments were performed in earlier decades, a new appreciation of them has emerged due to recent theoretical advances. The group of Kostelecký and collaborators have developed a consistent theoretical framework  that permits a detailed investigation of Lorentz and CPT tests in particle and atomic systems. In the context of this framework, it is possible to look for new signatures of Lorentz and CPT violation in atomic systems that were previously overlooked.

In the next section, I begin with a brief review of Lorentz and CPT symmetry and some of the atomic experiments that test these symmetries. This is followed by a discussion of some theoretical ideas that have been put forward over the years for ways in which Lorentz symmetry and CPT might be violated in nature. Different theoretical approaches to searching for Lorentz violation are also described. However, the main focus of this work will be on the standard-model extension of Kostelecký and collaborators, as it is this model which permits the most detailed investigation of Lorentz and CPT tests and is applicable across different experiments. The QED sector of this theory will be presented and used to examine five different atomic or macroscopic systems: experiments in Penning traps , clock-comparison tests , experiments with hydrogen and antihydrogen , Lorentz and CPT tests with macroscopic spin-polarized materials  and muon experiments .

As a result of our investigations, several atomic experimental groups have recently reanalyzed their data or taken new data to obtain improved bounds on Lorentz and CPT violation. I will present summaries of the bounds that have been obtained as well as estimates of bounds that can be attained in future experiments.

Lorentz and CPT Symmetry

It appears that Lorentz symmetry and CPT are exact fundamental symmetries of nature . All physical interactions appear to be invariant under continuous Lorentz transformations consisting of boosts and rotations and under the combined discrete symmetry CPT formed from the product of charge conjugation C, parity P, and time reversal T. These symmetries are linked by the CPT theorem , which states that under mild technical assumptions all local relativistic field theories of point particles are symmetric under CPT. The CPT theorem predicts that particles and antiparticles should have exactly equal lifetimes, masses, and magnetic moments.

Numerous experiments confirm CPT and Lorentz symmetry to extremely high precision. The best CPT test listed by the Particle Data Group  compares the masses of neutral $`K^0`$ mesons with their antiparticles and obtains the figure of merit,

$$r_K=\frac{|m_Km_{\overline{K}}|}{m_K}\text{ }<10^{18}.$$
(1)
The Hughes-Drever type experiments are generally considered the best tests of Lorentz symmetry. These experiments place very tight bounds on spatially anisotropic interactions .

Experiments in Atomic Physics

Many of the sharpest tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry are made in atomic systems. For example, the Hughes-Drever type experiments typically compare two clocks or high-precision magnetometers involving different atomic species. The best CPT tests for leptons and baryons cited by the Particle Data Group are made by atomic physicists using Penning traps. These experiments have obtained a bound on the $`g`$-factor difference for electrons and positrons given by

$$r_g^e=\frac{|g_e^{}g_{e^+}|}{g_{\mathrm{avg}}}\text{ }<2\times 10^{12},$$
(2)
while experiments with protons and antiprotons have obtained bounds on the difference in their charge-to-mass ratios given by

$$r_{q/m}^p=\frac{|(q_p/m_p)(q_{\overline{p}}/m_{\overline{p}})|}{(q/m)_{\mathrm{avg}}}\text{ }<9\times 10^{11}.$$
(3)
Similarly, two proposed experiments at CERN intend to make high-precision comparisons of the 1S-2S transitions in trapped hydrogen and antihydrogen . The 1S-2S transition is a forbidden transition that can only occur as a two-photon transition. It has a long lifetime and a small relative linewidth of approximately $`10^{15}`$. Atomic experimentalists believe that ultimately the line center might be measured to 1 part in $`10^3`$ yielding a CPT bound

$$r_{1\mathrm{S}2\mathrm{S}}^H=\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{1\mathrm{S}2\mathrm{S}}|}{\nu _{1\mathrm{S}2\mathrm{S}}}\text{ }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^{15}10^{18}.$$
(4)
It is interesting to note that of all the experiments testing CPT it is the atomic experiments which have the highest experimental precisions. For example, in the meson experiments quantities are measured with precisions of approximately $`10^3`$, while in the atomic experiments frequencies are typically measured with precisions of $`10^9`$ or better. Nonetheless, the figure of merit in Eq. (1) is many orders of magnitude better than those in Eqs. (2) or (3). These differences are due in part to the fact that these experiments compare different physical quantities, such as masses, $`g`$ factors, charge-to-mass ratios, and frequencies. What would obviously be desirable is a framework which puts these experiments on equal footing and allows better cross comparisons.

Ideas for Violation

Different ideas for violation of Lorentz or CPT symmetry have been put forward over the years since the proof of the CPT theorem. To evade the CPT theorem one or more of its assumptions must be disobeyed. A sampling of some of the theoretical ideas that have been put forward include the following: nonlocal interactions , infinite component fields , a breakdown of quantum mechanics in gravity , Lorentz noninvariance at a fundamental level , spontaneous Lorentz violation , and CPT violation in string theory .

To explore the experimental consequences of possible Lorentz or CPT violation, a common approach is to introduce phenomenological parameters. Some examples include the anisotropic inertial mass parameters in the model of Cocconi and Salpeter , the $`\delta `$ parameter used in kaon physics , and the TH$`ϵ\mu `$ model which couples gravity and electromagnetism . Another approach is to introduce specific lagrangian terms that violate Lorentz or CPT symmetry . These approaches have the advantages that they are straightforward and are largely model independent. However, they also have the disadvantages that their relation to experiments can be unclear and they can have limited predictive ability. To make further progress, one would want a consistent fundamental theory with CPT and Lorentz violation. This would permit the calculation of phenomenological parameters and the prediction of signals indicating symmetry violation. No such realistic fundamental theory is known at this time. However, a candidate extension of the standard model incorporating CPT and Lorentz violation does exist.

STANDARD-MODEL EXTENSION

The standard-model extension of Kostelecký and collaborators is an effective theory based on the idea of spontaneous Lorentz-symmetry breaking . It is also motivated in part from string theory . The idea is to assume the existence of a fundamental theory in which Lorentz and CPT symmetry hold exactly but are spontaneously broken at low energy. As in any theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking, the symmetries become hidden at low energy. The effective low-energy theory contains the standard model as well as additional terms that could arise through the symmetry breaking process. A viable realistic fundamental theory is not known at this time, though higher dimensional theories such as string or M theory are promising candidates. A mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking can be realized in string theory because suitable Lorentz-tensor interactions can arise which destabilize the vacuum and generate nonzero tensor vacuum expectation values.

Colladay and Kostelecký have derived the most general extension of the standard model that could arise from spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking of a more fundamental theory, maintains SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge invariance, and is renormalizable . They have shown that the theory maintains many of the other usual properties of the standard model besides Lorentz and CPT symmetry, such as electroweak breaking, energy-momentum conservation, the spin-statistics connection, microcausality, and observer Lorentz covariance. In addition to the atomic experiments described here, the standard-model extension has been used to analyze Lorentz and CPT tests with neutral mesons , photon experiments , and baryogenesis .

TESTS IN ATOMIC SYSTEMS

To consider experiments in atomic physics it suffices to restrict the standard-model extension to its QED sector. The modified Dirac equation for a four-component spinor field $`\psi `$ of mass $`m_e`$ and charge $`q=|e|`$ in an electric potential $`A^\mu `$ is

$$\left(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m_ea_\mu \gamma ^\mu b_\mu \gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{2}H_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+ic_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu D^\nu +id_{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu D^\nu \right)\psi =0.$$
(5)
Here, natural units with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ are used, and $`iD_\mu i_\mu qA_\mu `$. The two terms involving the effective coupling constants $`a_\mu `$ and $`b_\mu `$ violate CPT, while the three terms involving $`H_{\mu \nu }`$, $`c_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`d_{\mu \nu }`$ preserve CPT. All five terms break Lorentz invariance. Each particle sector in the standard model has its own set of parameters which we distinguish using superscripts. Since no Lorentz or CPT violation has been observed, these parameters are assumed to be small. A perturbative treatment in the context of relativistic quantum mechanics can then be used. In this approach, all of the perturbations in conventional quantum electrodynamics are identical for particles and antiparticles. However, the interaction hamiltonians including the effects of possible Lorentz and CPT breaking are not the same.

Penning-Trap Experiments

Comparisons of the $`g`$ factors and charge-to-mass ratios of particles and antiparticles confined within a Penning trap have yielded the CPT bounds in Eqs. (2) and (3). These quantities are obtained through measurements of the anomaly frequency $`\omega _a`$ and the cyclotron frequency $`\omega _c`$. For example, $`g2=2\omega _a/\omega _c`$. These frequencies can be measured to $`10^9`$ thereby determining $`g`$ to $`10^{12}`$.

We have analyzed Penning-trap experiments with electrons and positrons and with protons and antiprotons . We find that to leading order in the Lorentz-violating parameters there are corrections to the anomaly frequencies which are different for particles and antiparticles, while the cyclotron frequencies receive corrections that are the same for particles and antiparticles. Both frequencies have corrections which cause them to exhibit sidereal time variations. We also find that to leading order the $`g`$ factor has no corrections, and therefore the figure of merit $`r_g^e0`$, even though there is explicit CPT breaking. Because of this, we have proposed using as an alternative figure of merit the relative relativistic energy shifts caused by Lorentz and CPT violation. This is a definition that can be used in any experiment and is consistent with neutral meson experiments, which use mass ratios.

Based on these observations, we proposed looking for two signals of Lorentz and CPT violation: one an instantaneous difference in anomaly frequencies for electrons and positrons, and the other sidereal-time variations in the anomaly frequency of electrons alone. Dehmelt’s group at the University of Washington has recently published the results of these observations . In the first case, they reanalyzed existing data and obtained a figure of merit $`r_{\omega _a}^e\text{ }<1.2\times 10^{21}`$ from a bound on the difference in the electron and positron anomaly frequencies. In the second case, they analyzed more recent data for the electron alone and obtained a bound on sidereal time variations given by $`r_{\omega _a^{},\mathrm{diurnal}}^e\text{ }<1.6\times 10^{21}`$. This corresponds to a bound on the combination of components $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^eb_J^emd_{J0}^e\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{JKL}H_{KL}^e`$ defined with respect to a nonrotating coordinate system  given by $`|\stackrel{~}{b}_J^e|\text{ }<5\times 10^{25}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Although no $`g2`$ experiments have been made for protons or antiprotons, there have been recent bounds obtained on Lorentz violation in comparisons of cyclotron frequencies of antiprotons and $`H^{}`$ ions confined in a Penning trap . In this case the sensitivity is to the parameters $`c_{\mu \nu }^p`$, and the figure of merit $`r_{\omega _c}^H^{}\text{ }<10^{25}`$ was obtained.

Clock-Comparison Experiments

The classic Hughes-Drever type experiments are atomic clock-comparison tests of Lorentz invariance . These experiments look for relative changes between two “clock” frequencies as the Earth rotates. The “clock” frequencies are typically atomic hyperfine or Zeeman transitions. Using the standard-model extension, Kostelecký and Lane  have made an extensive analysis of these experiments. They have obtained approximate bounds on various combinations of the Lorentz-violating parameters from the published results of these experiments. For example, from the experiment of Berglund et al. the following bounds for the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J`$ have been found for the proton, neutron, and electron.

| proton | $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^p`$ | $`10^{27}`$ GeV |
| --- | --- | --- |
| neutron | $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^n`$ | $`10^{30}`$ GeV |
| electron | $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^e`$ | $`10^{27}`$ GeV |

Since certain assumptions about the nuclear configurations must be made to extract numerical bounds, these bounds should be viewed as good to within one or two orders of magnitude. To obtain cleaner bounds it is necessary to consider simpler atoms.

Hydrogen-Antihydrogen Experiments

We have analyzed the proposed experiments at CERN which will make high-precision spectroscopic measurements of the 1S-2S transitions in hydrogen and antihydrogen . We find that the magnetic field plays an important role in the sensitivity of the 1S-2S transition to Lorentz and CPT breaking. For example, in free hydrogen in the absence of a magnetic field, the 1S and 2S levels shift by the same amount at leading order in hydrogen and antihydrogen. As a result of this, there are no leading-order corrections to the 1S-2S transition frequency in free H or $`\overline{\mathrm{H}}`$.

In a magnetic trap, however, there are magnetic fields which mix the spin states in the four hyperfine levels. Since the Lorentz-violating couplings are spin-dependent, some of the 1S and 2S levels acquire energy corrections that are not equal. The transitions between these levels have leading-order sensitivity to Lorentz and CPT violation. However, these transitions are also field-dependent, making them prone to broadening in an inhomogeneous magnetic field. To be sensitive to leading-order Lorentz and CPT violation in 1S-2S transitions, experiments will have to overcome the difficulties associated with possible line broadening effects due to field inhomogeneities.

We have also considered measurements of the ground-state Zeeman hyperfine transitions in hydrogen and antihydrogen . We find that certain transitions in a hydrogen maser are sensitive to leading-order Lorentz-violating effects. These measurements have now been made by Walsworth’s group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center using a double-resonance technique . They have obtained bounds on the Lorentz-violation parameters for the electron and proton. The bound for the proton alone is $`|\stackrel{~}{b}_J^p|\text{ }<10^{27}`$ GeV. This is an extremely clean bound and is now the most stringent test of Lorentz and CPT symmetry for the proton.

Spin-Polarized Matter

Experiments at the University of Washington using a spin-polarized torsion pendulum  are able to achieve very high sensitivity to Lorentz violation due to the combined effect of a large number of aligned electron spins . The experiment uses stacked toroidal magnets with a net electron spin $`S8\times 10^{22}`$, but which have a negligible magnetic field. The apparatus is suspended on a turntable and a time-varying harmonic signal is sought. Our analysis shows that in addition to a signal with the period of the rotating turntable, the effects of Lorentz and CPT violation would induce additional time variations with a sidereal period caused by Earth’s rotation. The University of Washington group has analyzed their data and have obtained a bound on the electron parameters equal to $`|\stackrel{~}{b}_J^e|\text{ }<1.4\times 10^{28}`$ GeV . This is now the best Lorentz and CPT bound for the electron.

Muon Experiments

Despite the spectacular precision of recent Lorentz and CPT tests for protons and electrons, it is important to keep in mind that particle sectors in the standard-model extension might be independent of each other and should separately be tested. The situation is analogous to CP tests where violation is observed only in the neutral meson sector and not in the lepton or baryon sectors. A thorough investigation of Lorentz and CPT symmetry must therefore probe as many possible particle sectors as possible. For this reason, we also examine muon experiments, which involve second-generation leptons. We find that there are several different types of experiments that are sensitive to Lorentz and CPT. We have examined both muonium experiments  and $`g2`$ experiments with muons that are being conducted at Brookhaven .

Our results are that experiments measuring the frequencies of ground-state Zeeman hyperfine transitions in muonium in a strong magnetic field are sensitive to Lorentz and CPT violation. If bounds on sidereal time variations are obtained at the 100 Hz level, then the Lorentz-violation parameter for the muon $`\stackrel{~}{b}_J^\mu `$ can be bounded at the level of $`|\stackrel{~}{b}_J^\mu |5\times 10^{22}`$ GeV. We also find that in relativistic $`g2`$ experiments using positive muons with “magic” boost parameter $`\delta =29.3`$, bounds on Lorentz-violation parameters are possible at a level of $`10^{25}`$ GeV. Experiments looking for sidereal time variations in the muon anomaly frequency would yield stringent new Lorentz and CPT bounds.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, by using a general framework we are able to analyze Lorentz and CPT tests in a variety of atomic experiments. We find that experiments that have traditionally been considered Lorentz tests are also sensitive to CPT and vice versa. We find that it is also possible to make very precise tests of CPT in matter alone. Many of the bounds that have been obtained are well within the range of suppression factors associated with the Planck scale. The atomic experiments complement those in particle physics and together they are able to test the robustness of the standard model to increasing levels of precision.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my collaborators Alan Kostelecký, Charles Lane, and Neil Russell. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY-9801869.

REFERENCES


text:
# Continuum description of avalanches in granular media

\[

## Abstract

We develop a continuum description of partially fluidized granular flows. Our theory is based on the hydrodynamic equation for the flow coupled with the order parameter equation which describes the transition between flowing and static components of the granular system. This theory captures important phenomenology recently observed in experiments with granular flows on rough inclined planes (Daerr and Douady, Nature (London) 399, 241 (1999)): layer bistability, and transition from triangular avalanches propagating downhill at small inclination angles to balloon-shaped avalanches also propagating uphill for larger angles.

\]

Fundamental understanding of the dynamics of granular media still poses a challenge for physicists  and engineers . The intrinsic dissipative nature of the interactions between the constituent macroscopic particles sets granular matter apart from conventional gases, liquids, or solids. One of the most interesting phenomena pertinent to the granular systems is the transition from a static equilibrium to a granular flow. The most spectacular manifestation of such a transition occurs during an avalanche. There has been a number of experimental studies of avalanche flows in large sandpiles as well as in thin layers of grains on rough inclined surfaces .

On the theoretical side, a significant progress had been achieved by large-scale molecular dynamics simulations  and by continuum theory . The current continuum approach to the description of avalanche flows in the physics community was pioneered by Bouchaud, Cates, Ravi Prakash and Edwards (BCRE) and subsequently developed by de Gennes, Boutreux and and Raphaël . In their model is the granular system is spatially separated into two phases, static and rolling. The interaction between the phases is implemented through certain conversion rates. This model described certain features of thin near-surface granular flows including avalanches. However, due to its intrinsic assumptions, it only works when the granular material is well separated in a thin surface flow and an immobile bulk. In many practically important situations, this distinction between “liquid” and “solid” phases is more subtle and itself is controlled by the dynamics.

In this Letter we propose a new continuum model for multi-phase granular matter. The underlying idea of our approach is borrowed from the Landau theory of phase transitions. We assume that the shear stresses in a partially fluidized granular matter are composed of two parts: the dynamic part proportional to the shear strain, and the strain-independent (or “static”) part. The relative magnitude of the static shear stress is controlled by the order parameter (OP) which varies from 0 in the “liquid” phase to 1 in the “solid” phase. Unlike ordinary matter, the phase transition in granular matter is controlled not by the temperature, but the dynamics stresses themselves. In particular, the Mohr-Coloumb yield failure condition is equivalent to a critical melting temperature of a solid. The OP can be related to the local entropy  of the granular material. OP dynamics is then coupled to the hydrodynamic equation for the granular flow. We apply this model to study the transition to flow in thin granular layer on inclined planes with rough bottom. Our model captures important phenomenology observed by Pouliquen and Daerr and Douady, including the structure of the stability diagram, triangular shape of downhill avalanches at small inclination angles and balloon shape of uphill avalanches for larger angles.

Model. The continuum description of the granular flow is based on the Navier-Stokes equation

$$\rho _0Dv_i/Dt=\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{x_j}+\rho _0g_i,j=1,2,3.$$
(1)
where $`v_i`$ are the components of velocity, $`\rho _0=const`$ is the density of material (we set $`\rho _0=1`$), $`𝐠`$ is acceleration of gravity, and $`D/Dt=_t+v_i_{x_i}`$ denotes material derivative. Since the relative density fluctuations are small, the velocity obeys the incompressibility condition $`𝐯=0`$.

The central conjecture of our theory is that in partially fluidized flows, some of the grains are involved in plastic motion, while others maintain prolonged static contacts with their neighbors. Accordingly, we write the stress tensor as a sum of the hydrodynamic part proportional to the flow strain rate $`e_{ij}`$, and the strain-independent part, $`\sigma _{ij}^s`$, i.e. $`\sigma _{ij}=e_{ij}+\sigma _{ij}^s`$. We assume that the diagonal elements of the tensor $`\sigma _{ii}^s`$ coincide with the corresponding components of the “true” static stress tensor $`\sigma _{ii}^0`$ for the immobile grain configuration in the same geometry, and the shear stresses are reduced by the value of the order parameter $`\rho `$ characterizing the “phase state” of granular matter. Thus, we write the stress tensor in the form

$$\sigma _{ij}=\eta \left(\frac{v_i}{x_j}+\frac{v_j}{x_i}\right)+\sigma _{ij}^0\left(\rho +(1\rho )\delta _{ij}\right).$$
(2)
Here $`\eta `$ is the viscosity coefficient. In a static state, $`\rho =1`$, $`\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _{ij}^0`$, $`v_i=0`$, whereas in a fully fluidized state $`\rho =0`$, and the shear stresses are simply proportional to the strain rates as in ordinary fluids.

To close the system we need a set of constitutive relations between static shear and normal stresses, as well as an equation for the order parameter $`\rho `$. The issue of constitutive relations in granular materials is complex and not completely understood. It appears that in many cases, the constitutive relations are determined by the construction history. Recent studies indicated a fundamental role of the network of the force chains which carry forces longitudinally. We will assume that for any given problem, the corresponding static constitutive relations have been specified.

For the order parameter $`\rho `$, we apply pure dissipative dynamics which can be derived from the “free-energy” type functional $``$, i.e., $`\dot{\rho }=\delta /\delta \rho `$. We adopt the standard Landau form for $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}(D|\rho |^2+f(\rho ,\varphi ))`$, which includes a “local potential energy” and the diffusive spatial coupling. The potential energy $`f(\rho ,\varphi )`$ should have extrema at $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =1`$ corresponding to uniform solid and liquid phases. According to the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion for non-cohesive grains or its generalization , the static equilibrium failure and transition to flow is controlled by the value of the non-dimensional ratio $`\varphi =\mathrm{max}|\sigma _{mn}^0/\sigma _{nn}^0|`$, where the maximum is sought over all possible orthogonal directions $`n`$ and $`m`$ in the bulk of the granular material. We simply use this ratio as a parameter in the potential energy for the OP $`\rho `$. Without loss of generality, we write the equation for $`\rho `$:

$$\dot{\rho }=D^2\rho a\rho (1\rho )F(\rho ,\varphi )$$
(3)
Further, according to observations we assume that the static equilibrium is unstable if $`\varphi \varphi _1`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}^1\varphi _1`$ is the internal friction angle for a particular granular material. Additionally, we assume that if $`\varphi <\varphi _0`$, the “dynamic” phase $`\rho =0`$, is unstable. Values of $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ do not coincide in general. Typically there is a range in which both static and dynamics phases co-exist (this is related to the so-called Bagnold hysteresis). The simplest form of $`F(\rho ,\varphi )`$ which satisfies these constraints, is $`F(\rho ,\varphi )=\rho +\delta `$, where $`\delta =(\varphi \varphi _0)/(\varphi _1\varphi _0)`$. Setting $`D=1`$ and $`a=1`$ we arrive at

$$\dot{\rho }=^2\rho +\rho (1\rho )(\rho \delta ).$$
(4)
For $`\varphi _0<\varphi <\varphi _1`$ both static ($`\rho =1`$) and dynamic ($`\rho =0`$) phases are linearly stable, and Eq.(4) possesses a moving front solution which “connects” these phases. The speed of the front in the direction of $`\rho =0`$ is given by $`V=(12\delta )/\sqrt{2}`$. At $`\delta =1/2`$ both phases co-exist.

Chute flow. Let us now apply this formulation to a specific problem of the chute flow. We consider a layer of dry cohesionless grains on an inclined rough surface (see Fig.1). In the static equilibrium one has the following conditions:

$`\sigma _{zz,z}^0+\sigma _{xz,x}^0=g\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\sigma _{xz,z}^0+\sigma _{xx,x}^0=g\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ (5)
where the subscripts after commas mean partial derivatives. The solution to Eqs. (5) in the absence of lateral stresses $`\sigma _{yy}^0=\sigma _{yx}^0=\sigma _{yz}^0=0,`$ is given by

$`\sigma _{zz}^0=g\mathrm{cos}\phi z,\sigma _{xz}^0=g\mathrm{sin}\phi z,\sigma _{xx,x}^0=0`$ (6)
In a static equilibrium there is a simple relation between shear and normal stresses, $`\sigma _{xz}^0=\mathrm{tan}\phi \sigma _{zz}^0`$. According to our conjecture, this relation between the static components of the stress is maintained in the flowing regime as well. For the chute flow geometry, the value of parameter $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (4) can also be easily specified. In this case, the most “unstable” yield direction is parallel to the inclined plane, so we can simply write $`\varphi =|\sigma _{xz}^0/\sigma _{zz}^0|`$.

Stationary solutions of Eq. (4) for the confined chute geometry Fig. 1 are subject to the following boundary conditions (BC): no-flux condition $`\rho _z=0`$ at the free surface $`z=0`$, and $`\rho =1`$ at the bottom of the chute $`z=h`$ (a granular medium is assumed to be in a solid phase near the rough surface). There always exists a stationary solution to Eq. (4) $`\rho =1`$ corresponding to a static equilibrium. For $`\delta >1`$ it is stable at small $`h`$, but loses stability at a certain threshold $`h_c>1`$. The most “dangerous” mode of instability satisfying the above boundary conditions, is $`a\mathrm{cos}(\pi z/2h)`$. The eigenvalue of this mode is $`\lambda (h)=\delta 1\pi ^2/4h^2`$, hence the neutral curve $`\lambda =0`$ for the linear stability of the solution $`\rho =1`$ is given by

$$h_c=\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\delta 1}}.$$
(7)
For $`h>h_c(\delta )`$ grains spontaneously start to roll, and a granular flow ensues. In addition to the trivial state $`\rho =1`$, for $`h>h_s(\delta )`$ there exists a unique non-trivial stationary solution satisfying the above BC. The value of $`h_s`$ can be found as a minimum of the following integral as a function of $`\rho _0`$, the value of $`\rho `$ at the surface $`z=0`$,

$$h_s=\mathrm{min}_{\rho _0}^1\frac{d\rho }{\sqrt{\frac{\rho ^4}{2}\frac{2(\delta +1)\rho ^3}{3}+\delta \rho ^2c(\rho _0)}},$$
(8)
where $`c(\rho _0)=\rho _0^4/22(\delta +1)\rho _0^3/3+\delta \rho _0^2`$. This integral can be calculated analytically for $`\delta \mathrm{}`$ and $`\delta 1/2`$. It is easy to show that for large $`\delta `$, the critical solution of Eq.(4) has a form $`\rho =1+a\mathrm{cos}(kz)`$ with $`a1`$ and $`k=(\delta 1)^{1/2}`$, and therefore, $`h_s(\delta )h_c(\delta )`$. For $`\delta 1/2`$, the critical phase trajectory comes close to two saddle points $`\rho =0`$ and $`\rho =1`$, and an asymptotic evaluation of (8) gives $`h_s=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{log}(\delta 1/2)+const`$. This expression agrees with the empirical formula $`\varphi \varphi _0\mathrm{exp}[h_s/h_0]`$ proposed in Ref. .

Neutral stability curve $`h_c(\delta )`$ and the critical line $`h_s(\delta )`$ limiting the region of existence of non-trivial granular flow solutions, are shown in Fig.2. They divide the parameter plane $`(\delta ,h)`$ in three regions. At $`h<h_s(\delta )`$, the trivial static equilibrium $`\rho =1`$ is the only stationary solution of Eq.(4) for chosen BC. For $`h_s(\delta )<h<h_c(\delta )`$, there is a bistable regime, the static equilibrium state co-exists with the stationary flow. For $`h>h_c(\delta )`$, the static regime is linearly unstable, and the only stable regime corresponds to the granular flow. This qualitative picture completely agrees with the recent experimental findings. Moreover, for rough bottom BC (corresponding to our $`\rho =1`$), authors of Ref. found a region of bistability in the parameter plane $`(h,\phi )`$ which has a shape very similar to our phase diagram Fig.2.

The velocity profile corresponding to a stationary profile of $`\rho (z)`$, can be easily found from Eq. (2),

$$\eta \frac{v_x}{z}=g\mathrm{sin}\phi z\rho \sigma _{xz}^0=g\mathrm{sin}\phi (1\rho )z.$$
(9)
The flux of grains in the stationary flow $`J`$ is given by

$`J={\displaystyle _h^0}v_y(z)𝑑z={\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\eta }}{\displaystyle _h^0}{\displaystyle _h^z}(1\rho (z^{}))z^{}𝑑z^{}𝑑z`$ (10)
Pouliquen  proposed a scaling for the mean velocity $`\overline{v}=J/h`$ vs thickness of the layer $`h`$ in the stationary flow regime, $`\overline{v}h^{3/2}/h_s`$, which works for angles $`\phi `$ as well as for different grain sizes. Eq. (10) yields $`v(hh_s)^{1/2}`$ for small $`hh_s`$ and $`vh^2`$ for large $`h`$. It is plausible that the experimentally found scaling exponent $`3/2`$ is the result of the crossover between two different regimes. However, renormalization $`\overline{v}/\sqrt{gh},h/h_s`$ as in Ref. does not collapse our results onto a single curve, perhaps due to the assumption of a simple Newtonian relation between the strain $`v_z`$ and the hydrodynamic part of the shear stress $`\sigma _{xz}`$ with a fixed viscosity $`\eta `$ (see Eq.(2)). In fact, $`\eta `$ itself may depends on $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ in some fashion.

For a deep chute ($`h1`$), the stationary solution of Eq.(4) can be found analytically (cf. Ref.). However, in this case the slope of the free surface may not be equal to the slope of the inclined plane, but is itself determined by the amount of sand which is poured on the surface up-stream. Thus, the closure of the problem will be provided by the constraint $`J=const`$.

Avalanches in shallow chute. In the vicinity of the neutral curve (7) Eqs.(1,3) can be simplified. We look for solution in the form

$$\rho =1A\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2h}z\right)+\text{h.o.t.},$$
(11)
where $`A1`$ is a slowly varying function of $`t,x`$, and $`y`$. Substituting ansatz (11) into Eq. (3) and applying orthogonality conditions, we obtain

$$A_t=\lambda (h)A+_{}^2A+\frac{8(2\delta )}{3\pi }A^2\frac{3}{4}A^3$$
(12)
where $`_{}^2=_x^2+_y^2`$, $`\lambda (h)=\delta 1\frac{\pi ^2}{4h^2}`$. Deriving this equations we assumed that $`(2\delta )A^2`$ and $`A^3`$ are of the same order, i.e. $`\delta 2`$, however qualitatively similar equation with a different nonlinearity can be obtained for any $`\delta `$ and $`h`$. Eq. (12) must be coupled to the mass conservation equations which reads as (here we neglect contribution from the flux along $`y`$-axis $`J_y_yhJ`$):

$$\frac{h}{t}=\frac{J}{x}=\alpha \frac{h^3A}{x},$$
(13)
where $`J`$ was calculated from Eq. (10) and $`\alpha =2(\pi ^28)g\mathrm{sin}\phi /\eta \pi ^3`$. Taking into account that variations in $`h`$ also change local surface slope, we adopt $`\delta =\delta _0\beta h_x`$ with $`\beta =1/(\varphi _1\varphi _0)`$.

We studied Eqs. (12,13) numerically. The simulations were performed in fairly large systems, $`400`$ dimensionless units in $`x`$-direction (downhill), and $`200`$ units in $`y`$-direction, with the number of grid points $`1200\times 600`$ correspondingly. As initial conditions we used uniform static layer: $`h=h_0,A=0`$. We triggered avalanches by a localized perturbation introduced near the point $`(y,z)=(L_y/4,L_z/2)`$. Close to the solid line in Fig. (2) we indeed observed avalanches propagating only downhill, with the shape very similar to the experimental one. The avalanche leaves triangular trace with the opening angle $`\psi `$ in which the layer thickness $`h`$ is decreased with respect to original value $`h_0`$. At the front of the avalanche the layer depth is increased with respect to $`h`$, as in experiment. The opening angle as a function of $`\delta `$ is shown in inset of Fig.2.

For larger values of $`\delta `$ (close to dashed line in Fig. (2)) or for thicker layers we observed avalanches of the second type. In this case the avalanche propagates also uphill, and contrary to the previous case, the while avalanche zone is in motion, as new rolling particles are constantly arrive from the upper boundary of the avalanche zone. Sometime we observed small secondary avalanches in the wake of large primary avalanche, see Fig. 4c.

In conclusion, we developed a continuum description of partially fluidized granular flows. Our order-parameter model captures important aspects of the phenomenology of chute flows observed in recent experiments , including the structure of the stability diagram, triangular shape of downhill avalanches at small inclination angles and balloon shape of uphill avalanches for larger angles. We believe that our model can be applicable to other granular flows including sandpiles and rotating drums.

We thank Dan Howell, Deniz Ertas, Joe Goddard, Bob Behringer and Adrian Daerr for useful discussions. This research is supported by the Office of the Basic Energy Sciences at the US Department of Energy, grants W-31-109-ENG-38, DE-FG03-95ER14516, and DE-FG03-96ER14592.


text:
# Nuclear Shell Effects near r-Process Path at N=82 in the Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov Theory

## Abstract

Evolution of the shell structure of nuclei near the neutron drip line is investigated in the Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory. By introducing the vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$ meson in the RHB theory, we reproduce successfully the experimental data on the shell effects about the waiting-point nucleus 80Zn. With this basis, it is shown that the shell effects at $`N=82`$ in the inaccessible region of the r-process path remain strong. In contrast, a quenching exhibited by the HFB+SkP approach is shown to be incompatible with the available data. Consequently, the neutrino-driven mechanism of the nucleosynthesis is supported.

A knowledge of shell effects near the drip lines is important to discerning astrophysical scenario of nucleosynthesis . The question whether the shell effects near the drip lines are strong or do quench has become crucial to understanding heavy nucleosynthesis. The $`N=82`$ nuclei at r-process path are assumed to play a significant role in providing nuclear abundances about $`A130`$. Since nuclei contributing to this peak are extremely neutron-rich and are not accessible experimentally, it has not been possible to ascertain the nature of the shell effects in the vicinity of the neutron drip line. Due to the lack of experimental data, there prevail conflicting view points  on the strength of the shell effects near the neutron drip line. There exist different scenarios regarding the r-process nuclear abundances such as the one assisted by shell quenching , or that of neutrino-driven post-processing .

In this letter, we examine how the shell effects evolve with isospin in the region of the astrophysically important magic number $`N=82`$ near the neutron drip line. Using the experimental data available on the shell effects around the waiting-point nucleus 80Zn ($`N=50`$) as a benchmark, we will explore the shell effects near the r-process path in the framework of the Relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory with the self-consistent finite-range pairing. We have introduced the vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$ meson in addition to the non-linear scalar coupling of the $`\sigma `$-meson in the RHB theory. The high-precision experimental data about the stability line and a successful description of the ensuing shell effects  constitutes our basis to predict the shell effects in the inaccessible region.

The shell effects are known to manifest strongly in terms of the magic numbers. This is demonstrated by a prominent kink about the major magic numbers  in the 2-neutron separation energies ($`S_{2n}`$) all over the periodic table. This implies that there exist large shell gaps at the magic numbers about the stability line. The spin-orbit interaction is pivotal  in creation of the magic numbers. In the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) theory  the spin-orbit term arises as a result of the Dirac-Lorentz structure of nucleons. This has shown much usefulness in explaining properties which involve shell effects such as anomalous isotope shifts in stable nuclei . The form of the spin-orbit interaction in the RMF theory has also been found to be advantageous over that in the non-relativistic approach .

For nuclei near a drip line, a coupling to the continuum is required. A self-consistent treatment of pairing is also desirable. The framework of RHB theory provides an appropriate tool to include both these features. Thus, in the RHB theory the advantages of a relativistic description of the RMF approach in the Hartree channel are combined with that of a finite-range pairing force.

The RMF Lagrangian which describes the nucleons as Dirac spinors moving in meson fields is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }\left(\text{/}pg_\omega \text{/}\omega g_\rho \text{/}\stackrel{}{\rho }\stackrel{}{\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e(1\tau _3)\text{ /}Ag_\sigma \sigma M_N\right)\psi `$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \sigma ^\mu \sigma U(\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_4(\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{R}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{R}^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\rho ^2\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$
where $`M_N`$ is the bare nucleon mass and $`\psi `$ is its Dirac spinor. In addition, we have the scalar meson ($`\sigma `$), isoscalar vector mesons ($`\omega `$), isovector vector mesons ($`\rho `$) and the photons $`A^\mu `$, with the masses $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$ and $`m_\rho `$ and the coupling constants $`g_\sigma `$, $`g_\omega `$, $`g_\rho `$, respectively. The field tensors for the vector mesons are given as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu `$ and by similar expressions for the $`\rho `$-meson and the photon. For a realistic description of nuclear properties a nonlinear self-coupling $`U(\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{3}g_2\sigma ^3+\frac{1}{4}g_3\sigma ^4`$ for $`\sigma `$-mesons is taken. We have added the non-linear vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$-meson  as represented by the coupling constant $`g_4`$.

Using Green’s function techniques  it has been shown in Ref.  that a relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory can be implemented using such a Lagrangian. Neglecting retardation effects one obtains a relativistic Dirac-Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) equations

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& h^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill U\\ \hfill V\end{array}\right)_k=E_k\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill U\\ \hfill V\end{array}\right)_k,$$
(4)
where $`E_k`$ are quasiparticle energies and the coefficients $`U_k`$ and $`V_k`$ are four-dimensional Dirac spinors normalized as

$$(U_k^+U_k^{}+V_k^+V_k^{})d^3r=\delta _{kk^{}}.$$
(5)
The average field

$$h=𝜶𝒑+g_\omega \omega +\beta (M+g_\sigma \sigma )\lambda $$
(6)
contains the chemical potential $`\lambda `$ which is adjusted to the proper particle number. The meson fields $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ are determined self-consistently from the Klein Gordon equations:

$`\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }+m_\sigma ^2\right\}\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`g_\sigma \rho _sg_2\sigma ^2g_3\sigma ^3,`$ (7)
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }+m_\omega ^2\right\}\omega `$ $`=`$ $`g_\omega \rho _v+g_4\omega ^3,`$ (8)
with the scalar density $`\rho _s=_k\overline{V}_kV_k`$ and the baryon density $`\rho _v=_kV_k^+V_k`$. The sum on $`k`$ runs only over all the particle states in the no-sea approximation. The pairing potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (4) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{cd}{}V_{abcd}^{pp}\kappa _{cd}$$
(9)
The RHB equations (4) are a set of four coupled integro-differential equations for the Dirac spinors $`U(r)`$ and $`V(r)`$ which are obtained self-consistently. Here the RHB calculations have been performed by expanding fermionic and bosonic wavefunctions in 20 oscillator shells for a spherical configuration. We have used the force NL-SH  with the non-linear scalar self-coupling and the forces NL-SV1 and NL-SV2 with both the scalar and the vector self-couplings. The forces NL-SV1 and NL-SV2 have been developed with a view to soften the high-density equation of state of nuclear matter and are shown to improve the ground-state properties of nuclei . For the pairing channel, we have taken the finite-range Gogny force D1S. It is known to represent the pairing properties of a large number of finite nuclei appropriately .

In our previous work , we started with the shell effects at the stability line, where we examined the role of $`\sigma `$\- and $`\omega `$-meson couplings on the shell effects in Ni and Sn isotopes. It was found that the existing nuclear forces based upon the nonlinear scalar self-coupling of $`\sigma `$-meson exhibit shell effects which were stronger than suggested by the experimental data. In order to remedy this problem, the nonlinear vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$-meson in the RHB theory was introduced. Consequently, the experimental data on shell effects in nuclei about the stability line were reproduced well .

Having established the basis, we consider nuclei about 80Zn ($`N=50`$) in the present work. 80Zn is a waiting point nucleus and here the r-process path comes closest to the $`\beta `$-stability. The empirical values on the binding energy of 80Zn and 82Zn are taken from the compilation by Wapstra and Audi . These data provide a unique opportunity to probe the nature of the shell effects away from the stability line.

Results on $`S_{2n}`$ values for the Zn isotopes are shown in Fig. 1. The kink at $`N=50`$ shows that NL-SH (scalar self-coupling only) exhibits shell effects which are much stronger than the experimental data. In comparison, the shell gap with NL-SV2 (both the scalar and vector self-couplings)  is reduced as compared to NL-SH. It is, however, still larger than the experimental one. We show in Fig. 1(b) the $`S_{2n}`$ values obtained with the force NL-SV1 . The slope of the kink shows that the shell gap with NL-SV1 agrees well with the experimental value. Thus, RHB with the force NL-SV1 is able to reproduce the empirical shell effects in the waiting point region. A comparison with the HFB+SkP results  shows that the shell effects with SkP are strongly quenched. In contrast, the data show that the shell effects in the waiting point region are much stronger than those predicted by SkP. This is consistent with our earlier conclusion  that the shell effects with SkP are quenchend strongly already at the stability line. This behaviour is evidently due to its high effective mass $`m^{}1`$  which suppresses the shell gaps significantly.

In Fig. 1(c) we compare various predictions of the mass formula Extended Thomas-Fermi with Strutinsky Integral (ETF-SI) . It is widely used in the abundance calculations of the r-process nucleosynthesis due to its success in reproducing the binding energies of nuclei over a wide range of the periodic table. It can be seen from the figure that ETF-SI reproduces the shell effects in the waiting point region successfully. However, motivated by the results of HFB+SkP, a phenomenogical quenching of the shell effects has recently been introduced  in ETF-SI, thus producing a new mass table ETF-SI (Q). The results \[Fig. 1(c)\] of the quenched (Q) mass formula show that the shell effects are weakened as compared to the experimental data and ETF-SI. We have found several other cases where a good agreement of ETF-SI with the experimental data is deteriorated in going to ETF-SI(Q). Thus, the introduction of the quenching in ETF-SI (Q) seems to be unnecessary notwithstanding the success of ETF-SI.

The RHB results with NL-SV1 in Fig. 1(b) provide a confidence to extend our formalism to explore the inaccessible region of the neutron drip-line about $`N=82`$. In order to visualize how the shell effects evolve as one approaches the continuum, we have chosen the isotopic chains of Kr, Sr, Zr and Mo ($`Z=3642`$). The $`S_{2n}`$ values as obtained in RHB with the various forces are shown in Fig. 2. For a given force, the shell gap at $`N=82`$ shows a steady decrease in moving from Mo (a) to Kr (d). Evidently, nuclei become increasingly unbound and a coupling to the continuum arises in going to larger neutron to proton ratios.

The results \[Fig. 2\] with the non-linear scalar coupling (NL-SH) show a shell gap at $`N=82`$, which is largest amongst all the forces. The strong shell effects with NL-SH were also noted for $`N=82`$ nuclei near the drip line in ref. . These results were based upon the BCS pairing and the shell effects along the stability line were not taken into account appropriately. This emphazises the importance of the self-consistent pairing and of the data available on the shell effects in the known region.

With the force NL-SV2 with the vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$-meson, the shell effects \[Fig. 2\] are milder as compared to NL-SH for all the chains. This is similar to that observed at the stability line  and also in Fig. 1(a). The results \[Fig. 2\] with our benchmark force NL-SV1 show that the shell gap at $`N=82`$ is reduced as compared to NL-SV2. This is again similar to that observed for the Zn isotopes. However, the shell effects with NL-SV1 are still stronger as compared to the HFB+SkP results shown in the figure. This is especially true for Mo and Zr isotopes at N=82, where the r-process path is assumed to pass through. The quenching shown by SkP in this region is as expected. As noted earlier HFB+SkP is known to exhibit a strong quenching at the stability line  and near the waiting-point nucleus 80Zn as shown in Fig. 1(b) above. In comparison, the RHB approach with NL-SV1 reproduces the shell effects about the stability line  as well as in the waiting-point region at $`N=50`$.

The shell effects with NL-SV1 become successively weaker (which is true for all the forces) as one moves to nuclei with higher isospin such as 120Sr \[Fig. 2(c)\] and 118Kr \[Fig. 2(d)\]. The case of Kr isotopes \[Fig. 2(d)\] deserves a special mention. Except with NL-SH, all the other forces show a complete washing out of the shell effects. This stems from the fact that for 118Kr, the Fermi energy is very close to the continuum and the nucleus is pushed to the very limit of binding. The binding energy of an additional neutron is close to zero and consequently the shell gap ceases to exist. Thus, any semblance of the shell effects for 118Kr ($`N=82`$) is completely lost. Such nuclei at the drip line ($`\lambda _n0`$) should be of little interest to the r-process as these nuclei show no binding to an additional neutron. However, as the r-process path passes through $`S_n24`$ MeV, it is seen \[Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)\] that nuclei which ought to contribute to the r-process show a persistence of stronger shell gaps in contrast to that seen for Kr and Sr. Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show that with NL-SV1 the shell effects for Mo (Z=42) and Zr (Z=40) nuclei at $`N=82`$ are much stronger than with SkP. Shell gaps are expected to be even larger for r-process nuclei with $`Z>42`$. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that NL-SV1 is commensurate with the experimental data available in the waiting point region, it can be concluded that the shell effects about the r-process path remain stronger.

We show in Fig. 3(a) the neutron single-particle levels obtained with NL-SV1 for $`N=80`$ nuclei. Our focus is the evolution of the shell gap at $`N=82`$ as one approaches the drip line ($`\lambda _n0`$). The single-particle levels shown in this figures portray the results of Fig. 2. The Fermi energy (shown by the dashed lines) approaches the continuum as one moves towards a larger neutron to proton ratio. The shell gap ($`N=82`$) shows a constant decrease as the last neutrons become more and more unbound in going from Mo to Kr. For 118Kr ($`N=82`$) the Fermi energy is close to zero and the shell gap diminishes significantly. However, for nuclei on the r-process path such as Mo and Zr, shell gaps do remain large.

The difference in the response of the various forces near the drip line is illustrated in single-particle levels shown for 120Zr in Fig. 3(b). The shell gap at $`N=82`$ is largest with NL-SH and shows a reduction in going to NL-SV1. On the other hand, the shell gap with SkP is reduced significantly as compared to NL-SV1. The reduced shell strength with SkP seems to be generic as discussed above.

In conclusion, we have reproduced the shell effects in the waiting-point nucleus 80Zn with the vector self-coupling of $`\omega `$-meson in the RHB theory. Having our working basis established, we show that the shell effects near the r-process path about $`N=82`$ remain strong vis-a-vis a quenching exhibited by HFB+SkP. The oft-discussed quenching with SkP is, however, not supported by the available experimental data in the waiting-point region. It is noteworthy that on the basis of the results with SkP, a quenching has been requested for an improved fit to the global r-process abundances . Since SkP fails to reproduce the shell effects at the stability line and in the waiting-point region, an improved fit alone does not necessarily imply a shell quenching near the r-process path. On the other hand, our results on the stronger shell effects at the r-process path are consistent with the point made in refs.  that neutrino-induced reaction during a core-collapse supernova can be effective in breaking through the waiting-point nuclei and that it is not necessary to invoke a quenching of the shell strength. In view of this, the present results support neutrino-induced reaction as a plausible mechanism of nucleosynthesis of heavy nuclei.

This work is supported by the Research Administration Project No. SP056 of the Kuwait University. We thank Prof. J.M. Pearson for providing us ETF-SI(Q) table before its publication.

* The $`S_{2n}`$ values for Zn isotopes in the waiting-point region with (a) NL-SH and NL-SV2 (b) NL-SV1 and HFB+SkP and (c) the mass formulae ETF-SI, and ETF-SI(Q) with shell quenching, as compared to the experimental data.
* Evolution of the shell effects at $`N=82`$ with the various forces for the isotopes chains of Mo, Zr, Sr and Kr in the vicinity of the neutron drip line.
* (a) The neutron single-particle levels for Mo, Zr, Sr and Kr nuclei (N=80) near the neutron drip-line with the force NL-SV1. The Fermi energy is shown by the dashed lines. (b) The $`N=82`$ shell gap in the neutron single-particle levels for 120Zr with the various forces.