text:
# Emission from Bow Shocks of Beamed Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The afterglows of Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are most naturally described by the so-called “fireball” model (see e.g., Paczyński & Rhoads 1993; Katz 1994; Mészáros & Rees 1993, 1997; Waxman 1997a,b; Sari, Piran, & Narayan 1998). In this model, a compact source releases a large amount of energy over a short time and produces a relativistically expanding fireball. Eventually the fireball interacts with the circumburst medium, producing a spherical relativistic shock in it. As the shock decelerates due to the accumulation of mass from the external medium, it approaches a self-similar solution (Blandford & McKee 1976) and produces delayed synchrotron emission in X-rays, optical and radio, similar to the observed afterglows. The model generically yields power-law spectra and lightcurves in general agreement with observations at X-ray (Costa et al. 1997), optical (van Paradijs et al. 1997) and radio (Frail et al. 1997) wavelengths. Precise positions have allowed redshifts to be measured for a number of GRBs (Metzger et al. 1997), providing a definitive proof of their cosmological origin.

Recent observational evidence indicates that at least some GRB are not spherical explosions. A broad-band break in the lightcurve power-law index was predicted for shocks produced by collimated jets due to the lateral expansion of the jet when its Lorentz factor drops below the inverse of its opening angle (Rhoads 1997, 1999a,b; Panaitescu & Mészáros 1999). Such breaks have been seen in GRB 990510 (Stanek et al. 1999; Harrison et al. 1999), GRB 991216 (Halpern et al. 2000), and GRB 000301C (Sagar et al. 2000; Masetti et al. 2000; Jensen et al. 2000; Berger et al. 2000). The ratio of the spectral index to the light curve index also suggests non-spherical energy ejection for some events (e.g. GRB 991216: Garnavich et al. 2000).

The possibility that GRBs are associated with a rare sub-class of supernovae (SNe) was advocated recently based on a possible SN component in the lightcurves of GRB 980326 (Bloom et al. 1999) and GRB 970228 (Reichart 1999) and the association of SN1998bw with GRB 980425 (Galama et al. 1999; Kulkarni et al. 2000). In this case the GRB emission needs to be beamed in order to achieve the high Lorentz factor required for GRB outflows, despite the massive progenitor envelope and the low energy yield of SNe (MacFadyen, Woosley, & Heger 1999; Khokhlov at al. 1999; Umeda 2000).

The current state of knowledge leaves two major questions open: (i) are GRBs associated with rare SNe?; and (ii) if so, what is the characteristic collimation angle of the energy release? The collimation angle has important implications on the nature of the central engine. If the average angular radius of the two opposing jets in collimated GRBs is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$, then the total energy release will be reduced by a factor $`2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_b^2/4\pi =\mathrm{\Theta }_b^2/2`$ and the event rate will be increased by the inverse of this factor. In this paper we propose a direct observational probe that will help answer these questions.

When a transient relativistic jet (equivalent to a relativistic “bullet”) moves into the circumburst medium (be it the interstellar medium or a progenitor wind), a bow shock is generated in front of the jet. The bow shock accelerates electrons which emit synchrotron radiation, similarly to the primary shock in front of the jet. For observers situated within the cone of the jet emission, the bow shock emission will be sub-dominant relative to the jet emission due to relativistic motion of the jet towards the observer. However, for highly collimated outflows, most lines of sight lie outside the jet cone, and for those – the bow shock emission may dominate. In particular, if GRBs originate in SNe then the bow shock emission will add a strong non-thermal component to the emission from the SN remnants extending from the radio to the X-ray bands. This emission will extend over much longer times compared to the jet emission since the Lorentz factor of the bow shock is typically much smaller than that of the jet, resulting in a smaller relativistic compression of time in the observer’s frame. In the following sections we will apply the same model used ordinarily for the primary fireball shock, to calculate the flux in this non-thermal bow-shock component. In §2 we present our model for the bow shock emission; in §3 we show our numerical results; and finally, in §4, we summarize our main conclusions.

## 2 MODEL

The impulsive ejection of a relativistic jet from the GRB source results in a thin disk of material moving outwards and expanding, which we refer to as a relativistic bullet. As long as the angular radius of the bullet relative to the center of the explosion, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$, is much larger than the inverse of its Lorentz factor, the bullet will expand as if it is part of a spherically symmetric fireball. This follows from the relativistic transformation of velocities, which implies that the propagation speed of a signal in the perpendicular direction to the bullet motion cannot exceed $`c/\gamma _b`$ in the frame of the stationary ambient medium. For simplicity, we limit our discussion to this regime.

In our model we assume that as the relativistic bullet moves through the ambient medium, it deposits a fraction of its kinetic energy in each infinitesimal distance it travels. We treat this energy deposition as a sequence of point explosions, which drive shocks into the surrounding medium. The combination of this sequence of small shocks results in a conical bow shock structure behind the bullet.

Figure 1 illustrates the geometry of the bow shock. We use cylindrical coordinates, with the $`z`$-axis connecting the bullet center to the source. The distance between the source and the bullet is denoted as $`R_b`$. We assume that observers are located perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis, with $`\theta =0`$ along the source-observer axis. Next we consider a slice of the bow shock geometry perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis. The slice is a cylindrical shell of height $`\delta z`$, thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and inner radius $`r`$. As the bullet passes through a point $`z`$ it has a radius $`l(z)`$ and a Lorentz factor $`\gamma _b(z)`$. The amount of thermal energy $`\delta E`$ which gets deposited by the bullet in the surrounding medium as it moves an extra distance $`\delta z`$, is then given by

$$\delta E=(\gamma _b1)\pi l^2\delta zn\mu _em_pc^2,$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the electron number density of the external medium, and $`\mu _em_p`$ is the ion mass per electron. We assume that a fraction $`\epsilon `$ of the energy stored in the “causally-connected” edge of the bullet is transferred to the external medium. The “causally-connected” edge of the bullet is defined to be the region occupying an angular size $`1/\gamma _b`$ from the bullet edge. The energy deposited in the infinitesimal distance interval $`\delta z`$ drives a shock into the ambient gas. The gas behind the shock is piled into an outgoing thin shell. The shock expands perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis, but due to the time delay between the energy deposition at different points along the $`z`$-axis, the sum of the fronts generated by these points defines a conical shape for the resulting bow shock. We denote the Lorentz factor of the outgoing shell in the frame of the unshocked gas by $`\gamma `$ . The electron number density $`n^{}`$ and internal energy density $`e^{}`$ of the shocked gas in the frame comoving with the shell can be written as (Blandford & McKee 1976)

$$n^{}=\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\gamma +1}{\widehat{\gamma }1}n,$$
(2)
$$e^{}=\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\gamma +1}{\widehat{\gamma }1}(\gamma 1)n\mu _em_pc^2,$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is the adiabatic index of the shocked gas which changes from $`4/3`$ and $`5/3`$ as the shock velocity changes from the relativistic to the non-relativistic regime. We interpolate between these regimes using the simplified expression $`\widehat{\gamma }(4\gamma +1)/(3\gamma )`$ (Dai, Huang & Lu 1999). Equations (2) and (3) then become

$$n^{}=4\gamma n,$$
(4)
$$e^{}=4b\gamma ^2n\mu _em_pc^2,$$
(5)
where $`b=(\gamma 1)/\gamma `$. Note that equations (4) and (5) are appropriate for both the relativistic and non-relativistic regimes. The total kinetic energy of the shell is

$$E_k=\pi (r^2l^2)\delta zn\mu _em_pc^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2,$$
(6)
where $`\beta ^2=11/\gamma ^2`$. Conservation of energy implies, $`E_k=\epsilon \xi \delta E`$, where

$$\xi =\frac{2\mathrm{\Theta }_b\gamma _b1}{\mathrm{\Theta }_b^2\gamma _b^2}\mathrm{for}\gamma _b\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }_b}$$
(7)
is the ratio between the volumes of the causaly-connected region near the edge of the bullet (with angular size $`1/\gamma _b`$) and the entire volume of the bullet. We therefore obtain

$$\gamma =\sqrt{1+\epsilon \xi (\gamma _b1)\frac{l^2}{r^2l^2}}=\sqrt{1+f\frac{l^2}{r^2l^2}},$$
(8)
where $`f=\epsilon \xi (\gamma _b1)`$. The thickness of the shell is derived by using the conservation of particle number. This yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{r^2l^2}{8\gamma ^2r}.$$
(9)
Figure 2 illustrates the geometry of the emission from an infinitesimal volume element in cylindrical coordinates, $`dV=rdrd\theta dz`$. We define the emission coefficient $`j_\nu ^{}^{}`$ to be the power emitted per unit frequency, $`\nu ^{}`$, per unit volume per steradian in the rest frame of the emitting material. We use prime to denote quantities in the local rest frame of the emitting material, while unprimed quantities are measured in the rest frame of the external medium. Note that $`j_\nu /\nu ^2`$ is Lorentz invariant (Rybicki & Lightman 1979). For each slice, the cylindrical shell of expanding material emits isotropically in its local rest frame with $`j_\nu ^{}^{}=P^{}(\nu ^{},r,t)/4\pi `$ and $`\nu ^{}=\nu \gamma (1\beta \mu )`$, where $`\gamma `$ and $`\beta c`$ are the Lorentz factor and the velocity of the emitting material, and $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. A photon emitted at time $`t`$ and place $`r`$ in the unshocked gas frame will reach the detector at a time $`T`$ given by

$$T_Z=\frac{T}{1+Z}=t\frac{r\mu }{c},$$
(10)
where $`Z`$ is the cosmological redshift of the GRB and $`T`$ is chosen so that a photon emitted at the GRB source at $`t=0`$ will arrive to the detector at $`T=0`$. Thus we have 111Note that a similar equation for calculating the emission from GRB afterglows in a spherical coordinate system was originally derived by Granot, Piran, & Sari (1999).

$$F(\nu ,T)=2\times \frac{1+Z}{4\pi D^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\theta _0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r\frac{P^{}[\nu \gamma (1\beta \mu ),r,T_Z+r\mu /c]}{\gamma ^2(1\beta \mu )^2},$$
(11)
where $`D`$ is the luminosity distance to the GRB, and $`\gamma ,\beta ,\mu `$ are evaluated at the time $`t`$ implied by equation (10). The factor of 2 is added to describe the combined emission from the bow shocks generated by two opposing jets.

The volume integration expressed in equation (11) should be taken over the region occupied by the emitting bow shock at a given observed time. The lower and upper boundaries of the integration over $`r`$ are derived by considering the relativistic time delay (similar to the approach used by Wang & Loeb, 2000). For a given observed time $`T`$, the outer boundary $`R_1`$ satisfies the equation

$$T=\frac{1}{c}F(R_1)\frac{R_1\mu }{c},$$
(12)
where

$$F(R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}l}\left\{\frac{1}{2}R\sqrt{R^2+(f1)l^2}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{f}l^2+\frac{1}{2}(f1)l^2\mathrm{log}\frac{R+\sqrt{R^2+(f1)l^2}}{(\sqrt{f}+1)l}\right\}.$$
(13)
The inner boundary $`R_2`$ can be obtained by solving the equation

$$T=\frac{1}{c}F(R_2)\left\{R_2\frac{(R_2^2l^2)^2}{8R_2[R_2^2+(f1)l^2]}\right\}\frac{\mu }{c}.$$
(14)
Next we derive the local synchrotron emissivity in the two regimes where the infinitesimal segment of the bow shock under consideration is moving at relativistic or nonrelativistic speeds. In the relativistic regime, we assume that the energy densities of the shock-accelerated electrons and the magnetic field are fixed fractions of the internal energy density in the shell behind the bow shock, $`e_e^{}=ϵ_ee^{},e_B^{}=ϵ_Be^{}`$, and that the bow shock produces a power law distribution of accelerated electrons with a number density per Lorentz factor of $`N(\gamma _e)=K\gamma _e^p`$ for $`\gamma _e\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, where

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}=\left(\frac{p2}{p1}\right)\frac{ϵ_ee^{}}{n^{}m_ec^2},K=(p1)n^{}\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}^{p1}.$$
(15)
When the bow shock is nonrelativistic, we use $`ϵ_e`$ to denote the fraction of the internal energy which goes to relativistic electrons with $`\gamma 2`$. Again, these relativistic electrons obtain a power law distribution $`N_{\mathrm{rel}}(\gamma _e)=K\gamma _e^p`$ for $`\gamma _e\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, where

$$K=ϵ_e\frac{m_p}{m_e}\mu _e(p2)4\gamma (\gamma 1)n\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}^{p2},$$
(16)
and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}=2`$. Hence the number density of relativistic electrons is

$$n_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}=ϵ_e\frac{m_p}{m_e}\mu _e\frac{p2}{p1}4\gamma (\gamma 1)\frac{n}{\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}}.$$
(17)
This prescription describes well the accelerated electron population in the non-relativistic shocks of supernovae (Chevalier 1999). The characteristic values inferred for the parameters $`p2`$$`3`$ and $`ϵ_e1`$$`10\%`$ in supernova shocks (Chevalier 1999; Koyama et al. 1995, 1997; Tanimori et al. 1998; Muraishi et al. 2000) are in the same range as those for GRB afterglows (Waxman 1997a,b; Wijers, Rees, & Meszaros 1997; Sari, Piran, & Narayan al. 1998). We will consider different parameter values, but for simplicity, we will adopt the same values of $`ϵ_e`$ and $`p`$ in describing both the relativistic and sub-relativistic regimes. This is justified by the similarity between the parameter values which are typically chosen to describe relativistic GRB afterglows (e.g., Waxman 1997a,b) and non-relativistic radio supernovae (e.g., Chevalier 1998).

At sufficiently high Lorentz factors, the electron cooling time is shorter than the dynamical time. The critical Lorentz factor $`\gamma _c`$ above which electrons cool on a time shorter than $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ is given by (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998)

$$\gamma _c=\frac{3m_e}{16ϵ_B\sigma _T\mu _em_pc}\frac{1}{t_{\mathrm{dyn}}b\gamma ^3n}$$
(18)
where $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ is equal to the dynamical time in the frame of the external medium, i.e., the time it takes for a cylindrical shell to expand from an initial radius $`l`$ to $`r`$,

$$t_{\mathrm{dyn}}=\frac{1}{c}F(r).$$
(19)
Note that equation (18) is different from equation (6) in Sari et al. (1998) because of the introduction of $`b`$ and $`\mu _e`$. An electron with an initial Lorentz factor $`\gamma _e>\gamma _c`$ cools down to $`\gamma _c`$ in the time $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$.

The radiation power and the characteristic synchrotron frequency of a randomly oriented electron with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma _e`$ are given by (Rybicki & Lightman 1979)

$$P^{}(\gamma _e)=\frac{4}{3}\sigma _T\gamma _e^2\beta ^2c\frac{B^2}{8\pi },$$
(20)
$$\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}^{}(\gamma _e)=\frac{3\gamma _e^2q_eB^{}}{16m_ec},$$
(21)
where $`B^{}=\sqrt{8\pi e_B^{}}`$, and $`m_e,q_e`$ are the electron mass and charge respectively. We define $`\nu _c^{}=\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}^{}(\gamma _c)`$ and $`\nu _m^{}=\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}^{}(\gamma _{\mathrm{min}})`$. In the regime of fast cooling, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}>\gamma _c`$, the emissivity is given by (Sari et al. 1998)

$$P_\nu ^{}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _c^{}\right)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu ^{}<\nu _c^{}\hfill \\ P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _c^{}\right)^{1/2}\hfill & \nu _c^{}\nu ^{}<\nu _m^{}\hfill \\ P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu _m^{}/\nu _c^{}\right)^{1/2}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _m^{}\right)^{p/2}\hfill & \nu ^{}\nu _m^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where

$$P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}n^{}\frac{P^{}(\gamma _e)}{\nu _{\mathrm{syn}}^{}(\gamma _e)}=\frac{8m_ec^2\sigma _T}{9\pi q_e}\beta ^2n^{}B^{}.$$
(23)
In the above equation, $`n^{}`$ should be replaced by $`n_{\mathrm{rel}}^{}`$ for the nonrelativistic regime.

For slow cooling, $`\gamma _c>\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, the emissivity is given by

$$P_\nu ^{}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _m^{}\right)^{1/3}\hfill & \nu ^{}<\nu _m^{}\hfill \\ P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _m^{}\right)^{(p1)/2}\hfill & \nu _m^{}\nu ^{}<\nu _c^{}\hfill \\ P_{\nu ^{},\mathrm{max}}^{}\left(\nu _c^{}/\nu _m^{}\right)^{(p1)/2}\left(\nu ^{}/\nu _c^{}\right)^{p/2}\hfill & \nu ^{}\nu _c^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
At very low frequencies, synchrotron self-absorption becomes important. In the comoving frame of the shocked gas, the absorption coefficient $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}`$ scales as $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}\nu ^{(p+4)/2}`$ for $`\nu ^{}>\nu _m^{}`$ and as $`\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}\nu ^{5/3}`$ for $`\nu ^{}<\nu _m^{}`$ (Waxman 1997a). We therefore write

$$\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}=H\nu ^{(p+4)/2},\nu ^{}>\nu _m^{},$$
(25)
where (Rybicki & Lightman 1979)

$$H\frac{\sqrt{3}q_e^3}{8\pi m_e}\left(\frac{3q_e}{2\pi m_e^3c^5}\right)^{p/2}(m_ec^2)^{p1}K\lambda B^{(p+2)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3p+2}{12}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3p+22}{12}\right)$$
(26)
and where $`\lambda =(1/2)_0^\pi (\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^{(p+2)/2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha d\alpha `$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)`$ is the Gamma function. For $`\nu ^{}<\nu _m^{}`$ we then use

$$\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}=H\nu _m^{(p+4)/2}\left(\frac{\nu ^{}}{\nu _m^{}}\right)^{5/3},\nu ^{}<\nu _m^{}.$$
(27)
Because $`\nu \alpha _\nu `$ is Lorentz invariant, the absorption coefficient in the rest frame of the unshocked gas is

$$\alpha _\nu =\gamma (1\beta \mu )\alpha _\nu ^{}^{}.$$
(28)
Equation (11) should then be modified to

$$F(\nu ,T)=2\times \frac{1+Z}{4\pi D^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\theta _0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r\left(\frac{1e^{\tau _\nu }}{\tau _\nu }\right)\frac{P^{}[\nu ^{},r,t]}{\gamma ^2(1\beta \mu )^2},$$
(29)
where $`\tau _\nu \alpha _\nu \times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the optical depth per unit frequency for synchrotron self-absorption across the shell thickness.

The external medium could be either the interstellar medium (ISM) of the host galaxy (Waxman 1997a,b) or a precurser wind that was ejected by the GRB progenitor (Chevalier & Li 1999; 2000). For a wind profile $`\rho =Ar^2`$, the distance between the source and the bullet is given by (Chevalier & Li 2000)

$$R_b=1.1\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{5.9}{\gamma _b}\right)^2E_{52}A_{}^1\mathrm{cm},$$
(30)
where $`\gamma _b`$ is the bullet Lorentz factor, $`E_{52}`$ is the equivalent isotropic energy release of the GRB in units of $`10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$, $`A=\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}/4\pi V_\mathrm{w}=5\times 10^{11}A_{}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^1`$, $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}`$ is the progenitor mass loss rate, and $`V_\mathrm{w}`$ is the wind velocity. $`A_{}=1`$ corresponds to $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}=10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`V_\mathrm{w}=1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The electron number density is given by, $`n=\rho /(\mu _em_p)`$. Also note that the energy input into the two jets is equal to $`E\times (\mathrm{\Theta }_b^2/2)`$.

If the external medium is the ISM, $`R_b`$ is given by (Granot, Piran, & Sari 1999)

$$R_b=5.53\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{3.65}{\gamma _b}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{E_{52}}{n_1}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{cm},$$
(31)
where $`n_1`$ is the ISM electron number density in units of $`1\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

## 3 NUMERICAL RESULTS

We have solved the equations of §2 for different values of the free parameters in our model. In the following, we show results for a standard case, and five variations on the values of its parameters. In the standard case 1, we adopt the parameter values, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b=0.1`$, $`E_{52}=1`$, $`\epsilon =0.1`$, $`ϵ_e=0.1`$, $`ϵ_B=0.1`$. We also adopt $`A_{}=1`$ and $`\mu _e=2`$ for the wind of a typical Wolf-Rayet star (Chevalier & Li 2000). Cases 2-5 also refer to a wind profile, but with a variation on one parameter in each case compared to the standard case. In case 2 we adopt a lower density wind with $`A_{}=0.4`$ (corresponding to $`V_\mathrm{w}=2500\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the same value of $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{w}=1\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$). In case 3 we adopt, $`E_{52}=10`$; in case 4, $`\epsilon =0.5`$; and in case 5, $`p=2.2`$. Finally, case 6 considers the ISM as the external medium with $`n_1=1`$ and $`\mu _e=1`$, and all other parameters the same as in the standard case.

In all cases, we start with $`\gamma _b=100`$, as appropriate for the afterglow phase. We show results only for the initial period during which $`\gamma _b1/\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$, since our model does not apply to later times when the lateral expansion of the bullet is important. Most of the initial kinetic energy of the bullet is dissipated in the ambient gas during this early period. In presenting our results we assume that the cosmological redshift of the source, $`Z_s1`$, because as it turns out, only nearby GRBs will produce sufficient bow-shock flux to be detectable.

The numerical results for all six cases are shown in Figure 3. We plot the spectrum of the emission from the bow shock, with the vertical axis being the luminosity per unit frequency ($`L_\nu =4\pi D^2F_\nu `$). The light curves appear to have similar features in all cases. At low frequencies, $`L_\nu \nu ^2`$ because of synchrotron self-absorption, while at high frequencies, $`L_\nu \nu ^{p/2}`$ due to efficient electron cooling. The primary peak in each lightcurve is located at the synchrotron self-absorption frequency (denoted as the peak frequency hereafter), while the second peak is located at the cooling frequency. Case 2 has a faster wind speed, hence a lower electron density than the standard case. Therefore, case 2 has lower peak luminosities and higher cooling frequencies. The observation time calculated in this case is also longer because it takes more time for the bullet to decelerate. Case 3 has a higher input energy than the standard case, but its peak luminosities are almost the same as those of the standard case. Also it has lower peak frequencies and higher cooling frequencies. This is caused by the fact that the bullet has more kinetic energy, and so its deceleration requires more time and a longer distance. As a result, the density of the wind is lower than that of the standard case when the bow shock emission is calculated. Case 4 assumes $`\epsilon =0.5`$, implying that more energy is deposited into the bow shock by the bullet. Compared to the standard case, this case has a higher peak luminosity and a lower cooling frequency. Case 5 assumes a lower value for $`p`$. Compared to the standard case, it has a somewhat lower peak luminosity and a higher peak frequency. Case 6 considers the ISM as the ambient medium, implying a much lower electron density than the standard case with a wind profile. Consequently, the peak luminosity and the peak frequency are lower, while the cooling frequency is higher. Also note that in this case the peak luminosity increases with time, in contrast to the standard case.

With these results at hand, we may now compare the thermal emission from the main supernova shock with the non-thermal emission from the GRB bow-shock in the optical regime. Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) have been used as “standard candles” because they all have similar light curves and peak absolute magnitudes. The absolute $`B`$-magnitude at maximum light ($`M_B`$) of typical SNe Ia is $`18.5`$ (Vaughan et al. 1995), corresponding to $`L_\nu 1.3\times 10^{28}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ at $`\nu =6.8\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Hz}`$. This is at least two orders of magnitude more luminous than the emission from the GRB bow-shock in our calculation. Type II supernovae can be generally divided into two relatively distinct sub-classes, SNe II-L (“linear”) and SNe II-P (“plateau”). The majority of SNe II-L have a nearly uniform peak absolute magnitude, though there are a few exceptionally luminous SNe II-L (Young & Branch 1989; Gaskell 1992; Filippenko 1997). The average $`M_B`$ of the majority of SNe II-L is $`16.5`$ (Gaskell 1992), corresponding to $`L_\nu 2\times 10^{27}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$. This is still more than one order of magnitude brighter than the emission from the GRB bow-shock. But if the emission from the bow-shock persists for a sufficiently long time (as in case 3 of our calculation), then it may exceed the thermal SNe II-L emission due to the decline in the supernova lightcurve. SNe II-P show a very wide dispersion in the distribution of their peak absolute magnitudes; i.e., $`M_B`$ spans the range from -14 to -20 (Young & Branch 1989), corresponding to $`L_\nu 2\times 10^{26}`$$`5\times 10^{28}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$. Thus, the less luminous SNe II-P (such as SN1987A), have peak luminosities in $`B`$-band which are comparable to the emission from the GRB bow-shock. Of course, GRBs may occur in a rare subset of supernovae that have very different optical luminosities than the typical values mentioned above.

The bow shock emission is more easily detectable at either radio or X-ray frequencies. At a frequency of $`5`$ GHz, most radio supernovae which reached their peak between 10 and 130 days had a peak spectral luminosity $`L_\nu `$ between $`10^{26}`$ and $`10^{27}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (Li & Chevalier 1999, Fig. 3). This peak luminosity is comparable to the bow shock emission in Figure 3 (except for case 5 with $`p=2.2`$, for which $`L_\nu 10^{25}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$). However, SN 1998bw, the most luminous radio supernova observed so far, reached after $`10\mathrm{days}`$ a peak luminosity of $`L_\nu 10^{29}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ at 5 GHz, which is about two order of magnitude brighter than our calculated bow-shock emission.

In the X-ray regime, the best studied case of Type II supernova SN 1993J, had a luminosity of $`3\times 10^{39}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.1-2.4 KeV band on day 7, corresponding to an average spectral luminosity of $`5.4\times 10^{21}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ at frequencies from $`2.4\times 10^{16}`$ to $`5.8\times 10^{17}\mathrm{Hz}`$. The X-ray flux from this supernova declined subsequently by $`44\%`$ in one month (Zimmermann et al. 1994; Fransson, Lundqvist & Chevalier 1996). These luminosities are an order of magnitude lower than the typical bow-shock emission shown in Figure 3 (except for case 6 which considers the ISM, where the two are comparable). X-ray emission has been detected within the first 100 days of a few other supernovae, such as SN 1980K, SN 1994I and SN 1998bw (see Table 1 in Pian 1999). SN 1980K had a luminosity of $`5\times 10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.2-4 KeV band on day 44 and SN 1994I had a luminosity of $`1.6\times 10^{38}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.1-2.4 KeV band between day 79 and day 85. Both of these luminosities are much fainter than the bow-shock emission we calculated. X-rays from the vicinity of SN 1998bw were first detected one day after the explosion, and had a luminosity of $`5\times 10^{40}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 2-10 KeV band (Pian 1999), corresponding to an average spectral luminosity of $`2.4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ at frequencies from $`4.8\times 10^{17}`$ to $`2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{Hz}`$. This is comparable to the bow-shock emission shown in Figure 3 (except for case 6 with the ISM), and so the X-ray emission from SN 1998bw could have resulted from a bow-shock around a jet. However, the association of the detected X-ray afterglow with SN1998bw is still not certain due to the localization uncertainties (Pian 1999). In both the radio and X-ray regimes, detection of the characteristic spectrum and time evolution of the bow shock lightcurve can in principle be used to separate it from the emission due to the main supernova shock.222Note that in principle, there could also be a contribution from reflected X-rays due to Compton scattering of the beamed GRB emission by the ambient gas (Madau, Blandford, & Rees 2000). However, for the explosion parameters and photon frequencies we consider here, this component appears to be negligible compared to the bow shock emission. Moreover, its decay with time is much faster than that of the bow shock component.

Finally. we would like to find the maximum distances out to which the bow shock emission would be detectable in the radio or X-ray regimes. In the radio regime, we adopt a detection threshold of 1 mJy at $`10\mathrm{GHz}`$. In the X-ray regime, we consider the sensitivity of the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO), corresponding to a flux limit of $`2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the 0.5-2 KeV band \[$`=(1.24.8)\times 10^{17}\mathrm{Hz}`$\] for an integration time of 130 ks (Giacconi et al. 2000). Obviously, this fiducial sensitivity can be improved with a longer integration time. The limiting distances corresponding to these detection thresholds are listed in Table 1. We find that at $`\nu =10^{10}\mathrm{Hz}`$ the bow shock emission can be detected out to $`60`$ Mpc when the total energy input to the jets is equal to $`5\times 10^{50}\mathrm{ergs}`$; in this case, the equivalent isotropic energy output of the GRB is $`10^{53}\mathrm{ergs}`$ corresponding to case 3 in the calculation. In the X-ray regime, detection is possible out to larger distances although there might be a problem of confusion with other sources at the arcsecond angular resolution of CXO.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

Beamed GRBs produce a bow shock in their gaseous environment, which emits non-thermal synchrotron radiation extending from radio to X-ray frequencies. We calculated the bow-shock luminosity from beamed GRBs in a precursor wind or ISM environments (see Fig. 3), during the first few weeks after the explosion. For typical parameters, we find that the bow shock emission from a jet with half-angle $`5^{}`$ is visible out to tens of Mpc in the radio and hundreds of Mpc in the X-rays (Table 1). We emphasize that the calculated bow shock luminosity is highly sensitive to the total hydrodynamic energy carried by the jets and the density of the ambient medium (see cases 2, 3 and 6 in Fig. 3).

The event rate for lines of sight outside the cones of the jet emission is larger by a factor of $`260(\mathrm{\Theta }_b/5^{})^2`$ than for lines of sight which detect the $`\gamma `$-ray burst itself and are constrained to pass through the jet. The rate of $`\gamma `$-ray events is estimated to be, $`2.5\times 10^8\mathrm{yr}^1`$ per $`L_{}`$ galaxy for isotropic emission (Wijers et al. 1998). The Virgo cluster has a total luminosity of $`430L_{}`$ (Woods & Loeb 1999) corresponding to a total event rate of $`3\times 10^3(\mathrm{\Theta }_b/5^{})^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$ out to a distance of $`20\mathrm{Mpc}`$. At larger distances, the mean density of $`L_{}`$ galaxies (Folkes et al. 1999) implies that during an observing period $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ there should be at least one event at a distance of $`D90\mathrm{Mpc}(\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}/10\mathrm{yr})^{1/3}(\mathrm{\Theta }_b/5^{})^{2/3}`$. These estimates and Table 1 imply that future radio and X-ray observations of SN remnants in the local universe can be used to test whether collimated GRBs are associated with SNe.

This work was supported in part by grants from the Israel-US BSF (BSF-9800343) and NSF (AST-9900877), and the NASA grant NAG5-7039.


format: text

text:
# Particle on a polygon: Quantum Mechanics

## I Introduction

The model of a particle bouncing off a circular constraint on a polygonal path was originally devised by Newton to motivate the concept of centripetal force associated with circular motion of the particle. It serves the precise purpose of highlighting the notion of a force continuously operating on the particle on a circle as the limiting case of motion on an inscribed polygon with the corners acting as force centers. However, the intuitive simplicity of the circle case has contributed to the consistent ignoring of Newton’s original model. Recently the problem has received some attention  mostly from the historical perspective. No quantum mechanical treatment of the problem is available in the literature. The quantum mechanics of the polygon model will be of much pedagogical value for introductory courses in quantum theory inasmuch as it is an illustration of the fact that the symmetry (the N-fold discrete rotational symmetry in the present case) of a problem is fully reflected in the wavefunction.

In this work we first reduce the Lagrangian for the system by using the constraint equation and then use a suitable generalized coordinate to bring the Hamiltonian to the free particle form. The resulting eigenvalues are shown to reduce to those of a particle on a circle in the limit as the number of sides $`N\mathrm{}`$ and to those of a particle in an infinite potential well in the $`N=2`$ case.

## II The Classical Hamiltonian

We begin by constructing the full Lagrangian for a particle of unit mass constrained to move on an $`N`$-sided regular polygon. The $`N`$-gon can be parametrized by

$$r=bsec(\xi (2m1)\pi /N),\frac{2(m1)\pi }{N}\xi \frac{2m\pi }{N}$$
(1)
where $`m=1,\mathrm{}N`$ labels the sides of the polygon. As shown in Fig. 1, $`b=acos(\pi /N)`$ is the length of the normal from the center of the circumcircle (of radius $`a`$) to the side. The length of a side is then given by $`c=2asin(\pi /N)`$.

The Lagrangian will be given by

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2+\frac{1}{2}r^2\dot{\xi }^2+\lambda (rbsec(\xi (2m1)\pi /N))$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is a Lagrange multiplier implementing the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=rbsec(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)=0$$
(3)
To reduce the Lagrangian to the only relevant degree of freedom i.e., $`\xi `$, we employ the constraint directly to bring it to the form

$$L_r=\frac{1}{2}b^2sec^4(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)\dot{\xi }^2$$
(4)
The momentum conjugate to the coordinate $`\xi `$ is

$$P_\xi =L_r/\dot{\xi }=b^2sec^4(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)\dot{\xi }.$$
(5)
Finally, the classical reduced Hamiltonian is given by

$$H(\xi )=\frac{P_\xi ^2}{2b^2}cos^4(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)$$
(6)
## III Quantization

A closer look at the Hamiltonian Eq. 6 reveals that if we introduce a new generalized coordinate

$$q=btan(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)$$
(7)
it reduces to the simple free particle form

$$H(q)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{q}^2$$
(8)
Following the usual Schrödinger prescription for quantization, the quantum canonical momentum is $`P_q=i\mathrm{}/q=\mathrm{}k`$. The Hamiltonian is therefore the usual free particle Schrodinger operator

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\frac{^2}{q^2}.$$
(9)
A more formal approach to the quantization of such a Hamiltonian Eq. 6 would be to construct the Laplace-Beltrami operator in terms of the properly constructed quantum momentum operator . We emphasize that the same quantum Hamiltonian is obtained by this procedure also.

The free particle solutions are now given by the plane waves

$$\psi (q)=Ae^{\pm ikq}$$
(10)
Reverting back to the $`\xi `$ variable we have

$$\psi _m(\xi )=Ae^{ikbtan(\xi (2m1)\pi /N)}$$
(11)
for the wavefunction in the $`m^{th}`$ side. The normalization is obtained from

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{2(m1)\pi /N}^{2m\pi /N}|\psi _m(\xi )|^2𝑑\xi =1$$
(12)
whence $`A=1/\sqrt{2\pi }`$.

The boundary condition following from the singlevaluedness of the wavefunction

$$\psi _1(\xi =0)=\psi _N(\xi =2\pi )$$
(13)
leads to the quantization condition

$`kbtan(\pi /N)`$ $`=`$ $`n\pi `$ (14)
$`or`$ (15)
$`kasin(\pi /N)`$ $`=`$ $`n\pi `$ (16)
The energy eigenvalues are now given by

$$E_n=\frac{n^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2a^2sin^2(\pi /N)}.$$
(17)
We note that the above quantization conditions are also obtained by considering symmetric and antisymmetric solutions about the midpoint of a side, $`\xi =(2m1)\pi /N`$ namely,

$$\psi _m^s(\xi )=A_scos(kbtan(\xi (2m1)\pi /N))$$

and

$$\psi _m^a(\xi )=A_asin(kbtan(\xi (2m1)\pi /N))$$

and imposing the periodic boundary conditions

$$\psi _m^{s,a}(\xi )=\psi _{m+1}^{s,a}(\xi +2\pi /N).$$

In Fig. 2 we show the solutions for a hexagon ($`N=6`$).

## IV The Circle ($`N\mathrm{}`$) Limit

The familiar example of a particle moving on a circle would correspond to the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ for the polygon model. In this limit, as each side of the polygon reduces to just a point, it is necessary to redefine the conjugate variables as $`\varphi =N\xi `$ for the angle variable and $`l=ka/N`$ for the angular momentum in units of $`\mathrm{}`$. We see that the eigenvalues now become $`E_n=n^2\mathrm{}^2/2a^2`$ and the eigenfunctions reduce to the well known solutions $`\psi (\varphi )=Ae^{\pm in\varphi }`$ for a free particle on a circle.

## V The Infinite Potential Well ($`N=2`$) Case

In the interesting case of $`N=2`$, classically the polygon reduces to just a segment of length $`2a`$ traversed in both directions as discussed very lucidly by Anicin . Quantum mechanically this is equivalent to a particle confined in an infinite potential well of width $`2a`$. Indeed, the eigenvalue equation Eq. 17 reduces to the familiar eigenvalues

$$E_n=\frac{n^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{8a^2}.$$
(18)
Note that in the above we have effected the replacement of wavevector $`k`$ by $`k/2`$ to take care of the two-fold reflection symmetry which is inherent in the reduction of the polygon to the segment of length $`2a`$. We remark that since the parameterization Eq. 1 of the polygon does not survive down to the $`N=2`$ case for obvious reasons, the eigenfunctions cannot be expressed in terms of the variable $`q`$ or $`\xi `$. The eigenvalue equation Eq. 17, nevertheless, is robust and gives the true eigenvalues.

## VI Summary

We have quantized Newton’s polygon model and derived the general eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. We have recovered the quantum mechanics in the circle limit of the polygon. Moreover, the energy eigenvalues for the $`N=2`$ case have been identified with those of a particle in an infinite potential well. In the light of the above results it would be interesting exercise for students of introductory courses on quantum mechanics to look into the polygon analogues of the well studied problems of Stark effect for rotor, Aharonov-Bohm effect for a particle on a circle etc..

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions with V. V. Shenoi, and J. Kamila. One of the authors (RKP) would like to thank the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, for hospitality where a part of the work was carried out.


text:
# The beryllium abundance in the very metal-poor halo star G 64–12 from VLT/UVES observationsBased on observations taken during the Science Verification of UVES at the VLT/Kueyen telescope, European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile

## 1 Introduction

The knowledge of lithium, beryllium, and boron in stars play a major role in our understanding of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, cosmic–ray physics, and stellar interiors. Lithium (together with D and He) is a key element to probe the Big Bang nucleosynthesis scenario, because most of 7Li is primordially produced. On the contrary, $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}_{}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}_{}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{10,11}\mathrm{B}_{}^{}`$ (with a possible contribution to $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{B}_{}^{}`$ from $`\nu `$-spallation in supernovae being still under debate) were suggested to originate primarily from spallation reactions in the interstellar medium (ISM) between cosmic-ray (CR) $`\alpha `$-particles and protons and heavy nuclei like carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen (Reeves et al. reeves70 (1970)). The production rate of any of these three light elements is then proportional to the product of the abundance of CNO (proportional to the number of supernovae, NSN) and the CR flux (assumed to be proportional to the supernovae rate). A slope of two in the logarithmic plane $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}_{}^{}`$,$`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}_{}^{}`$,$`{}_{}{}^{10}\mathrm{B}_{}^{}`$ vs O is thus expected. If \[O/Fe\] in metal-poor halo stars is constant, then this same slope holds vs Fe as well.
On these premises, the picture emerging from the first systematic analyses of Be and B in stars of the Galactic halo and disk from high resolution data clearly challenged this scenario: both elements scale almost linearly, and not quadratically with metallicity from the early Galactic epochs up to now (e.g. Molaro et al. molaro97 (1997), Boesgaard et al. 1999b  for Be; Duncan et al. duncan97 (1997), Primas et al. fp99 (1999) for B). Such finding has been interpreted as an indication for a primary (instead of secondary) origin of Be and B, that in turn may imply the need for a production mechanism independent of the metallicity in the ISM. Although the most recent theoretical scenarios (which seem to converge towards the proximity of supernovae as one of the most likely and efficient sites for Be and B production) are able to reproduce the observed abundance levels and trends, new observational inputs are still in high demand in order to further constrain the models. The evolution/behavior of Be at the lowest metallicities, the presence and magnitude of scatter (if any), the presence and location of a possible change of slope along the trend, and a successful solution of the oxygen dilemma (high or flat) in the Galactic halo are some of the still missing inputs.
With this Letter, we aim at adding a new tile to the field of light elements evolution, presenting the first beryllium detection in a star characterized by a metallicity well below one thousandth solar (\[Fe/H\]=$``$3.3), the halo star G 64–12. Our newly determined \[Be/Fe\] ratio will be compared to previous observational analyses in low metallicity stars and confronted with different theoretical suggestions.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

A total of 6 hours integration time (cf Table 1 for more details) were devoted to G 64–12 (V=11.45 mag), during the Science Verification of UVES (February 10–18, 2000).
The target was observed in Dichroic mode, and the six hours were splitted in four exposures of $``$ 90 min each: two with the standard Dichroic #1 setting and two with a slightly modified Dichroic #1 setting. All the spectra were observed with a slit of 0.8”, corresponding to nominal resolving powers of 48 000 in the blue and 55 000 in the red, later confirmed by the Thorium-Argon calibration frames. The spectra were reduced within the MIDAS UVES context. First, bias and inter-order background were subtracted from both science and flat-field frames, then the object was optimally extracted, divided by the flat-field (extracted with the same weighted profile as the star), $`\lambda `$-calibrated and the extracted orders merged. All the spectra were then registered for barycentric radial velocity shifts, co-added, and normalized. An independent check was performed using standard IRAF tasks for echelle spectra reduction, which produced the same final product. The S/N ratio achieved at the Be II resonance doublet on the final spectrum (cf Fig. 1) is 130 per pixel.

## 3 Stellar Parameters

Using the Infrared Flux Method, Alonso et al. (alonso96 (1996)) derived $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6470\pm 90`$ K for G 64–12. This is considerably higher than the value of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$= 6220 K determined by Ryan et al. (ryan99 (1999)) from several colour indices using the “low” $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale of Magain (magain87 (1987)). It should be noted, however, that Ryan et al. adopt a negligible low interstellar reddening of G 64–12, whereas the Strömgren $`uvby`$-$`\beta `$ photometry as given in their Table 1 suggests a reddening $`E(by)=0.023`$ corresponding to $`E(BV)0.03`$. Correcting the colour indices for this reddening would increase the Ryan et al. temperature to about 6360 K. We conclude that the effective temperature of G 64–12 is quite uncertain; depending on the adopted reddening and the zero-point of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale, one derives values between 6200 and 6500 K. However, fitting of the H$`\alpha `$ wings indicates a temperature closer to the higher end of the considered range of values ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$ 6400 K).
The Hipparcos parallax of G 64–12 ($`\pi =1.88\pm 2.90`$ mas) is too uncertain to be used to derive the surface gravity of the star. We note, however, that the position of G 64–12 in the $`(by)_0c_0`$ diagram (see Ryan et al. ryan99 (1999), Fig. 3) is similar to that of HD 84937. Using the absolute magnitude calibration of Nissen & Schuster (nissen91 (1991)), $`M_V3.6`$ is derived for both stars. Hence, the gravity of G 64–12 must be close to that of HD 84937 (log $`g`$= 4.1) as derived from its Hipparcos parallax (Nissen et al. nissen97 (1997)). Altogether, we estimate that the gravity of G 64–12 lies in the range log $`g`$= 3.9 - 4.3.
The metallicity of G 64–12 was derived from equivalent widths of 22 Fe i lines in the spectral region 480 - 560 nm. The lines are weak ($`2<EW<30`$ mÅ), but the EW’s are very reliable due to the high S/N. Adopting $`gf`$-values from O’Brian et al. (obrian91 (1991)) and using a 1D model atmosphere with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 6400, \[Fe/H\] = $`3.28\pm 0.08`$ dex is derived. Allowing for the possible range of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (6300 - 6500 K), \[Fe/H\] = $`3.28\pm 0.10`$.
It is worth noticing that the same procedure applied to 5 Fe ii lines yields a somewhat lower iron content \[Fe/H\] = $`3.42\pm 0.10`$. Though this would be in principle our preferred metallicity indicator (Fe ii lines are much less sensitive to NLTE corrections), the gf-values of these lines are not very accurately known. Four out of five are listed in the compilation by Kroll & Kock (kk87 (1987)), and all five are found in the work by Moity (moity83 (1983)). Unfortunately, there is a systematic difference of $``$0.20 dex between these two investigations (Moity’s values being lower). This has some consequences on the final iron abundance derived from these (few) lines, and certainly has a non-negligible effect on the derivation of log $`g`$ from the ionization balance. We ran a few tests and reached the ionization balance for log $`g`$=4.3 if mean gf-values were adopted, and for log $`g`$=4.1 if Moity’s values were used. These results, together with the paucity of Fe ii lines, made us decide to keep log $`g`$= 4.1 $`\pm `$ 0.2 as our final choice for the analysis.

## 4 Abundance Analysis Highlights

The analysis of the beryllium spectral region was performed via spectrum synthesis. For this purpose, we adopted a model atmosphere computed with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 6400 K, log $`g`$= 4.1, and \[Fe/H\] = $``$3.3. Microturbulence was assumed to be 1.5 km s-1.
The 1D spectrum synthesis analysis was carried out with Kurucz model atmospheres and SYNTHE (Kurucz kur93 (1993)). The model was convolved with a Gaussian function of FWHM = 6.7 km s-1 (which combines instrument, rotation and macroturbulence broadenings), and was computed with the $`\alpha `$-elements enhanced by +0.4 dex and with the “approximate overshooting” option switched off. The solar abundances were taken from the compilation of Grevesse & Sauval (gs98 (1998)). The list of lines necessary to synthesize the near-UV spectral region is the one tested by Primas et al. (fp97 (1997)).
Additionally a time-dependent 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere with parameters appropriate for G 64–12 has been constructed, with the same 3D, compressible, radiative-hydrodynamics code which has previously been successfully used for studies of solar and stellar convection (e.g. Stein & Nordlund sn98 (1998); Asplund et al. asp99 (1999), asp00 (2000)). The equations of mass, momentum and energy coupled to the 3D radiative transfer equation (which includes the effects of line-blanketing) have been solved on a Eulerian mesh with $`100\times 100\times 82`$ zones covering $`21\times 21\times 8.5`$ Mm. For the 3D LTE spectrum synthesis, a representative sequence of 1 hr stellar time with snapshots every 1 min was selected; the temporal average of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the sequence is $`6460\pm 27`$ K, i.e. very close to the value indicated by the IRFM method. It is noteworthy that no free parameters like mixing length parameters, micro- and macroturbulence enter the construction of 3D model atmospheres or spectral synthesis, as the time-dependent convective motions and inhomogeneities are self-consistently calculated. In order to quantify the systematic errors introduced when relying on 1D analyses, a strictly differential comparison of the 3D predictions have been carried out with a corresponding MARCS model (Gustafsson et al. gustf75 (1975)) with the same parameters and input data (Asplund et al. asp97 (1997)).

### 4.1 On other Elemental Abundances

Because of the large spectral coverage (see Table 1), all the most commonly studied elements ($`\alpha `$, iron-group, heavy) are accessible from the observed spectrum of G 64–12. Although the complete abundance analysis of G 64–12 is beyond the scope of this work, some of the elements most relevant to it deserve mentioning.
$`\alpha `$-elements: we checked the abundance of magnesium and calcium in order to test how representative G 64–12 is of the population of the very metal-deficient stars. From the equivalent widths measured for two Mg ib lines and four Ca i lines we derive \[Mg/Fe\] = +0.43 $`\pm `$ 0.03 dex and \[Ca/Fe\] = +0.48 $`\pm `$ 0.07 dex, ı.e. “normal” and in good agreement with what can be found in the literature.
Oxygen (from OH lines): the same spectral region where the Be ii doublet falls is also very rich in OH molecular lines, which represent one of the few oxygen abundance indicators available to spectroscopists. Our 1D LTE spectrum synthesis analysis suggests \[O/Fe\] = +1.1, similarly to what found by Israelian et al. (isr98 (1998)) and Boesgaard et al. (1999a ) using the same abundance indicator and for stars of comparable metallicity. Our finding is also in agreement with the recent oxygen determination made by Israelian et al. (isr2000 (2000)) in the same star. However, due to severe systematic errors affecting the near-UV OH lines in metal-poor stars, we prefer not to adopt this value. We suspect that the oxygen abundance derived from the UV OH lines is in error, being affected by metallicity dependent 3D and/or NLTE effects (Asplund et al. asp99 (1999)). A future analysis of Be in a larger sample of stars will deal with this issue (Primas et al., in preparation).
Lithium: the S/N ratio achieved around the Li i line at 670.8 nm is $``$ 300. Our measurement of the Li i 670.8nm equivalent width gives EW = 22.2 $`\pm `$ 0.5 mÅ, in agreement with the value published by Ryan et al. (ryan99 (1999), EW = 21.2 $`\pm `$ 1.1 mÅ). The lithium abundance derived is A(Li) = 2.23 $`\pm `$ 0.01 dex. The difference with Ryan et al. (ryan99 (1999)) value (A(Li) = 2.14 $`\pm `$ 0.03 dex) can be explained by the difference in adopted temperatures.

## 5 The Beryllium Abundance and Its Uncertainty

The best-fit synthesis of the Be ii doublet is achieved with $`\mathrm{log}`$ N(Be/H)= $`13.20`$ for the 313.0 nm line, and with $`\mathrm{log}`$ N(Be/H)= $`13.10`$ for the 313.1 nm line. Being both lines well resolved, equal weights were assigned. The beryllium abundance thus derived using Kurucz 1D LTE model atmosphere is $`\mathrm{log}`$ N(Be/H)= $`13.15\pm 0.15`$ dex, significantly higher than what is expected from extrapolating the previously observed trends to these low metallicities (under the assumption that the Be abundance keeps decreasing). The magnitude of the error-bar assigned to our measurement mainly comes from the dependence of the beryllium abundance on changes in the stellar parameters. In order of importance, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Be = $`\pm `$0.1 dex for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{log }g=\pm 0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Be = $`\pm `$0.04 dex for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\pm 100K`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Be = $`\pm `$ 0.03 dex for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\[Fe/H\] = $`\pm 0.1`$ dex. To these values (to be summed in quadrature) one has to add the dependence of Be on the placement of the continuum. This uncertainty in such metal-poor star is estimated to be $`\pm `$1% at most, implying a variation in Be of $`\pm `$0.05 dex. Fig. 2 shows an enlarged view of the Be doublet, with our 1D LTE best-fit synthesis, and two others computed with $`\pm `$ 0.15 dex variation in the Be content, which demonstrate our detection and measurement accuracy.

As expected, the predicted Be ii line strengths with the 3D model atmosphere are quite similar to the 1D case, because the lines are formed in the deep atmospheric layers due to the lines being very weak and coming from the majority ionized species. Assuming LTE, the abundance correction derived by using 3D hydrodynamical model atmospheres is only 0.03 dex for Be ii 313.1 in G 64–12, in the sense that the 1D abundance should be corrected upwards with 0.03 dex. It should be emphasized that the 1D-3D comparison has been done strictly differentially. The quoted differences are therefore estimates of the systematic errors due to the adopted model atmospheres one can expect when using a 1D analysis, regardless of whether Kurucz or MARCS model atmospheres have been used.
Although the above-mentioned 3D effects are small, it should be borne in mind that these estimates assume LTE and there is no guarantee that the same will be true for NLTE. Recent improved 1D NLTE calculations appropriately done for G 64-12 with a very extended Be atom (71 levels compared to the 9 used by Garcìa Lòpez et al. garcia95 (1995)), find some small but significant NLTE effects. In terms of abundance, the NLTE abundance is 0.07 dex larger than the LTE result. In spite of the similarity with the LTE result, it should be noted that the line formation for the Be ii lines is far from being in LTE, since the dominant NLTE effects – over-ionization and over-excitation – have opposite influence on the line strength and thus the effects partly cancel. This may suggest that for some other stellar parameters the NLTE effects could be significantly larger. The details of the 1D NLTE calculations for Be ii appropriate for a range of stellar parameters will be presented elsewhere (Garcìa Perez et al., in preparation). It also remains to be investigated whether the steep temperature gradients and inhomogeneities in 3D model atmospheres may drive more pronounced departures from LTE, similar to recent calculations for Li and O (Asplund & Carlsson aspc00 (2000); Asplund et al., in preparation).

## 6 The \[Be/Fe\] ratio

Our claim to have detected a significantly higher beryllium abundance in G 64–12 (compared to other low metallicity stars) can be more clearly seen when our new (1D LTE, for consistency with the rest of the sample) determination is plotted in a $`\mathrm{log}`$ N(Be/H) vs. \[Fe/H\] graph (cf Fig. 3a) together with carefully selected literature data of similar quality. All the data shown in Fig. 3 (both panels) had their Be abundances computed assuming a “high” $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale, hence consistent with what we did.

Extrapolating the Boesgaard et al. (1999b ) Be vs Fe relation at lower metallicities, our 1D LTE Be value is 0.6 dex higher (using their single line fit) or 0.8 dex higher (using their double line fit), regardless of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ scale adopted. One may also compare G 64–12 to BD$``$04 °3208 (similar $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and log $`g`$ but a factor of 10 higher metallicity, cf Boesgaard et al. 1999b ) and note that their Be contents differ by a factor of 3 only (instead of the expected factor of 10, should Be and Fe grow at the same rate). From our measurements we also infer \[Be/Fe\] = 2.15 $`\pm `$ 0.19, which is at least 0.5 dex off the average trend (Fig. 3b). Although we must say that G 64–12, together with the recent Be detection in LP 815–43 (\[Fe/H\] = $``$2.95, open triangle in Fig. 3; cf Primas et al. fp00 (2000)), gives more weight to the hypothesis of a possible flattening of the Be trend at the lowest metallicities, at the moment, the interpretation of our new result is not straightforward.
According to Vangioni-Flam et al. (vf98 (1998)), the finding of high Be abundances in stars with metallicity below \[Fe/H\] = $``$3.0 may favor shock acceleration in the gaseous phase of superbubbles produced by collective SNII explosions as the main mechanism of Be production. This, in turn, implies that the major role is played by the most massive stars only (say, with initial mass M $``$ 60M).
According to the Parizot & Drury (pd00 (1999)) scenario, a double trend of Be vs O (and Fe) is expected depending on if the star formed inside a superbubble (hence with a high Be content due to the effect of collective SN explosions) or outside. In this case, we cannot exclude the possibility that G 64–12 may be representative of the “high” trend, whereas other previously studied very metal-deficient stars (like BD$``$13°3442, for instance, Boesgaard et al. 1999b ) formed out of gas outside a superbubble. In order to test this hypothesis, new detections of beryllium in this challenging metallicity range are needed.
One last possibility that should not be underestimated is the effect due to 3D and NLTE corrections. As previously stated, NLTE corrections have usually been assumed to be negligible, but they could be important for different combinations of stellar parameters. The future results of Garcìa Perez et al. work will shed light on this issue.

## 7 Conclusions

We have presented a new analysis of the near-UV part of the spectrum of G 64–12 with the aim of studying its beryllium content. The high quality of this UVES (Science Verification) spectrum has led to a clear detection of beryllium. This is the first measurement of Be in a star of such low metal content (\[Fe/H\] = $``$3.3). We have performed our analysis with 1D LTE model atmospheres, but introduced the novelty of correcting it for both 3D and non-LTE effects. Hence, our final 3D NLTE Be abundance is $`\mathrm{log}`$ N(Be/H) = $`13.05\pm 0.15`$. We have shown that when compared in a consistent manner to previous high quality literature data, the Be abundance here detected is significantly higher than what expected. The strength of the OH molecular lines is comparable to what observed in other stars of similar metallicity, thus excluding the possibility that the high Be content measured in G 64–12 may be somehow related to an abnormally high O content. Furthermore, our measurement disagrees with the statement of a parallel (i.e. same rate) increase of Be and Fe, which, in turn, suggests a flattening or the presence of dispersion at given metallicity in the Be vs Fe trend during the early evolutionary phases of our Galaxy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the Science Operations (on Paranal) and the UVES Science Verification Teams for the efforts devoted to taking the observations and releasing the data to the ESO member states. A. Garcìa Perez is thanked for making available to us her first results on new NLTE Be calculations, as well as E. Depagne for checking the H$`\alpha `$ fitting procedure. An anonymous referee is thanked for the quick report and the positive comments.


text:
# Quantum Groups and Von Neumann Theorem

## 1 Introduction

The von Neumann theorem in Quantum Mechanics (QM) states that for systems with finite number of degrees of freedom the representations of the canonical commutation relations (ccr), also called the Weyl representations, are each other unitarily equivalent. In the limit of infinite number of degrees of freedom, namely in Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the space of physical states splits into unitarily inequivalent representations. Thus in QFT, contrarily to QM, one has to single out the appropriate representation to properly describe the system under study: different, i.e. unitarily inequivalent, representations describe different physical situations. Typical examples are the ones related with spontaneous breakdown of symmetry where different $`phases`$ are described by different representations, e.g. the superconducting phase and the normal phase are described by states belonging to orthogonal (unitarily inequivalent) Hilbert spaces: the Bogoliubov transformations in superconductivity are (non-unitary) canonical transformations which relate such different representations (of course, one works at finite volume where the transformations are formally well defined and at the end of the computations one goes to the infinite volume limit).

In QFT the representations of the ccr may be generally labelled by some physically significant parameter, e.g. in spontaneously broken symmetry theories different values of the order parameter are associated to different representations; in thermal field theories temperature labels inequivalent representations; in the case of dissipative systems the label is the time variable which thus play the role of a parameter.

In this paper our purpose is to show that $`q`$-deformations of the Weyl-Heisenberg algebra ($`q`$-WH) do indeed introduce a labelling of the Weyl representations in QM and of the inequivalent representations in QFT, the label being the $`q`$-deformation parameter.

The fact that $`q`$-WH algebra is in this way associated with the foliation of the space of the states in QFT is remarkable since some ligth may thus be shed on the physical meaning of the deformation parameter in view of the physical content of the representations; moreover, $`q`$-parametrization may signal the presence of some finite spacing in the theory since $`q`$-WH algebra has been shown to be related with systems characterized by some finite (space or time) scale. The relation of inequivalent representations with $`q`$-WH algebra is also interesting from the mathematical point of view since the rich mathematical structure underlying $`q`$-algebras is thus recognized to underly QFT, too.

The properties of $`q`$-algebras will not be discussed in this paper; we simply remind that they are deformations of the enveloping algebras of Lie algebras and have Hopf algebra structure. In particular, the $`q`$-WH algebra has the properties of Hopf superalgebra. The interest in $`q`$-algebras arose in non-linear dynamical systems as well as in statistical mechanics, in conformal theories, in solid state physics, etc.. $`q`$-WH algebra has been studied in the framework of the entire analytic functions theory and has been related with theta functions and with Bloch functions. In ref.  $`q`$-WH algebra has ben related with dissipative systems in QFT and with thermal field theories.

In order to show that the $`q`$-deformation parameter labels the inequivalent representations in QFT, we need first to study the Weyl representations and the von Neumann theorem in QM; this is done in the following section 2. The realization of $`q`$-WH algebra in terms of finite difference operators and its relation with the generator of Bogoliubov transformations are presented in section 3. The parametrization of the Weyl representations by the $`q`$-parameter and its extension to the infinite volume limit in QFT is finally established in section 4.

## 2 The von Neumann uniqueness theorem

In this section we present the general formalism to introduce von Neumann theorem in QM and we show how to parametrize the representations of the ccr.

Let us consider a system of $`M`$ degrees of freedom. By setting $`\mathrm{}=1`$, the position and the momentum operators are introduced as usual in the Schrödinger representations as $`\widehat{x}_jx_j`$ and $`\widehat{p}_ji\frac{d}{dx_j}`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, respectively, with commutation relations

$$[\widehat{x}_j,\widehat{p}_k]=i\delta _{j,k},[\widehat{x}_j,\widehat{x}_k]=0,[\widehat{p}_j,\widehat{p}_k]=0,j,k$$
(1)
The operators of creation and annihilation are

$$c_j\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{x}_j+i\widehat{p}_j),c_j^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{x}_ji\widehat{p}_j),$$
(2)
with commutators

$$[c_j,c_k^{}]=\delta _{j,k},[c_j,c_k]=0,[c_j^{},c_k^{}]=0,j,k$$
(3)
As well known, since $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are unbounded operators, it is necessary to introduce the $`Weylsystem`$ of unitary operators

$$U(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _j\widehat{p}_j\right),V(\beta )\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\beta _j\widehat{x}_j\right)$$
(4)
with $`\alpha ,\beta ^M,\alpha (\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _M),\beta (\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _M)`$. The ccr (1) (and (3)) are then represented by

$$U(\alpha )U(\alpha ^{})=U(\alpha +\alpha ^{}),V(\beta )V(\beta ^{})=U(\beta +\beta ^{}),U(\alpha )V(\beta )=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha \beta }V(\beta )U(\alpha )$$
(5)
In terms of the Weyl operators $`W(z)`$,

$$W(z)W(\alpha +i\beta )=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha \beta }V(\sqrt{2}\alpha )U(\sqrt{2}\beta )$$
(6)
with the complex variable $`z\alpha +i\beta 𝒞^M`$, eqs. (5) lead to

$$W(z_1)W(z_2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iIm(z_1^{}z_2)\right)W(z_1+z_2)$$
(7)
In the transition from QM to QFT, i.e. from finite to infinite number of degrees of freedom, one must operate on the complex linear space $`_C=+i`$, instead of working on $`𝒞^M`$. Here $``$ denotes a real linear space of square-integrable functions $`f`$; we will denote by $`F=f+ig`$ , $`f,g`$ , the elements of $`_C`$. The scalar product $`F_1,F_2`$ in $`_C`$ is defined through the scalar product $`(f,g)`$ in $``$ :

$$F_1,F_2(f_1+ig_1,f_2+ig_2)=(f_1,f_2)+(g_1,g_2)+i[(f_1,g_2)(f_2,g_1)]$$
(8)
In QFT the Weyl operators and their algebra (6) and (7) become

$`W(F)W(f+ig)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i(f,g)}V(\sqrt{2}f)U(\sqrt{2}g)`$
$`W(F_1)W(F_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(iImF_1,F_2\right)W(F_1+F_2)`$ (9)
We stress that the use of complex linear space $`_C`$ in QFT is required to smear out spatial integrations of field operators by means of test functions $`f`$.

The von Neumann uniqueness theorem in QM can be now stated as follows : Each Weyl system with finite number $`M`$ of degrees of freedom is unitarily equivalent to the Schrödinger representation. Each reducible Weyl system with finite number $`M`$ of degrees of freedom is the direct sum of irreducible representations; hence it is a multiple of the Schrödinger representation.

We observe that unitarily equivalence among the Weyl systems is lost in the limit of infinite number of degrees of freedom, $`M\mathrm{}`$: thus in QFT the Weyl systems provide unitarily inequivalent representations of the ccr.

Let us consider now the problem of labelling each Weyl system in a way to preserve the Weyl algebra. To this aim we consider the following transformations

$$\alpha _i\rho \alpha _i,\beta _i\frac{1}{\rho }\beta _i,i=1,2,\rho 0$$
(10)
These are canonical transformations since $`Im(z_1^{}z_2)`$ is left invariant under them and the Weyl algebra (6) is therefore preserved:

$$W^{(\rho )}(z_1)W^{(\rho )}(z_2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iIm(z_1z_2)\right)W^{(\rho )}(z_1+z_2),\rho 0$$
(11)
where $`W^{(\rho )}(z)W(\rho \alpha +i\frac{1}{\rho }\beta )`$. We thus conclude that the transformation parameter $`\rho `$ labels the Weyl systems.

In QFT, i.e. for $`M\mathrm{}`$, we use the canonical transformations

$`g_j\rho g_j,f_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}f_j,\rho 0`$
$`ImF_1,F_2ImF_1,F_2`$ (12)
and, in such a limit, the representations $`W^{(\rho )}(F),W^{(\rho ^{})}(F),\rho \rho ^{}`$, are each other unitarily inequivalent.

## 3 $`q`$-Weyl-Heisenberg algebra

In this section we establish the relation between the $`q`$-WH algebra and the Bogoliubov transformations to be used in section 4.

From now on, for simplicity we limit ourself to one degree of freedom ($`M=1`$); extension to many (finite) degrees of freedom is straightforward. Let us consider the Weyl-Heisenberg (WH) algebra realized in terms of the set of operators $`\{a,a,N\}`$, with relations:

$$[a,a^{}]=\text{II},[N,a]=a,[N,a^{}]=a^{}$$
(13)
The $`q`$-deformation of the WH ($`q`$-WH) algebra realized in terms of the set of operators $`\{a_q,\widehat{a}_q,N_qN;q=\mathrm{e}^ϵ𝒞\}`$, with $`a_qa,\widehat{a}_qa^{}`$ as $`q1`$, is

$$[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]=q^N,[N,a_q]=a_q,[N,\widehat{a}_q]=\widehat{a}_q$$
(14)
Since in our study of the $`q`$-deformation we want to preserve the analytic properties of the Lie algebra structure, it is useful to work with the space $``$ of the (entire) analytical functions. We therefore will adopt the Fock-Bargmann representation (FBR) where the operators

$$a^{}\zeta ,a\frac{d}{d\zeta },N\zeta \frac{d}{d\zeta },\zeta 𝒞$$
(15)
provide a realization of the WH algebra (13). The $`q`$-WH algebra (14)is realized by the operators

$$\widehat{a}_q\zeta ,a_q𝒟_q,N\zeta \frac{d}{d\zeta }$$
(16)
with the finite difference operator $`𝒟_q`$ (also called the $`q`$-derivative operator) defined by

$$𝒟_qf(\zeta )=\frac{f(q\zeta )f(\zeta )}{(q1)\zeta },q1,f$$
(17)
Clearly, eq. (17) gives the usual derivative in the limit of the deformation parameter $`ϵ`$ going to zero (or $`q1`$), and in the same limit the FBR (15) is obtained from (16). One readily obtains

$$[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]f(\zeta )=q^Nf(\zeta )=f(q\zeta ),f$$
(18)
The $`q`$-deformation of the WH algebra is therefore strictly related with the finite difference operator $`𝒟_q`$ ($`q1`$). This suggests to us that the $`q`$-deformation of the operator algebra should arise in the presence of lattice or discrete structures.

In terms of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}^{}`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{\zeta }+i\widehat{p}_\zeta ),\stackrel{~}{c}^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{\zeta }i\widehat{p}_\zeta )$$
(19)
with $`\widehat{p}_\zeta =i\frac{d}{d\zeta }`$ and usual ccr, we have

$$\zeta \frac{d}{d\zeta }f(\zeta )=\left[\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{c}^2\stackrel{~}{c}^2)\frac{1}{2}\right]f(\zeta ),f$$
(20)
and, in $``$,

$$[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]=q^N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ϵ}{2}(\stackrel{~}{c}^2\stackrel{~}{c}^2)\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}S(ϵ),q0$$
(21)
Eq. (21) shows that, for $`ϵ`$ , $`\sqrt{q}[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]S(ϵ)`$ is the generator of the Bogoliubov transformation

$`\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}(ϵ)=S^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{c}S(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}coshϵ\stackrel{~}{c}^{}sinhϵ`$
$`\stackrel{~}{c}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}^{}(ϵ)=S^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{c}^{}S(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}^{}coshϵ\stackrel{~}{c}sinhϵ`$
We close this section by observing that in ref.  it has been shown that $`\sqrt{q}[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]`$ also acts as the generator of the squeezed coherent states.

## 4 $`q`$-WH algebra and the von Neumann theorem

By using the result (21) and (22) it is easy now to show that the parameter $`q`$ labels the Weyl systems in QM and the inequivalent representations in QFT.

We consider the Weyl operator (6) (for $`M=1`$ for simplicity) and parameterize the representations by implementing (10). We observe that due to the definitions (4) the transformations (10) can be equivalently thought as applied to $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ instead than to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (or to $`f`$ and $`g`$):

$$\widehat{x}\widehat{x}(\rho )\rho \widehat{x},\widehat{p}\widehat{p}(\rho )\frac{1}{\rho }\widehat{p},\rho 0$$
(23)
The action variable $`J=p𝑑x`$ is invariant under the transformations (22); this clarifies the physical meaning of the invariance of the area $`Im(z_1^{}z_2)`$ under (10). Of course, (22) is a canonical transformation: $`[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i[\widehat{x}(\rho ),\widehat{p}(\rho )]=i`$ . In terms of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ in the Schrödinger representation (see eq. (2)) eqs. (22) read

$`\widehat{x}\widehat{x}(\rho )\rho \widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\rho c+\rho c^{}\right)`$
$`\widehat{p}\widehat{p}(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}c^{}\right),\rho 0`$
We may thus introduce the operators $`c(\rho )`$ and $`c^{}(\rho )`$ as

$`cc(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\widehat{x}(\rho )+i\widehat{p}(\rho )\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\right)c+\left(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\right)c^{}\right]`$
$`c^{}c^{}(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\widehat{x}(\rho )i\widehat{p}(\rho )\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left(\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\right)c^{}+\left(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}\right)c\right]`$
By assuming $`\rho `$ real and defining

$$u\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho +\frac{1}{\rho }\right),v\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho \frac{1}{\rho }\right)$$
(26)
so that $`u^2v^2=1`$ , eqs. (25) are then recognized to be nothing but Bogoliubov transformations. Let $`\rho q^1=\mathrm{e}^ϵ`$ , $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$ and real. Eqs. (25) are then put in the more familiar form

$`c(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`ccoshϵc^{}sinhϵ`$ (27)
$`c^{}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`c^{}coshϵcsinhϵ`$
where we used the notation $`c(ϵ)c(\rho )`$ . We thus reach the (well known) conclusion that the representations $`W(z)`$ and $`W^{(q)}W^{(\rho )}(z)`$ are connected by Bogoliubov transformations. The $`\rho `$-parametrization is called the Bogoliubov parameterization.

The connection with the $`q`$-WH algebra (14) is immediately seen by realizing that from the holomorphy condition on $`f(\zeta )`$, $`f`$, with $`\zeta =x+iy`$, we have $`\frac{d}{d\zeta }f(\zeta )=\frac{d}{dx}f(\zeta )`$, so that $`\widehat{p}_\zeta =\widehat{p}`$ and eqs.(22) give

$$S^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{c}S(ϵ)c(ϵ)\mathrm{and}S^1(ϵ)\stackrel{~}{c}^{}S(ϵ)c^{}(ϵ)$$
(28)
as $`y0`$.

We therefore conclude that, in the $`y0`$ limit, the $`q`$-WH algebra commutator $`[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]`$ acts (up to the $`\sqrt{q}`$ factor) as the generator of the Bogoliubov transformations (27) relating $`W(z)`$ with $`W^{(q)}(z)`$, the $`q`$-deformation parameter labelling the Weyl representations.

We also observe that same conclusion is reached by working since the beginning in the complex $`\zeta `$-plane, $`\zeta =x+iy`$, with functions $`f(\zeta )`$ (in the extension to the $`\zeta `$-plane the Weyl operator (6) acquires the phase factor $`e^{\sqrt{2}\alpha y}`$ (cf. eq.(6) for $`M=1`$)).

In the limit of infinite degrees of freedom the representations $`W^{(q)}(F),W^{(q^{})}(F)`$, $`qq^{}`$ , are unitarily inequivalent. Different values of the $`q`$-deformation parameter thus label unitarily inequivalent representations in QFT.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown that the $`q`$-deformation parameter of the $`q`$-WH algebra labels the Weyl systems in QM and the unitarily inequivalent representations of the ccr in QFT. We found that the generator of the Bogoliubov transformations which relate Weyl systems or representations labelled by different values of $`q`$ is (up to a c-number factor) the $`q`$-WH algebra commutator $`[a_q,\widehat{a}_q]`$.

The von Neumann theorem in QM has been discussed in relation with the parameterization of the Weyl representations through Bogoliubov transformations.

The quantum commutation rules (1) specify the set of canonically conjugate operators $`(\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{p}_i)`$ only up to the transformations (22) (which are infact canonical transformations) even if irreducibility is assumed, so that the set of canonical operators is fully specified only when the value of $`ϵ=\mathrm{log}q`$ is also given, or, in other words, when the representation $`W^{(q)}(z)`$ is assigned. This is a trivial problem in QM where Weyl systems with different $`q`$ labels are each other unitarily (and therefore physically) equivalent (the von Neumann theorem). Not so in QFT where representations with different $`q`$ labels are each other unitarily inequivalent and thus the assignement of the representation for a specific value of $`q`$ is physically relevant, e.g. in spontaneously broken symmetry theories where different physical phases of the system are described by different (inequivalent) representations. The procedure of tuning the $`q`$-parameter in the $`q`$-WH algebra may be thus understood as ”tunneling” through inequivalent representations in QFT.

The $`q`$-parametrization of the representations of the ccr provides remarkable physical interpretation of the $`q`$-deformation parameter also because $`q`$-WH algebra has been related with coherent states, squeezed states, discretized (periodic) systems, thermal field theories and quantum dissipation.

We are glad to aknowledge useful discussions with E. Celeghini, S.De Martino, S.De Siena and M.Rasetti.


text:
# Flow and the equation of state of nuclear matter

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Collective flow is a motion characterized by space-momentum correlations of dynamic origin. It is of interest in collisions because it may tell us about pressures generating that motion and about the equation of state (EOS) and other properties of the strongly-interacting matter. The flows that have been identified thus far are radial, sideward, and elliptic.

The role played by the pressure $`p`$ in the dynamics may be inferred by examining the relativistic Euler equation in the frame of the matter, defined by vanishing collective velocity $`v=0`$:

$$(e+p)\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{}p.$$
(1)
Here $`e`$ is energy density. This equation is an analog of the Newton equation and enthalpy $`w=e+p`$ plays the role of mass. Pressure plays the role of potential for the collective motion.

Recent interest in the flows and EOS is due to the possibility of identifying the phase transition to quark-gluon plasma. Figure 1

shows a schematic diagram of temperatures $`T`$ and baryon chemical potentials $`\mu `$ explored in central heavy-ion reactions with the indicated possible crossings of the transition at different accelerators.

In terms of baryon density $`\rho `$, the pressure is:

$$p=\rho ^2\frac{(e/\rho )}{\rho }|_{s/\rho },$$
(2)
where $`s`$ is the entropy density. Expected changes in the energy per baryon $`e/\rho `$, if there were a phase transition at $`T=0`$, are qualitatively indicated in Fig. 2.

The arrow in the figure represents the Maxwell construction.

Within and above any first-order phase-transition, or a transitional region, a physical system exhibits a softening, i.e. the ratios $`p/e`$ and $`p/w`$ drop. This is due to the fact that the pressure $`p`$ changes continuously across the transition, while $`e`$ jumps together with entropy $`s`$ and density $`\rho `$. For example, in the baryonless matter we have:

$$dp=sdT,de=Tds.$$
(3)
With an increase in temperature across a transition, the entropy jumps and so does the energy. However, for the pressure only the derivative changes. Analogous changes across a $`T=0`$ transition are deduced in Fig. 2. Following (1), the signature of a phase transition should be a slowed down pace of the development of the nuclear collective motion within and above the phase transition.

Equilibrium, to which EOS and our considerations so far refer to, is never precisely reached in reactions. This creates both difficulties and opportunites. On one hand, extrapolations must be done to the equilibrium limit. On the other hand, the flow may be exploited in exploring the transport properties of hadronic matter, related to in-medium cross sections. The flow may be studied to a variable degree of detail. A study of nucleon flow as a function of transverse momentum, for example, may reveal the dependence of the mean field (MF) felt by nucleons on momentum .

We now turn to the different types of flow.

## 2 RADIAL EXPANSION

The collective radial expansion is often assessed by looking for deviations of momentum distributions, especially transverse, from thermal. The momentum distributions are commonly described in terms of the simple Siemens-Rasmussen  formula, or its derivatives,

$$ϵ\frac{dN}{d𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{\gamma ϵ/T}\left\{\frac{1}{pv}\left(\gamma ϵ+T\right)\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\gamma pv}{T}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\gamma pv}{T}\right\}.$$
(4)
A safer assessment of the radial flow is by comparing spectra, or average energies, of particles with different mass. The higher the mass, the stronger is the effect of collective expansion and flatter the distribution (more spread-out by the collective velocity), and higher the average energy. Transverse distributions flattening with the particle mass have been seen in central collisions of heavy nuclei at beam energies ranging from below 100 MeV/nucleon to above 100 GeV/nucleon, cf. Fig. 3.

The larger-mass distributions are sharper in the lighter than in the heavier system, at the high energy, indicating a weaker collective expansion in the lighter system.

Figure 4 displays excitation function of transverse temperature and of velocity in heaviest systems. The velocity saturates at AGS energies, possibly due to meson production and progressing transparency.

Of interest is the possible use of the radial expansion in the determination of EOS. It must be remembered that the separation into the collective and thermal energies occurs at freeze-out, when collisions become infrequent. Let us consider first the situation at low energies. If the EOS is soft and pressure low, the expansion is slower than for a stiff EOS, but then one just needs to wait longer for same observable values to emerge at freeze-out. To tell the difference, one needs some timing device. As such devices might serve the persistence of longitudinal motion at high energies or the early strange particle emission. Till now though, their exploitation in the EOS determination has been limited .

## 3 SIDEWARD FLOW

Sideward flow is a deflection of forwards and backwards moving particles, away from the beam axis, within the reaction plane. The situation in reactions is schematically illustrated in Fig. 6.

For the compressed and excited matter in a central region it is easier to get out to the vacuum on one side of the beam axis than on the other. Eagerness to get out will be enhanced by high generated pressure but also by the momentum dependence of MFs before the equilibration takes place. The ability to get out depends on the inter-particle cross sections.

The sideward flow is often represented in terms of the mean in-plane component of transverse momentum at a given rapidity, $`p^x(y)`$, and additionally quantified in terms of the derivative at the midrapidity, see Fig. 6:

$$F_y=\frac{dp^x}{dy}\text{or}F=\frac{dp^x}{d(y/y_B)}.$$
(5)
The normalization of the rapidity to the beam in the derivative enhances, somewhat artificially, the strength of dynamic effects at high energies relative to low.

In transport models, it is directly observed that the production of sideward flow is shifted towards the high density phase  as compared to the radial flow . The sideward flow thus has more potential in the EOS determination than the radial flow. The flow excitation function is represented in Fig. 7 and the flow is seen to be maximal between 0.1 and 10 GeV/nucleon.

## 4 SECOND-ORDER OR ELLIPTIC FLOW

The elliptic flow is typically studied at midrapidity and quantified in terms of $`v_2`$:

$$v_2=\mathrm{cos}2\varphi \left(v_n=\mathrm{cos}n\varphi \right),$$
(6)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle relative to the reaction plane. The second-order flow may offer a better chance for the EOS determination than the first-order sideward flow, because it involves less of the uncertainties in the opposing streams of matter moving past each other. Typical azimuthal patterns at midrapidity may be seen in Fig. 8.

At AGS energies the elliptic flow results from a competition between the early squeeze-out when compressed matter tries to move out in the direction perpendicular to the reaction plane and the late-stage in-plane emission associated with the shape of the participant zone , cf. Fig. 9.

The squeeze-out contribution to the elliptic flow depends, generally, on the pressure $`p`$ built-up early on, compared to the energy density $`e`$, see (1), and on the passage time for the spectators. When the heated matter is exposed to the vacuum in the transverse direction, a rarefaction wave moves in putting the matter into motion. The time for developing the expansion is then $`R/c_s`$, where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius and $`c_s=\sqrt{(p/e)_{s/\rho }}`$ is the speed of sound. The passage time for spectators, on the other hand, is of the order of $`2R/(\gamma _0v_0)`$, where $`v_0`$ is the spectator c.m. velocity. The squeeze-out contribution to the elliptic flow should then reflect the time ratio

$$\frac{c_s}{\gamma _0v_0}.$$
(7)
The result (7) gives hope that significant changes in the dependence of pressure on energy density, such as associated with a phase transition,111Discussion of the physics of refraction into mixed phase or across the transition may be found in . might be revealed in the variation of the elliptic flow. Overall, the squeeze-out contribution should decrease as a function of energy with the flow becoming positive, $`v_2>0`$. The elliptic-flow excitation function is displayed in Fig. 10.

It is seen that, indeed, while dominated by squeeze-out at moderate energies, the elliptic flow becomes positive at high energies. Whether or not any changes in $`v_2`$ with energy might be associated with any phase transition requires comparisons to transport-model calculations to assess the magnitude of such possible changes. It should be noted, due to the expansion of elliptically shaped participant zone exposed from all sides to the vacuum, Fig. 9(c), the in-plane elliptic flow is expected to be present at RHIC energies, see Fig. 11.

To assess the practical quantitative level of sensitivity of flow observables to EOS and to other characteristics of the medium, we now turn to transport model simulations.

## 5 TRANSPORT-MODEL COMPARISONS

We shall examine results of a model formulated within relativistic Landau theory, with nucleon, pion, delta and $`N^{}`$ degrees of freedom. The Wigner distribution functions $`f`$ of those particles follow a set of Boltzmann equations, of the same general for relativistically, as nonrelativistically,

$$\frac{f}{t}+\frac{ϵ_𝐩}{𝐩}\frac{f}{𝐫}\frac{ϵ_𝐩}{𝐫}\frac{f}{𝐩}=I.$$
(8)
The single particle energies $`ϵ`$ are functional derivatives of an energy functional specified in terms of the Wigner functions $`f`$. Specific parametrizations of the functional lead to different EOS, such as in Fig. 2, and different optical potentials

$$U^{opt}(p)=ϵ(p)mT(p),$$
(9)
where $`T`$ is kinetic energy, that either depend or do not on the momentum $`p`$ in the medium frame.

Typical single-particle observables from the model , for different EOS, such as transverse momentum or rapidity distributions, compare favorably to data . Figure 12, with baryon density contour

plots from a simulation of the 2 GeV/nucleon Au + Au reaction at $`b=8`$ fm, helps to understand the generation of elliptic flow. The simulation was done assuming a hard EOS and a momentum dependence in the baryonic MFs. The participant matter gets compressed in Fig. 12 to $`3\rho /\rho _0`$ and then explodes when spectator pieces are still present. When the simulation is done in the cascade mode of the model, the participant matter gets compressed to higher densities and it decompresses in quite a sluggish manner. At the completion of the decompression the spectator pieces are far gone. Figure 14

shows next the evolution of the midrapidity elliptic anisotropy in the two simulations. In either of the simulations, the anisotropy begins to grow in the in-plane direction. In the hard-EOS calculation, the growth is rapid and then the anisotropy changes its sign. In the cascade calculation the growth is slow and it continues till late times. These findings may be understood as follows. The expansion of the participant region first grows primarily in the in-plane direction as in that direction the pressure gradients are the largest . If the expansion is rapid, though, the matter encounters the spectator pieces on its way. Then the in-plane expansion stalls, while the expansion in the transverse direction can develop. On the other hand, the expansion is slow, the spectator pieces do not present much inhibition and then expansion can continue primarily in the in-plane direction untill the complete decompression.

The presence of the spectator pieces allows then to assess the pace of expansion of the participant matter from the elliptic flow for participants. Figure 14 shows the elliptic flow excitation functions for different calculations. The flow turns more in-plane as the beam energy increases and the spectator pieces move faster away from the reaction zone and get shortened by the Lorentz contraction. For the cascade calculation, for which the expansion is sluggish, the flow is of a primarily in-plane character at the displayed energies. The harder the EOS, the more out-of-plane the flow gets. However, there is more sensitivity to the EOS at the low energies when the spectator pieces remain still close to the participant zone than at high. In addition to the EOS, the momentum dependence of MFs felt by the emerging baryons affects their flow. The momentum dependence makes the fields felt by high-momentum particles more repulsive, speeding up the expulsion of these particles from the central participant zone.

Next question is whether a phase transition could sufficiently change the expansion as a function of energy to yield an observable trace in the excitation function for ellipticity. The answer is provided in Fig. 16

that shows the excitation function for a hard EOS with a phase transition which softens that EOS at higher densities similarly to the case in Fig. 2. At lower energies the excitation function in Fig. 16 follows the hard EOS function, but then it switches to the soft EOS function as the densities reached in the reactions increase.

Now the question is what kind of expansion scenario is followed in Nature. Comparing the data in Fig. 10 to the cascade calculations in Fig. 14 at 1-4 GeV/nucleon, it is apparent that the expansion is much more rapid than in the cascade model at the reached densities. Figure 16 shows next a collection of the data with momentum-dependent calculations superimposed. It is seen that at 2 GeV/nucleon the expansion is as rapid as for the hard EOS with the momentum dependence, represented in Fig. 12. At higher energies, though, the expansion becomes more such as for the soft EOS with behavior as a function of energy strongly reminding that in Fig. 16 for the phase transition.

Below 1 GeV/nucleon different flow data favor a soft EOS with momentum dependence, e.g. . Sideward data favor that EOS in fact up to 10 GeV/nucleon; admittedly, though, the sideward flow is more exposed to the uncertainties in stopping than the elliptic flow. Combining older and the newer higher-energy elliptic and sideward flow results, we can draw broad boundaries for the dependence of pressure on baryon density (or on energy density) as exibited in Fig. 17.

The pressure is certainly higher than in the cascade model; other than in the 1-2 GeV/nucleon region (vicinity of the upper boundary kink in Fig. 17) there is no indication of any preference for the hard EOS. A set of sideward flow data with model predictions superimposed is shown in Fig. 18.

Contrary to Fig. 16, no evidence for a sudden softening of EOS is seen here. As to conclusions on pressure vs baryon density, those drawn for asymmetric matter from neutron star properties generally pertain  to lower densities than in Fig. 17.

Deducing the properties of equilibrium matter requires restricting the range of the dependence of baryonic MFs on momentum. This can be done by examining the dependence of elliptic flow on momentum at the energies of interest.

## 6 DIFFERENTIAL STUDIES OF FLOW

Studies of flow in narrow intervals of transverse momentum, rapidity and impact parameters can help to disentagle the effects of EOS and other characteristics of strongly interacting matter. Figure 20 shows the dependence of $`v_2`$ on impact parameter in Au + Au collisions at 400 MeV/nucleon. At lower impact parameters, the effects of the stiffness of EOS and of mean-field momentum dependence compete with each other. However, at higher impact parameters the predictions for the momentum-independent and momentum-dependent MFs well separate. Additional sensitivity to the momentum dependence might be expected while concentrating on flow at high momenta .

Figure 20

compares the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane proton yields

$$R_N=\frac{N(90^{})+N(270^{})}{N(0^{})+N(180^{})}=\frac{12v_2}{1+2v_2}$$
(10)
from KaoS measurements  to the results of simulations. It is apparent that the data permit tuning the MF momentum dependence as labeled by the effective mass.

Figure 21

compares next the transport-model parametrizations of MF to the microscopic Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (DBHF) calculations with Bonn-A interaction. Within the tested region of densities there is a good agreement between the parametrizations that best describe data  and the microscopic calculations. Other microscopic theories exhibit a variable degree of agreement with the optimal parametrizations.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

Flow observables are important tools for investigating properties of hadronic matter in energetic collisions. Measurements of second order and first order flow at beam energies $`2`$ GeV/nucleon show that the matter is significantly stiffer than in the cascade model. Lower and also upper bounds on the pressure may be deduced as a function of density. Dependence of the elliptic flow on momentum probes the dependence of mean field on momentum at supranormal densities and may be used to constrain microscopic theories. Some level of softening may occur in the EOS at the energies between 2 and 4 GeV/nucleon, corresponding to a compression of 3-4 $`\rho _0`$. Further insights could be gained by studying the $`b`$-dependence of $`v_2`$.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-0070818.