text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum hadrodynamics  proved to be a very successful model in describing the bulk properties of nuclear matter as well as the properties of finite nuclei. The model is rather simple with only a few parameters, and yet it has been successfully applied to a vast number of nuclear matter and nuclear structure problems. On the other hand, this model has a fundamental shortcoming that the nucleon with a composite structure is treated as a point particle. Several years ago a model to remedy this problem was proposed by Guichon . He proposed a quark-meson coupling (QMC) model and investigated the direct quark degrees of freedom in producing the nuclear saturation mechanism in nuclear matter. The model describes nuclear matter as non-overlapping MIT bags  interacting through the self-consistent exchange of scalar and vector mesons in the mean-field approximation. In other words, the nucleon in nuclear matter is assumed to be a static spherical MIT bag in which quarks interact with the scalar ($`\sigma `$)- and the vector ($`\omega `$)-meson fields. The model was refined later to include the nucleon Fermi motion and the center-of-mass corrections to the bag energy  and was applied to a number of problems \[6 $``$ 11\].

In the MIT bag model  the bag constant $`B`$ and a phenomenological parameter $`Z`$ are fixed such that the nucleon mass of 939 MeV is reproduced for some bag radius $`R`$. The bag constant $`B`$ produces the pressure to make a bubble in the QCD vacuum. $`Z`$ is to account for various corrections including the zero-point motion. In the QMC model the quark-$`\sigma `$ coupling constant ($`g_\sigma ^q`$) and the quark-$`\omega `$ coupling constant ($`g_\omega ^q`$) are introduced. Usually, $`B`$ and $`Z`$ are fixed first so that the mass of the free MIT bag becomes equivalent to the the nucleon mass of 939 MeV for a certain bag radius. $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$ thus obtained are used in the QMC model calculations for nuclear matter problems. $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ are then determined so as to reproduce the binding energy per nucleon (B.E. = $``$16 MeV) at the saturation density ($`\rho _N^0=`$ 0.17 fm<sup>-3</sup>).

However, due to the interaction between the quarks and the $`\sigma `$\- and the $`\omega `$-mesons it is expected that the mass of a single dressed MIT bag in free space, when calculated with $`B^{free}`$ and $`Z^{free}`$ described above, would no longer be the nucleon mass of 939 MeV. Such a deviation of the mass of the dressed bag in free space has been neglected in previous QMC calculations in choosing the model parameters. If the deviation in mass is significant, it is necessary to modify the parameters to get the correct nucleon mass before implementing them in the nuclear matter calculations. It is this change in the mass of a dressed MIT bag that we address ourselves to in this paper. In Section 2 we describe the QMC model for a nucleon. A brief review of the QMC model for nuclear matter is given in Section 3. Section 4 contains the results of the QMC model calculations for a nucleon and nuclear matter. The paper is summarized in Section 5.

## 2 Quark-meson coupling model for a nucleon

The Lagrangian density for the MIT bag in which quark fields $`\psi `$ are coupled to the $`\sigma `$\- and $`\omega `$\- fields may be written as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi (_\mu \overline{\psi })\gamma ^\mu \psi \right)\overline{\psi }\left(g_\omega ^q\gamma _\mu \omega ^\mu +(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma )\right)\psi B\right]\theta _v`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{\Delta }_s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(_\mu \sigma )(^\mu \sigma )m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2\right],`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu `$, $`\theta _v`$ is the step function for confining the quarks inside the bag, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is the $`\delta `$-function at the bag surface. We will neglect the isospin breaking and take $`m_q=(m_u+m_d)/2`$ hereafter. For numerical calculations $`m_q`$ will be taken to be zero. The mass of $`\sigma `$ ($`\omega `$) is taken as 550 (783) MeV. From this Lagrangian density the equations of motion for quark field $`\psi `$, sigma field $`\sigma `$, and omega field $`\omega _\mu `$ follow. For $`\psi `$ we have

$$\left[\gamma ^\mu (i_\mu g_\omega ^q\omega _\mu )(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma )\right]\psi \theta _v=\frac{1}{2}(1i\gamma ^\mu n_\mu )\psi \mathrm{\Delta }_s.$$
(2)
The left hand side of this equation gives us the equation for the quarks inside the bag, and the right hand side provides us with the linear boundary condition at the bag surface ($`r=R`$). The equations for $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega _\mu `$ are, respectively,

$$_\mu ^\mu \sigma +m_\sigma ^2\sigma =g_\sigma ^q\overline{\psi }\psi \theta _v$$
(3)
and

$$^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+m_\omega ^2\omega _\mu =g_\omega ^q\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi \theta _v.$$
(4)
If we consider only the ground state quarks in the static spherical MIT bag and keep only the time-component of $`\omega _\mu `$, Eq. (2) becomes the following coupled linear differential equations for $`g(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ inside the bag;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df(r)}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{f(r)}{r}}+E^{}(r)g(r)\right]`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg(r)}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`E^+(r)f(r),`$ (6)
where $`g(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ are the radial parts of the upper and the lower components of $`\psi `$, $`i.e.,`$

$$\psi (t,𝐫)=e^{iϵ_q^0t/R}\left(\begin{array}{c}g(r)\\ i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{𝐫}f(r)\end{array}\right)\frac{\chi _q}{\sqrt{4\pi }},$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the Pauli spin matrix and $`\chi _q`$ is the quark spinor. Also,

$`E^+(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_q^0}{R}}g_\omega ^q\omega _0(𝐫)+(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma (𝐫))`$
$`E^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_q^0}{R}}g_\omega ^q\omega _0(𝐫)(m_qg_\sigma ^q\sigma (𝐫))`$ (8)
with $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ and $`\omega _0(𝐫)`$ being the $`\sigma `$\- and the time component of the $`\omega `$-fields. Since we are dealing with the ground state, Eqs. (8) are the equations in the radial coordinate $`r`$ only. The linear boundary condition from Eq. (2), when rewritten by using Eq. (7), reads

$$f\left(\frac{x_qr}{R}\right)=g\left(\frac{x_qr}{R}\right)$$
(9)
at the bag surface, $`r=R`$, and determines the eigenvalue $`x_q`$ of the quarks. $`ϵ_q^0`$ is then given by $`\sqrt{x_q^2+(Rm_q)^2}=x_q`$ for $`m_q=0`$.

In the static spherical approximation Eqs. (3) and (4) are reduced to

$$(^2m_\sigma ^2)\sigma (𝐫)=g_\sigma ^q(3\rho _s)\theta (Rr)$$
(10)
and

$$(^2m_\omega ^2)\omega _0(𝐫)=g_\omega ^q(3\rho _B)\theta (Rr),$$
(11)
respectively, where $`\rho _s(=\overline{\psi }\psi )`$ and $`\rho _B(=\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi )`$ are scalar and baryon densities, respectively, and 3 is multiplied by them to account for the sum over 3 quarks. Equations (5), (6), (10), and (11) constitute a set of coupled equations for $`\psi `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`\omega _0`$, which need to be solved self-consistently.

By solving these equations we can obtain the eigenvalue of the quarks and the energy ($`E_N`$) of the nucleon bag. $`E_N`$ can be computed by using

$$E_N=d^3rT_{00}$$
(12)
with

$$T_{00}=\left(\frac{_q}{R}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\psi +B\right)\theta (Rr)\frac{1}{2}\left((\omega _0)^2+(m_\omega \omega _0)^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left((\sigma )^2+(m_\sigma \sigma )^2\right),$$
(13)
where $`_q`$ is given by

$$\frac{_q}{R}=3\frac{ϵ_q^0}{R}\frac{Z}{R}=3\frac{x_q}{R}\frac{Z}{R}$$
(14)
with the sum over 3 quarks taken into account. Correcting for spurious center-of-mass motion in the bag, the mass of the nucleon bag at rest is taken to be

$$M_N=\sqrt{E_N^2p_{c.m.}^2},$$
(15)
where $`p_{c.m.}^2=_{k=1}^3p_k^2=3(x_q/R)^2`$. By minimizing $`M_N`$ with respect to the bag radius $`R`$, we can get the nucleon mass and the bag radius.

## 3 Quark-meson coupling model for nuclear matter

Now, let us consider the QMC model for nuclear matter. Detailed formulations and justification of the model can be found in Refs. , and here we only briefly sketch the model for later discussions. In addition to the static spherical approximation assumed in Section 2 we now further use the mean-field approximation. From Eq. (2) the quark field $`\psi `$ inside the bag in the mean-field approximation may be written as

$$\left[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu g_\omega ^q\overline{\omega }\gamma ^0(m_qg_\sigma ^q\overline{\sigma })\right]\psi =0,$$
(16)
where $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ are the mean-fields for $`\sigma `$\- and $`\omega `$-mesons, respectively. Eq. (16) has the following simple solution,

$$\psi (t,𝐫)=𝒩e^{iϵ_qt/R}\left(\begin{array}{c}j_0(xr/R)\\ i\beta _q\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{𝐫}j_1(xr/R)\end{array}\right)\frac{\chi _q}{\sqrt{4\pi }},$$
(17)
where $`ϵ_q=\mathrm{\Omega }_q+g_\omega ^q\overline{\omega }R`$,

$$\beta _q=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_qRm_q^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_q+Rm_q^{}}},𝒩^2=2R^3j_0^2(x)[\mathrm{\Omega }_q(\mathrm{\Omega }_q1)+Rm_q^{}/2]/x^2$$
(18)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q=\sqrt{x^2+(Rm_q^{})^2}`$ and $`m_q^{}=m_qg_\sigma ^q\overline{\sigma }`$. The boundary condition

$$j_0(xr/R)=\beta _qj_1(xr/R)$$
(19)
at $`r=R`$ gives us the $`x`$ value. Then the energy of the bag can be expressed as

$$E_{bag}=3\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{R}\frac{Z}{R}+\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3B,$$
(20)
and the effective mass of the bag in nuclear matter is taken as

$$M_{bag}^{}=\sqrt{E_{bag}^2p_{c.m.}^2}.$$
(21)
Using the minimum condition

$$\frac{M_{bag}^{}}{R}=0,$$
(22)
we can determine the effective mass.

The total energy per nucleon at nuclear matter density, $`\rho _N`$, including the Fermi motion of the nucleons, can be written as

$$E_{tot}=\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3\rho _N}^{k_F}d^3k\sqrt{M_{bag}^2+𝐤^2}+\frac{(3g_\omega ^q)^2}{2m_\omega ^2}\rho _N+\frac{m_\sigma ^2}{2\rho _N}\overline{\sigma }^2,$$
(23)
where the spin-isospin degeneracy $`\gamma `$ is 4 for symmetric nuclear matter.

The mean field $`\overline{\omega }`$ created by the nucleons is given by

$$\overline{\omega }=\frac{3g_\omega ^q\rho _N}{m_\omega ^2}$$
(24)
and the scalar mean field $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is determined by the thermodynamic condition

$$\left(\frac{E_{tot}}{\overline{\sigma }}\right)_{R,\rho _N}=0,$$
(25)
which yields the self-consistency equation

$$\overline{\sigma }=\frac{3g_\sigma ^q}{m_\sigma ^2}C(\overline{\sigma })\frac{\gamma }{(2\pi )^3}^{k_F}d^3k\frac{M_{bag}^{}}{\sqrt{M_{bag}^2+𝐤^2}}$$
(26)
with

$$3g_\sigma ^qC(\overline{\sigma })=3g_\sigma ^q\frac{E_{bag}}{M_{bag}^{}}\left[\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_q}{E_{bag}R}\right)S(\overline{\sigma })+\frac{m_q^{}}{E_{bag}}\right]$$
(27)
and

$$S(\overline{\sigma })=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_q/2+Rm_q^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_q1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_q(\mathrm{\Omega }_q1)+Rm_q^{}/2}.$$
(28)
Equation (26) is also to be solved consistently with Eq. (19).

## 4 Results and Discussions

We first present the results for a single nucleon. In presenting the results we take the cases in which the bag radius is 1 fm. In Fig. 1 the nucleon mass $`M_N`$ is plotted as a function of the bag radius $`R`$. The solid curve represents the free MIT bag mass ($`M_N^{free}`$) without a coupling of the quarks with the mesons; $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=0`$. In the calculations $`B^{1/4}`$ and $`Z`$ are taken to be 136.3 MeV and 1.153 , respectively, which give us the minimum of $`M_N^{free}`$ as 939 MeV at 1.0 fm. If we include the interaction of quarks with meson fields using the coupling constants $`g_\sigma ^q=5.605`$ and $`g_\omega ^q=1.152`$ chosen by Saito and Thomas, for instance, a solution to the field equations (5), (6), (10), and (11) does not exist. In Eq. (6) both $`dg(r)/dr`$ and $`f(r)`$ are negative (or zero) for all radii, and thus $`E^+(r)`$ needs to be positive. However, due to the large attraction coming from the large $`g_\sigma ^q`$ value in relative to the small $`g_\omega ^q`$ the eigenvalue $`ϵ_q^0`$ in Eq. (8) becomes relatively small, which results in $`E^+(r)`$ being negative for this set of parameters; hence the non-existence of the solution. Therefore we show here results for other sets of parameters.

First, we include only the coupling of the quarks with the $`\sigma `$-meson; $`g_\omega ^q=0`$. The bag mass decreases due to the attractive $`\sigma `$-coupling as shown in Fig. 1 by the thin dashed and the thin dash-dotted curves, respectively, for $`g_\sigma ^q=`$ 2 and 4. $`M_N`$ is reduced to 930 and 903 MeV, and the bag radius also slightly decreases to 0.997 and 0.979 fm, respectively, for $`g_\sigma ^q=2`$ and 4. On the other hand, when the quarks are allowed to couple only with the $`\omega `$-field, i.e., $`g_\sigma ^q=0`$, $`M_N`$ increases as plotted by the thick dashed and the thick dash-dotted curves, respectively, for $`g_\omega ^q=2`$ and $`4`$. $`M_N`$ is pushed up to 954 and 994 MeV due to the repulsive coupling, and the bag radius becomes 1.00 and 1.03 fm, respectively.

If the quarks are allowed to couple with both the $`\sigma `$\- and the $`\omega `$-mesons, cancellation between the attraction and the repulsion takes place. In Fig. 2 we show $`M_N`$ calculated with $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$ by the dashed curve in comparison with $`M_N^{free}`$ ($`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=0`$) plotted by the solid curve. $`M_N`$ for $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$ has a minimum at 946 MeV and $`R=1.01`$ fm. The mass difference ($`946939=7`$ MeV) is just about what is left after the cancellation between the thin dashed curve ($`g_\sigma ^q=2`$, $`g_\omega ^q=0`$) and the thick dashed curve ($`g_\sigma ^q=0`$, $`g_\omega ^q=2`$) in Fig. 1. $`M_N`$ calculated with $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=4`$ is also plotted in Fig. 2 by the dash-dotted curve. The minimum of $`M_N`$ is 964 MeV at $`R=1.02`$ fm. Again, the mass shift ($`964939=15`$ MeV) is just about the repulsion left after the cancellation between the two dash-dotted curves in Fig. 1. It is worth noting here that when we use the same value for $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ the net result is a repulsion. This may be understood by looking at the meson fields. In Fig. 3 $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ and $`\omega _0(𝐫)`$ are plotted as a function of radius for a fixed bag radius $`R=1`$ fm when $`g_\sigma ^q=g_\omega ^q=2`$. The figure shows that the shapes of $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ and $`\omega _0(𝐫)`$ are largely dictated by those of the source densities $`\rho _s`$ and $`\rho _B`$, respectively. Just as $`\rho _B`$ is bigger than $`\rho _s`$ at larger radii, $`\omega _0(𝐫)`$ is greater than $`\sigma (𝐫)`$ at larger radii, which is the significant radial region. Thus, when the two coupling constants are equal, a net effect turns out to be repulsive.

In the nuclear matter at normal nuclear densities the internucleon distance is about 2 fm. In the mean-field approximation meson fields are assumed to be constant in the matter. On the other hand, Fig. 3 (a) shows that the range of the meson fields is roughly around 1.5 fm for both mesons. The fields become almost negligible at $`r2`$ fm. However, since the nucleons in nuclear matter are in the Fermi motion, the meson fields with the range of about 1.5 fm may be approximated to mean-fields in the matter. Therefore, the present study of a single nucleon in the QMC model seems compatible with the QMC model for the nuclear matter, which will be discussed shortly.

We then looked for parameters that could give us the correct nucleon mass for $`R=1`$ fm. First we fixed $`B^{1/4}`$ and $`Z`$ as 136.3 MeV and 1.153 , respectively, and searched for $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$. It was not possible to find $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ that would yield the correct nucleon mass with the given values of $`B^{1/4}`$ and $`Z`$. When we let $`Z`$ also vary, keeping $`B^{1/4}`$ fixed as 136.3 MeV, it was still impossible to find parameters producing the correct nucleon mass. On the other hand, when we let $`B^{1/4}`$ vary, keeping $`Z`$ as 1.153, we could obtain the correct mass with the parameter set 2 listed in Table 1. There are four parameters to be fixed, whereas there are only two quantities to fit; the nucleon mass and the bag radius. Thus the parameters are not unique. We list in Table 1 other sets of parameters that can produce the nucleon mass of 939 MeV for $`R=1`$ fm. $`M_N`$’s calculated with the parameter sets 2 - 7 are all indistinguishable from the solid curve in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2, so they are not plotted here. One can see from Table 1 that $`g_\sigma ^q`$ is not much larger than $`g_\omega ^q`$. $`g_\sigma ^q`$ is often only slightly bigger than $`g_\omega ^q`$, as the relativistic Dirac phenomenolgy has shown. In fact, this is expected from Fig. 2, which shows that with the equal values of $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ there is only a small repulsion. To restore the correct mass, $`g_\sigma ^q`$ would have to be a little larger than $`g_\omega ^q`$. This is in contrast to the values of $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ previously obtained by QMC model calculations for nuclear matter. Too large $`g_\sigma ^q`$ values compared to small $`g_\omega ^q`$ were one of the concerns in the previous results of the QMC model calculations.

Similar studies were made at other bag radii ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 fm, and similar results were obtained. Our results show that the change in the nucleon mass due to the coupling of the quarks with the mesons is not negligible. Such self-energy effects on the nucleon mass need to be taken into consideration in choosing the parameters for the calculation of nuclear matter properties. Thus, we performed the nuclear matter calculations as sketched in Section 3 along with the calculation for a nucleon. As mentioned earlier, when we use $`g_\sigma ^q`$ and $`g_\omega ^q`$ taken from Ref. , a solution for a nucleon problem does not exist. On the other hand, if we use the parameter sets 2 - 7 in Table 1, the calculated binding energies are not correct. Even saturation does not occur for these parameter sets. Therefore, we attempted to look for a new set of parameters that could reproduce simultaneously the nucleon mass and the nuclear binding energy. We found that it was not possible to get such parameters, at least, within the present scheme. Therefore, this additional requirement of reproducing a single nucleon mass can be used as a guide in refining the QMC model for nuclear matter.

## 5 Summary

Recently the QMC model has been frequently used to describe the properties of nuclear matter and finite nuclei. However, in the previous calculations the change in the mass of the bag due to the self-energy has been ignored. Thus we have applied the QMC model to a single nucleon. Our calculations suggest that this change in the nucleon mass is not negligible. Therefore, we performed the QMC model calculations not only for a nucleon but also for nuclear matter and looked for parameters that would give us both the nucleon mass and the nuclear binding energy correctly. However, we only found that it was not possible to obtain such parameters within the present framework of the model. Taking into account this change in the nucleon mass may provide us with an additional constraint on the model.

## 6 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. SWH acknowledges kind hospitality at TRIUMF. He also thanks Prof. T. Udagawa for helpful discussions and was partially supported by Sungkyun Faculty Research Fund and BK21 Physics Research Division.

| set | $`B^{1/4}`$(MeV) | $`Z`$ | $`g_\sigma ^q`$ | $`g_\omega ^q`$ | $`M_N`$ (MeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 136.3 | 1.153 | 5.605 | 1.152 | No solution. |
| 2 | 136.5 | 1.153 | 3.396 | 2.490 | 939 |
| 3 | 136.5 | 1.169 | 3.300 | 2.616 | 939 |
| 4 | 136.5 | 1.183 | 3.199 | 2.723 | 939 |
| 5 | 136.5 | 1.199 | 2.941 | 2.760 | 939 |
| 6 | 136.5 | 1.170 | 1.965 | 1.752 | 939 |
| 7 | 136.4 | 1.238 | 3.840 | 3.746 | 939 |


format: text

text:
# Asymmetry Effects on Nuclear Fragmentation

## 1 Introduction

Our starting point is that the key question in the physics of unstable nuclei is the knowledge of the $`EOS`$ for asymmetric nuclear matter away from normal conditions. We remark the effect of the symmetry term at low densities on the neutron skin structure, while the knowledge in high densities region is crucial for supernovae dynamics and neutron star cooling .

Effective interactions are obviously tuned to symmetry properties around normal conditions and any extrapolation can be quite dangerous. Microscopic approaches based on realistic $`NN`$ interactions, Brueckner or variational schemes, or on effective field theories show a quite large variety of predictions, see Fig.1.

In the reaction dynamics with intermediate energy radioactive beams we can probe highly asymmetric nuclear matter in compressed as well as dilute phases: the aim of this paper is to show that fragmentation events have new features due to isospin effects and that some observables are particularly sensitive to the symmetry term of the $`EOS`$.

For fragmentation mechanisms a new qualitative feature is expected: the onset of chemical effects on spinodal instabilities , due to the intrinsic coupling between isoscalar and isovector modes. The formation of a very neutron rich gas vs. an almost symmetric liquid phase is expected for neutron excess systems, in a dynamical non-equilibrium mechanism on short time scales . This effect, which appears very much reduced in a statistical multifragmentation calculation , will show up in a production of more stable primary intermediate mass fragments and in enhanced yields for neutron rich light isobars.

All these predictions were actually based on linear response approaches , nuclear matter dynamics in a box  or on the evolution of a suitably prepared excited source . In this paper we will present the first results of a fully ”ab initio” calculation of fragmentation reactions for systems with different charge asymmetry.

## 2 ”Ab initio” simulations of Sn + Sn reactions

A new code for the solution of microscopic transport equations, the Stochastic Iso-BNV, has been written where asymmetry effects are suitably accounted for and the dynamics of fluctuations is included . A density dependent symmetry term is used also in the ground state construction of the initial conditions. Isospin effects on nucleon cross section  and Pauli blocking are consistently evaluated. In order to simplify the analysis of the most sensitive observables to isospin effects we have chosen a Skyrme force with the same $`softEOS`$ for symmetric Nuclear Matter ($`NM`$) ($`K=201MeV`$) and with two different choices for the density dependence of the symmetry term, see Fig.1(bottom), asy-stiff (like in $`BPAL32`$, see also ) and asy-soft (like in $`SKM^{}`$). In this way we force the symmetric part of the $`EOS`$ to be exactly the same in order to disentangle dynamical symmetry term effects. We will show that the reaction mechanism is sensitive to the different behaviours, although with stable nuclei we will limit the possible asymmetries and moreover we will certainly not reach high compression regions.

We have studied the $`50AMeV`$ collisions of the systems $`{}_{}{}^{124}Sn+^{124}Sn`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{112}Sn+^{112}Sn`$, where new data are under analysis at $`NSCLMSU`$ . We will comment $`100`$ events generated in semi-central ($`b=2fm`$) and semi-peripheral ($`b=6fm`$) reactions. In Fig.2 we show a typical impact parameter evolution of the density plot (projected on the reaction plane) for one event (neutron rich case, asy-stiff $`EOS`$).

We remark: i) In the cluster formation we see a quite clear transition from bulk  to neck  instabilities. ii) The ”Freeze-Out times”, when the nuclear interaction among clusters disappears, are decreasing with impact parameter. These two dynamical effects will influence the isospin content of the produced primary fragments, as shown later.

A detailed analysis of the results from $`100`$ events for the same system (asy-stiff calculation) is shown in Fig.3 (central, $`b=2fm`$) and Fig.4 (peripheral, $`b=6fm`$). Each figure is organized in this way:

Top row, time evolution of: (a) Mass in the liquid (up) and gas (down) phase; (b) Asymmetry $`I=(NZ)/(N+Z)`$ in the gas ”central” (solid line and squares), gas total (dashed+squares), liquid ”central” (solid+circles) and clusters (stars). ”Central” means in a cubic box of side $`20fm`$ around the c.m.. The horizontal line shows the initial average asymmetry; (c) Mean Fragment Multiplicity $`Z3`$. The saturation of this curve defines the freeze-out configuration, as we can also check from the density plots like in Fig.2.

Bottom row, properties of the ”primary” fragments in the Freeze-Out Configuration: (d) Charge Distribution, (e) Asymmetry Distribution and (f) Fragment Multiplicity Distribution (normalized to $`1`$).

We see a neutron dominated prompt particle emission and a second neutron burst at the time of fragment formation in the ”central region”. The latter is consistent with the dynamical spinodal mechanism in dilute asymmetric nuclear matter, as discussed before. The effect is quite reduced for semi-peripheral collisions (compare Fig.s 3b and 4b) and the $`IMF`$’s ($`3Z12`$) produced in the neck are more neutron rich (Fig.s 3e and 4e). This seems to indicate a different nature of the fragmentation mechanism in central and neck regions, i.e. a transition from volume to shape instabilities with different isospin dynamics. In more peripheral collisions the interaction time scale is also very reduced (Fig.4c) and this will quench the isospin migration.

In Fig.s 5,6 we have the corresponding results for the asy-soft $`EOS`$. The main qualitative difference is a larger prompt neutron emission (compare the gas asymmetry in Fig.s 3b,4b with the corresponding Fig.s 5b,6b) joined to a ”slower” dynamics (see the (c)-plots), as expected from the more attractive nature of the asymmetric $`EOS`$ .

The interesting point is that the effect on fragment production is different for central and peripheral events. With respect to the asy-stiff case we have a smaller mean $`IMF`$ multiplicity for central collisions (Fig.s 3f vs. 5f) and more fragments produced in the neck region (Fig.s 4f vs. 6f).

Neck instabilities have also the feature of forming clusters on the ”spectator” side  leading to a ”fission-like” splitting of the Projectile-/Target-like fragment. This mechanism has been clearly observed in accurate kinematical selections . In our study of n-rich systems the rate of such dynamical fission processes is systematically larger for the asy-soft $`EOS`$, as expected from the previous discussion. This seems to be an quite sensitive observable to look at.

The most important qualitative difference of the neutron poor case, $`{}_{}{}^{112}Sn+^{112}Sn`$, is a larger prompt proton emission, in particular for central collisions. The number of protons available to produce clusters is then reduced with a related smaller mean $`IMF`$ multiplicity. Moreover the reduction of the overall asymmetry is acting in the same direction. In Fig.7 we show the average $`IMF`$ multiplicity vs. the average charge of the heaviest produced fragment, which measures the centrality of the collision, for the two symmetry terms and for the two systems. The effect, in agreement with recent data , is more evident with the asy-stiff choice, in particular for central collisions (low $`<Z>_{heavy}`$).

## 3 Outlook

Starting from simulations of reaction dynamics performed with a new transport code where isospin and fluctuation effects are suitably accounted for, we have shown that dissipative heavy ion collisions, and in particular fragment production reactions, at medium energies are rather sensitive to the density dependence of the symmetry contribution to the nuclear Equation of State.

Interesting differences appear between isospin effects on central and neck fragmentation. An indication for a ”stiff” symmetry term is emerging, consistent with transverse flow calculations in the same energy range .

The effects are not large but quite encouraging for similar studies with radioactive beams. A possibility is emerging of obtaining in terrestrial accelerator laboratories important information on the symmetry term of large astrophysical interest. It appears essential to have good charge asymmetric beams available at intermediate energies and to perform more exclusive experiments.


text:
# Rapidly rotating strange stars

## Acknowledgments.

This work was supported in part by the following grants KBN-2P03D01413 and KBN-2P03D02117.


text:
# A Note on the Equivalence of Vafa’s and Douglas’s Picture of Discrete Torsion

## 1 Vafa’s picture

Discrete torsion was introduced many years ago by Vafa in . More recently Douglas  introduced an alternative picture in terms of D-branes. The purpose of this note is to show the equivalence of these pictures. Since both of these papers were very brief as regards to the general case we will review both constructions here.

In general a worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g`$ and no boundary will be associated to a given phase dictated by the $`B`$-field and the homology class of the worldsheet in the target space. Vafa wanted to generalize this notion of a $`B`$-field to the case of orbifolds with fixed points.

In order to localize the picture let us consider a discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acting on $`^n`$ where the origin is fixed by all of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on this orbifold may be pictured as a disk in the covering $`^n`$ where the edges of the disk are identified by elements of the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. That is, the usual homology 1-cycles of the worldsheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are twisted by elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The twisting of these cycles in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may be viewed as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-bundle on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The holonomy of this bundle is given precisely by the twist associated to a given loop. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group, this bundle is flat. Such a bundle is classified by the homotopy class of a mapping $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the classifying space for the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. That is, $`\pi _1(B\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\pi _n(B\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ for $`n>1`$.

In this way, $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the case of an orbifold plays a rather similar role to the target space of the usual string theory. Vafa’s idea was to define the discrete torsion version of the $`B`$-field as $`H^2(B\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ because of this analogy. The connection between the $`B`$-field and group cohomology has been clarified recently by the work of Sharpe .

Now group (co)homology, which is defined as the (co)homology of $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, can be described algebraically directly in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as we now show. In order to complete the description of discrete torsion we need to describe the above picture in terms of this more intrinsic definition.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the group ring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. That is, any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be written uniquely as $`_{g\mathrm{\Gamma }}a_gg`$ for $`a_g`$. Now let

$$\mathrm{}F_n\mathrm{}F_1F_00,$$
(1)
be a free resolution of $``$ as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module. This is an exact sequence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules where $`F_n`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module for any $`n`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action on $``$ is taken to be trivial.

Now define $`(F_n)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-coinvariant projection of $`F_n`$. That is, we divide $`F_n`$ by the equivalence $`g1`$ for any $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`F_n`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module, $`(F_n)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be a free $``$-module, i.e., a free abelian group. The homology of the induced complex

$$\mathrm{}(F_n)_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}(F_1)_\mathrm{\Gamma }(F_0)_\mathrm{\Gamma }0$$
(2)
is then equal to $`H_n(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, the homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. See section II.4 of , for example, for a proof that this equals $`H_n(B\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

One way to explicitly compute $`H_n(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is via the “bar resolution” as follows.111In practice this method is usually very inefficient! Let $`F_n`$ be generated by $`(n+1)`$-tuples of the form $`(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action is defined as

$$g:(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)(gg_0,gg_1,\mathrm{},gg_n).$$
(3)
The boundary map $`:F_nF_{n1}`$ is defined as

$$:(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{g_i},\mathrm{},g_n),$$
(4)
where the hat indicates omission as usual. Because of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-action, we may use $`(1,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ as a basis for $`F_n`$ or $`(F_n)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The “bar” notation is to write

$$[g_1|g_2|\mathrm{}|g_n]=(1,g_1,g_1g_2,\mathrm{},g_1g_2\mathrm{}g_n).$$
(5)
We will generally consider the homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in terms of the generators $`[g_1|g_2|\mathrm{}|g_n]`$. One may show that a generator may be considered trivial if any of the entries $`g_1,g_2,\mathrm{}`$ are equal to 1. It is also useful to note the explicit form of the boundary map in (2) of a 3-chain in the bar notation:

$$[a|b|c]=[b|c][ab|c]+[a|bc][a|b].$$
(6)
So how is the homology class of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ described in terms of these bar chains? The free resolution (1) is actually an augmented simplicial chain complex, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as follows. Let the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be viewed as the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Now let $`(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)`$ be the $`n`$-dimensional simplex in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the corresponding vertices. Thus we have exactly one simplex in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for every possible sequence of group elements. The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to give the complex (2) as a quotient. As far as homology is concerned, the abstract simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a perfectly good representative for $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We may now take a simplicial decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and explicitly map it into this simplicial picture of $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This will relate the homology of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and in particular its fundamental class, to the homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As a simple example let us consider a torus as shown in figure 1. This torus consists of one cycle twisted by the action of $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and another cycle twisted by the action of $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The topology of the torus dictates that $`ab=ba`$. The figure shows the labels of the vertices in terms of the group action and it also shows a simple simplicial decomposition. We are free to label one vertex as “1”. In terms of the image of this torus in our peculiar simplicial model of $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we see that $`U`$ corresponds to a simplex $`(1,a,ab)`$ and $`L`$ corresponds to a simplex $`(1,b,ab)`$. As usual in simplicial homology one needs to be careful about relative signs. The fundamental class of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by $`UL`$ so that the diagonal line in figure 1 cancels for the boundary of $`UL`$. This gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\mathrm{\Sigma }]& =(1,a,ab)(1,b,ab)\hfill \\ & =[a|b][b|a],\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
in terms of the bar chains.

Applying $`\mathrm{Hom}(,\mathrm{U}(1))`$ to this bar resolution we may go over to the group cohomology picture. A group $`n`$-cochain can now be viewed as a map from $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })^n`$ to $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$. For example, if $`\alpha H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ then $`\alpha (a,b)\mathrm{U}(1)`$ for $`a,b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From (6) we see that a 2-cochain is closed if

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\delta \alpha )(a,b,c)& =\frac{\alpha (a,bc)\alpha (b,c)}{\alpha (a,b)\alpha (ab,c)}\hfill \\ & =1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
If discrete torsion is written in terms of the $`\alpha `$ cocycles then (7) is translated in Vafa’s language into the statement that the phase associated to a genus one Riemann surface is given by

$$\xi _1=\frac{\alpha (a,b)}{\alpha (b,a)}.$$
(9)
This is the result quoted in . This method may be applied equally well to higher genus worldsheets. The genus two case is shown in figure 2 together with a specific simplicial decomposition. It follows that

$$[\mathrm{\Sigma }]=[a_1|b_1][\gamma |b_1a_1][b_1|a_1]+[a_2|b_2]+[\gamma |a_2b_2][b_2|a_2],$$
(10)
where $`\gamma =a_1b_1a_1^1b_1^1`$, which by the topology of a genus two surface must equal $`b_2a_2b_2^1a_2^1`$. Note that if $`\gamma =1`$, which would happen if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ were abelian for example, then the genus two homology class simply breaks into $`([a_1|b_1][b_1|a_1])+([a_2|b_2][b_2|a_2])`$ which is the sum of two genus one classes. This does not happen in general if $`\gamma 1`$. One may view this statement in terms of a genus two surface degenerating into two genus one surfaces touching at a point. Such a degeneration is topologically obstructed if $`\gamma 1`$.

There are many ways of performing a simplicial decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in general. One may show that changing the decomposition will simply change $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$ in the computations above by the boundary of a group 3-chain and hence has no effect.

## 2 Douglas’s picture

In  Douglas introduced another definition of discrete torsion associated to projective representations which we now review. See  for further discussion of this construction.

Consider the following central extension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$1\mathrm{U}(1)\stackrel{i}{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\begin{array}{c}s\\ \\ j\\ \\ \end{array}\mathrm{\Gamma }1,$$
(11)
where $`s`$ is a set-theoretic map such that $`js`$ is the identity on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Such extensions are classified by $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. The map $`s`$ defines a projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Given $`\alpha H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ written in terms of the bar resolution of the previous section one may show that

$$s(a)s(b)=\alpha (a,b)s(ab).$$
(12)
Douglas considered $`s`$ as a lift of an orbifold action to the Chan-Paton factors on the end of an open string. He then considered a Riemann surface with a disk removed. Such a surface can represent either a multi-loop open string diagram or a multi-loop tadpole-like diagram for a closed string.

Consider the genus two case shown in figure 3. When computing the amplitude of this diagram in the open string context one must include a trace of the group actions on the Chan-Paton elements along the boundary. As is clear from the figure, this boundary may be contracted to the outer polygon which is a sequence of 1-cycles which are twisted by elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`\xi _2`$ be this weighting of the amplitude. We then have

$$\xi _2=s(a_1)s(b_1)s(a_1)^1s(b_1)^1s(a_2)s(b_2)s(a_2)^1s(b_2)^1,$$
(13)
where $`a_i,b_i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represent the associated twists. For a general genus $`g`$ surface we clearly have

$$\xi _g=\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}s(a_i)s(b_i)s(a_i)^1s(b_i)^1.$$
(14)
Let $`\gamma _i=a_ib_ia_i^1b_i^1`$. Then the topology of the surface dictates that $`_{i=1}^g\gamma _i=1`$.

Note that $`s(1)=1`$ and thus $`s(x)s(x^1)=\alpha (x,x^1)`$. It follows that $`\alpha (x,x^1)=\alpha (x^1,x)`$. Repeated use of (12) and (8) then gives222We assume $`g>1`$. The case $`g=1`$ is left as an easy exercise for the reader.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \xi _g& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}\frac{s(a_i)s(b_i)s(a_i^1)s(b_i^1)}{\alpha (a_i,a_i^1)\alpha (b_i,b_i^1)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\alpha (a_1,b_1)\alpha (a_1b_1,a_1^1)\alpha (a_1b_1a_1^1,b_1^1)\mathrm{}\alpha ((_{i=1}^{g1}\gamma _i)a_gb_ga_g^1,b_g^1)}{_{i=1}^g\alpha (a_i,a_i^1)\alpha (b_i,b_i^1)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\alpha (a_1,b_1)\alpha (\gamma _1b_1a_1,a_1^1)\alpha (\gamma _1b_1,b_1^1)\mathrm{}\alpha (b_g,b_g^1)}{_{i=1}^g\alpha (a_i,a_i^1)\alpha (b_i,b_i^1)}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\alpha (a_1,b_1)}{\alpha (\gamma _1b_1,a_1)\alpha (\gamma _1,b_1)}\underset{i=2}{\overset{g1}{}}\frac{\alpha (\zeta _i,a_i)\alpha (\zeta _ia_i,b_i)}{\alpha (\zeta _i\gamma _ib_i,a_i)\alpha (\zeta _i\gamma _i,b_i)}\frac{\alpha (\zeta _g,a_g)\alpha (\zeta _ga_g,b_g)}{\alpha (b_g,a_g)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\zeta _i=\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{i1}`$.

This formula was also derived in . Now it is not hard to see that the final form of (15) corresponds to a simplicial decomposition of a genus $`g`$ surface into $`4g2`$ triangles in the language of section 1. Each $`\alpha `$ factor represents one triangle oriented in just the right way to build up the complete surface. We show the four triangles for a generic pair $`a_i,b_i`$ in figure 4.

This factor $`\xi _g`$ is exactly the same factor as we obtain by Vafa’s method of the previous section applied to this simplicial decomposition. Thus we see that Vafa’s and Douglas’s definition of discrete torsion agree in general.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank S. Katz, R. Plesser and E. Sharpe for useful conversations. The author is supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0074072 and a research fellowship from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# INVESTIGATION OF THE KERR-LENS MODE LOCKING ABILITY OF Cr:ZnSe SOLID-STATE LASER

## 1 Introduction

The intensive investigations of the Cr2+-doped laser media testify about their high potential in the tunable generation in mid-IR between 2 – 5 $`\mu `$m. A special interest is connected with Cr2+: ZnSe – active medium due to its excellent material properties: high thermal conductivity which is close to that one of YAG, the absence of excited state absorption, and very broad gain band which allows for tunable generation in 2 – 3 $`\mu `$m range. The latter is very attractive for a lot of applications: remote sensing, spectroscopy, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery.

At this moment, the pulsed1 and continuous-wave operation2 in Cr2+: ZnSe lasers was demonstrated with InGaAs and Tm:YALO laser pumping, which demonstrated high efficiency and favorable lasing abilities of this active crystal.

A very interesting property of Cr2+: ZnSe is the high coefficient of the nonlinear refraction3 that results from the relatively small bandgap, i. e., in fact, from the semiconductor nature of the material. As it is known, the higher nonlinear refraction is favorable to self-starting of Kerr-lens mode locking4. The decrease of Kerr-lens mode locking threshold allows to simplify the laser configuration, to improve the ultrashort pulse stability, and to increase the lasing efficiency. Another advantage of Cr2+: ZnSe as media for ultrashort pulse laser is a very broad gain band, which can support the generation of 12 fs pulses.

However, high nonlinear refraction coefficient is the source of some shortcomings. As it was shown5, the Kerr-lens mode-locked lasers demonstrate a variety of unstable regimes that can destroy the ultrashort pulse and prevent from the pulse shortening.

Here, for first time to our knowledge we analyze the Kerr-lens mode locking abilities of Cr2+: ZnSe laser. The analysis of ZnSe nonlinear properties is presented that is necessary for an optimization of the laser design and for investigation of self-starting ability and ultrashort pulse stability in Cr2+: ZnSe laser.

## 2 Nonlinear refraction in an active medium

As it is known3, the two-photon absorption, Raman scattering and Stark effect strongly contribute to nonlinear refractivity in semiconductors. The main parameter, which defines a value of nonlinear refraction coefficient $`n_2`$, is the bandgap energy $`E_g`$:

$$n_2[esu]=\frac{K\sqrt{E_p}G_2(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{E_g})}{n_0E_g^4}.$$

Here $`n_0`$ is the linear coefficient of refraction; $`E_p=21eV`$ for the most of direct gap semiconductors; $`K=1.510^8`$ is a material-independent constant; $`G_2`$ is the function depending only on the ratio of photon energy and the energy gap of the material. For ZnSe $`E_g=2.58eV`$. For $`G_2`$ we used the following approximation in the below bandgap region:

$$G_2(x)=0.01373+\frac{0.65610^{14}}{x^2}+\frac{0.188910^{37}}{x^6},$$

which was obtained from experimental data presented in Ref4. In addition to dependence of $`G_2`$ on wavelength, we have to take into account the dispersion of $`n_0`$. For ZnSe the next approximation is valid:

$$n_0=2.4215+\frac{0.499510^7}{\lambda }\frac{0.174710^{13}}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{0.342910^{19}}{\lambda ^3}$$

(here $`\lambda `$ is in meters). A resulting dependence of $`n_2`$ on wavelength is shown in Fig. 1. There is a strong Kerr nonlinearity producing self-focusing effect. The value of $`n_2`$ exceeds the typical values of the most of dielectric crystals by two orders of magnitude.

However, this is not sufficient for the estimation of the nonlinear properties of ZnSe. Despite the fact that ZnSe has cubical lattice, there is not center of inversion in crystal. As result, the medium possesses the second-order nonlinear properties. The corresponding nonlinear coefficient $`d=80pm/V^6`$. Although there is no efficient frequency conversion, the existence of second-order nonlinearity can strongly contributes to the nonlinear refractivity due to so-called cascaded second-order nonlinearity, which can be used for Kerr-lens mode locking7. Usually, change of the index of refractivity has non-Kerr character, but the Kerr-like approximation $`n=n_0+n_2I`$ (where $`I`$ is the field intensity) is valid if6 $`\frac{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }k}{2\chi }\right)^2}{I}<<1`$ , where

$`\chi =\frac{2\omega d}{\sqrt{2ϵ_0n_0^2n_{2\omega }c^3}}`$ ; $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=2k_0k_{2\omega }`$; $`\omega `$, $`k_0`$ are the fundamental frequency and wave number, correspondingly; $`n_{2\omega }`$, $`k_{2\omega }`$ are the linear refractive index and wave number for the second harmonic. Our calculations showed, that the Kerr approximation for ZnSe is valid up to intensities of $`2.2TW/cm^2`$ at 2 $`\mu `$m and $`600GW/cm^2`$ at 3 $`\mu `$m, and it is used throughout present work.

The nonlinear coefficient of refraction due to cascading second-order nonlinearity is6:

$$n_2=\frac{4\pi d^2}{ϵ_0n_0^2n_{2\omega }c\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }k}.$$

Note, that in the case of the normal dispersion of $`n_0`$ the nonlinearity due to second-order nonlinearity has a defocusing nature. The dependence of $`n_2`$ on the wavelength is shown in Fig. 2. One can see, that the nonlinear refraction is very strong. As result of the joint contribution of third- and second-order nonlinearities, a net-coefficient of nonlinear refraction is shown in Fig. 3. The nonlinearity is focusing up to 1.2 $`\mu `$m and defocusing in mid-IR range. An experimental value of $`n_2`$ measured at 1.06 $`\mu `$m demonstrates an excellent agreement with the corresponding value of calculated curve in Fig. 3.

## 3 Laser configuration

The obtained value of $`n_2`$ enables us to estimate a mode locking efficiency due to Kerr-lensing. We have used the method presented in 8: for each fixed value of the focal length of the mirror $`M_2`$ (see Fig. 4) we varied a folding distance and the position of active medium trying to maximize the value of $`\frac{T}{I}`$ , where $`T`$ is the effective transmission of the hard aperture. This parameter defines the inverse saturation intensity of the efficient fast saturable absorber, induced by joint action of Kerr self-focusing in active medium and difractional losses at aperture. For the common Kerr-lens mode-locked lasers $`\frac{T}{I}10^{10}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{12}cm^2/W`$ . In the case of ZnSe the modulation parameter is shown in Fig. 5. It is seen, that the Kerr-lensing efficiency in this case is higher by two orders of magnitude. It is interestingly, that the defocusing nature of the nonlinearity does not affect the process of the cavity optimization essentially: the change of the sign of $`n_2`$ only slightly affects the position of active medium and folding distance. The optimized cavity configuration is shown in Fig. 4.

## 4 Ultrashort pulse stability

Calculated values of $`\frac{T}{I}`$ suggest a good Kerr-lens mode locking ability of Cr2+: ZnSe – laser. However, the strong self-phase modulation while being the positive factor facilitating self-focusing, can, on the other hand, destabilize an ultrashort pulse generation due to automodulational instability5. In order to estimate the mode locking stability in Cr2+: ZnSe – laser we performed the numerical simulation on the basis of fluctuation model and distributed scheme of the laser generation. The master equation was:

$$\frac{a}{z}=\left(\alpha +(t_f+iD)\frac{^2}{t^2}i\beta \left|a\right|^2\frac{\gamma }{1+\sigma \left|a\right|^2}\right)a,$$

where $`a`$ is the field, $`z`$ is the longitudinal coordinate, $`\alpha `$ is the saturated by full field energy gain coefficient, $`t_f`$ is the inverse bandwidth of the spectral filter, $`D`$ is the net-group delay dispersion, $`\beta =\frac{2\pi n_2z_g}{\lambda n_0}`$ is the self-phase modulation parameter, $`z_g`$ is the active medium length, $`\gamma `$ is the diffraction loss, defined from configuration of laser, $`\sigma `$ = $`\frac{T}{I}`$ .

The strong self-phase modulation and self-focusing dominate over the gain saturation. The last factor provides the negative feedback in laser that stabilizes ultrashort pulse. The critical parameter defining the ultrashort pulse dynamics is $`\tau =\frac{t_f}{\beta E_s}`$ , where $`E_s`$ is the gain saturation fluency. The decrease of this parameter worsens the pulse stability. To comparison, in ZnSe $`\tau `$ is ten times lower than in Ti: sapphire. Therefore, to obtain the stable pulse generation, we have to increase $`\tau `$ e.g. by increasing $`t_f`$. The stable pulses were obtained for $`t_f=120fs`$. The pulse duration was about 300 fs for 800 mW absorbed pump power. An additional stabilization factor is the minimization (down to zero) of net-dispersion.

The character of the pulse destabilization needs some comments. The typical scenarios are shown in Figs. 6 – 8. The pulse behaviors presented here were calculated for the same set of the laser parameters but for different initial noise samples. There are the possibilities for multipulse generation (Fig. 6), generation of the breezer-like pulse and its subsequent disintegration (Fig. 7), and the collapse of the pulse into several pulses (Fig. 8). Note, that breezer-like pulse is formed without action of the soliton mechanism in laser because of net-dispersion in this case is close to $`0`$. The regime depicted in Fig. 8 is characterized by low-frequency modulation of the generation spectrum that at last leads to the pulse collapse. It should be noted, that the generation of the stable single pulse is depended on the random noise sample, too.

## 5 Conclusion

The analysis of the nonlinear properties of ZnSe – crystal was performed. It was found, that the strong second-order cascading nonlinearity in the combination with third-order phase nonlinearity causes a strong focusing Kerr nonlinearity in near-IR and defocusing quasi-Kerr nonlinearity in mid-IR ranges. As result, the efficiency of the Kerr-lensing in active medium is two-three orders of magnitude higher than in typical active media of femtosecond lasers. The optimal cavity configuration for Kerr-lens mode locking was found. But, as the analysis testifies, the main problem of the ultrashort pulse generation in Cr2+: ZnSe – laser is the pulse destabilization due to strong self-phase modulation. This requires to decrease the bandwidth of spectral filter. The last allows to generate 300 fs pulses. The self-start of Kerr-lens mode locking has a statistical character, that is depended on the noise sample. The investigation of the pulse destabilization testifies about formation of the breezer-like pulses and pulse collapse due to low frequency perturbations.

## 6 References

1. R.H. Page, J.A. Skidmore, K.I. Schaffers et al., Trends in Optics and Photonics, (OSA, Washington, 1997).
2. G. J. Wagner, T. J. Carring, R. H. Page et al., Opt. Lett., 24, 19 (1999).
3. M. Sheik-Bahae, D. C. Hutchings, D. J. Hagan, and E. W. van Stryland, IEEE J. Quantum Electr., 27, 1296 (1991).
4. C. Radzewicz, G. W. Pearson, and J. S. Krasinski, Optics. Commun., 102, 464 (1993).
5. J. Jasapara, V. L. Kalashnikov, et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am., B 17, 319 (2000).
6. R. L. Sutherland, Handbook of nonlinear optics (NY, 1996).
7. G. Cerullo, S. De Silvestry, A. Monguzzi et al., Opt. Letts., 20, 746 (1995).
8. V. L. Kalashnikov, V. P. Kalosha et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am., B 14, 964 (1997).


text:
# The Faint Sky Variability Survey II: Initial Results

## 1 Introduction

The Faint Sky Variability Survey (hereafter FSVS) has been discussed by Groot et al. (2000; hereafter paper I) and is part of the Wide Field Survey. The primary goals of the FSVS is to quantify the photometric and astrometric variability of faint sources at moderate to high galactic latitudes and to identify objects for detailed follow-up observations. The first two FSVS observing runs cover 8.4 square degrees to a 5-$`\sigma `$ limiting magnitude $`V25`$ for point sources, providing $`V`$-band light curves, $`BVI`$ colours, and morphological and astrometric information for all objects in the field. The dataset of the FSVS allows us to detect rare stellar and galactic populations exhibiting photometric variability, objects with high proper motions or extreme colours, and trans-Neptunian objects. In this paper we present initial results from the FSVS. In Section 2 we review the observations that are discussed in paper I, in Section 3 we discuss the differential photometric techniques used in the FSVS, and in Section 4 we show results.

## 2 Observations

We took the first observations for the FSVS on 1998 Nov. 16-21 UT, and a second observing run was taken on 1999 May 11-17 UT. The observing strategy has been detailed in paper I so we describe it only briefly here. Each pointing of the telescope is centered on a different “field”, consisting of the area imaged by the four Wide Field Camera CCDs (each of the 4100x2048 pixel CCDs images an area of 0.072 sq. degrees for a total of 0.29 sq. degrees per field with a plate scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$33 pixel<sup>-1</sup>). The total area of the sky covered during these first two runs is 8.4 square degrees. Each field is observed 10-20 times with 10 minute exposures in the $`V`$-band providing time sampling from $`13`$ minutes up to, typically, 5 days. Additionally, each field is observed once with exposures of 10 and 15 minutes respectively in the $`B`$\- and $`I`$-bands to provide colour information. Astrometric plate solutions are found by taking positions from the USNO-A2.0 Catalog (Monet et al. 1996). Magnitudes are put on a standard scale using observations of Landolt standard star fields taken in succession with our data fields on the night that we observe the field in $`BVI`$.

The 18 fields observed during the November run clustered in three “areas” of the sky, and the 12 observed during the May run were clustered in two additional areas. In this way, the FSVS samples a variety of different galactic and ecliptic environments, each chosen to avoid regions of obvious interstellar extinction so that distant parts of the galactic halo could be observed. Approximately one year after each field is first observed it is scheduled for re-observation with a single 10-minute V-band exposure to identify high proper motion objects and those exhibiting long-term photometric variability. The areas observed during the first two FSVS observing runs are listed in Table 1.

## 3 Differential Photometry

The light curves produced for every object in the FSVS are the result of ensemble differential aperture photometry, wherein the observed flux of each object is corrected for variations in atmospheric transparency and seeing by comparing the observed fluxes to those of a set of bright, non-variable calibration stars simultaneously observed on the same CCD (hereafter referred to as reference stars). The techniques and application of such differential photometry are discussed by Howell, Mitchell, & Warnock (1988), Honeycutt (1992), and Everett & Howell (2000). Because the FSVS dataset contains a large number of sources, includes a wide range of object types (point and extended sources), and was observed with a wide field and under different observing conditions (seeing and transparency), it presents a good test for our methods of photometry. Note that here we are concerned with the internal precision of each light curve, and this depends only on comparisons between the reference stars and each object. This internal precision is distinct from our calibration of the magnitude scale obtained through observations of separate photometric standard star fields.

Our ability to perform precise differential photometric measurements depends on reducing a combination of random and systematic uncertainties to its lowest possible level. Random errors arise from the finite number of detected photons from the star and sky and readout noise. The magnitude of these random errors can be calculated in a straightforward manner using Poisson statistics. Systematic errors arise mainly from imperfections in the instrumentation and calibration which normally only become noticeable once the random sources of noise are reduced to $`<1`$ percent. Sources of systematic errors in the light curves include guiding errors, scattered light, flatfielding uncertainties, and colour-dependent extinction. It is particularly important to understand the sources and behaviour of these systematic errors because they can produce artifacts in light curves that might otherwise be attributed to real variations.

The two-dimensional profiles of objects in the FSVS differ due to intrinsic differences (galaxies vs. stars), extrinsic differences (e.g., crowding), as well as instrumental or observational effects (e.g., optical aberrations, seeing changes, guiding errors). For differential photometry we use the SExtractor package (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) with circular apertures that allow an exact comparison of the fluxes from two objects having the same profile. This assumes that although the entire flux from each object is not contained within the aperture, the same fraction of the flux will be. This assumption breaks down if one attempts to compare the fluxes from two objects with different profiles. For instance, these effects prevent us from obtaining the high photometric precision light curves for galaxies (which have unique profiles) that we have for stars. Stars too may have asymmetric profiles due to guiding errors or they may be overlapped by the profiles of neighbouring objects. In these cases we either reject the data or interpret it with caution.

The systematic errors produced by differences and asymmetries in the profiles of the reference stars and objects in the field may manifest themselves as artificial “variations” in the objects’ light curves. Fortunately, we can distinguish these artifacts from true variations because they are intercorrelated and often depend on variations in the seeing (light curves of crowded or extended objects tend to exhibit the same artificial patterns). The following measures are taken to reduce these artifacts and to reject problematic objects from the dataset:

1. We reject the very few images taken with poor guiding.
2. We measure magnitudes using four different circular aperture sizes centered on each object. The largest aperture is optimal for the brightest stars (for which photometric precision is highest). The larger apertures reduce the adverse effects of slight differences between the profiles of the reference stars and those of objects of interest. This is because a smaller fraction of the total flux falls outside of large apertures, meaning any differences in the profile are less important. Other sources of uncertainty such as sky noise dominate for fainter stars. In this case, smaller apertures yield better results.
3. We adopt a high threshold on the “stellarity” parameter to distinguish point sources from extended sources (see paper I for more discussion of the stellarity parameter). This helps us to recognize sources that are close to, but not quite, point-like (e.g., unresolved binaries, compact galaxies). Only light curves of uncrowded point sources can be measured to high precision and realistically searched for variability with errors calculated by Poisson statistics.
4. We choose the reference stars carefully by the method described in paper I. Since the noise in the (non-variable) reference star light curves are uncorrelated, the variance of their mean light curve is easily calculated and is significantly smaller than that of any single object’s light curve. This ensures that no significant noise is added to our light curves based on an uncertain reference star correction.

## 4 Results

After performing the basic data reductions as described in paper I, we are in the position to analyse the data tables. For each source, we have a $`V`$-band light curve, information about the source profile in each exposure (the stellarity parameter and a Gaussian fit to the profile), and $`B`$\- and $`I`$-band magnitudes. In addition, coordinates are found for each object. In images where an object is not detected by virtue of its faintness, we have taken our determination of the plate limit as a lower limit to its magnitude. Magnitude measurements that could be in error (e.g., those of objects near bad pixels, the edge of the CCD, crowded by neighbouring sources, or saturated) are flagged and rejected before the analysis.

### 4.1 Magnitudes and Colours

A total of 500,000 objects was detected in the 30 fields (8.4 sq. degrees) observed during our first two FSVS runs. The objects can be classified according to their magnitudes, colours, variability, and stellarity. In Fig. 1 we show the magnitude distribution of point sources and extended sources found in two different galactic regions observed in the FSVS. Here the point sources are taken to be those with stellarity$`>`$0.8 and extended sources include those with stellarity$`<`$0.2. The thresholds for stellarity are somewhat arbitrary, but for the bright sources these values distinguish point-like from extended sources. For fainter objects there is more confusion distinguishing between point and extended sources due to limited signal-to-noise and the diminishing angular size of galaxies with distance. This means that interpreting Fig. 1 at magnitudes fainter than $`V=22`$ is difficult. The histogram shows the magnitude range over which we are sensitive ($`V1725`$), a range between the brightest stars that remain unsaturated in the 10-minute exposures and our faint detection limit. We also see that the distribution of extended sources rises more steeply at faint magnitudes reflecting the tendency of galaxies to outnumber stars around $`V=21`$.

In panels (a) of Figs. 2 and 3 we show the magnitude distribution of point sources at two different galactic latitudes alongside the predicted distributions based on the Galaxy models of Bahcall & Soneira (1980). The agreement between the observations and model is generally good to as faint as $`V=22`$. Towards the North Galactic Pole, we observe an overabundance of point sources between $`V=21`$ and $`V=22.5`$ relative to the model predictions. Some of this excess can be attributed to QSOs (Hartwick & Schade 1990), but stars probably contribute as well. Also, in Figs. 2 and 3, the completeness limits of the survey can be seen to be $`V22`$ for our chosen stellarity threshold of $`>0.8`$. This is apparent because the observed starcounts per magnitude turn over, whereas the model starcounts continue to increase towards fainter magnitudes. The detection limit is quite a bit fainter than this completeness limit ($`V25`$ compared to $`V22`$). One reason is the fact that the stellarity is difficult to measure for the faintest objects, and at low signal-to-noise, all stellarity values tend towards 0.5. Objects fainter than $`V22`$ are in fact detected, but most have stellarity values less than 0.8. Our completeness limit for simply detecting objects in these fields is $`V24`$. We also note that the completeness and detection limits depend on the observing conditions at the time the data were taken. Some fields are observed under better conditions than others and, naturally, exposures taken during the poorest observing conditions limit our completeness. The detections at $`V25`$ are made on the best exposures. In a similar manner, the bright limit to the survey depends on atmospheric transparency and seeing and this differs between fields. Therefore, the shape of the magnitude distribution at the bright end ($`V=1517`$) is statistically uncertain. The panels (b) in Figs. 2 and 3 show the Bahcall & Soneira models broken down into two stellar populations, namely a spheroid and disk component. At the North Galactic Pole, the FSVS contains primarily halo stars whereas at mid-galactic latitudes (e.g., the $`b=+23\mathrm{°}l=200\mathrm{°}`$ fields shown here), the disk stars dominate.

$`BVI`$ colours are measured from exposures of the same field taken closely-spaced in time. Thus, for large-amplitude variables, the reported colours should indicate an approximate spectral type. We show a plot of $`VI`$ vs. $`BV`$ for point sources with stellarity$`>`$0.8 in Fig. 4. The major grouping of points traces the main sequence, and the majority of these sources are K and M dwarfs. This can be seen by the labels along the top of the plot that show the $`VI`$ colors expected for main sequence stars. The colours for B-K dwarfs are from Cox (2000) and those for (old disk) M dwarfs are from Leggett (1992). Note that giants in the halo would have similar colours but most would exceed the bright limit of the FSVS. In Fig. 5 we show $`VI`$ vs. $`BV`$ for extended sources with stellarity$`<`$0.2. Many galaxy colours cluster around $`VI=1.5`$ and $`BV=0.75`$, falling below the stellar main sequence on this plot. Other galaxies have $`BVI`$ colours that place them near the main-sequence or giant branch (the giant branch and main-sequence are difficult to separate on this plot). Note that Figs. 4 and 5 include only those sources detected in every passband and thus, many of the objects with extreme colours are not included since they are undetected at either $`B`$ or $`I`$. Similarly, many of the faintest objects are not shown in either Fig. 4 or 5 because we chose not to include those with stellarity values between 0.2 and 0.8. Faint objects with such stellarity values are difficult to classify.

We show histograms of the distribution of objects in $`BV`$ in Figs. 6 and 7. We have included only point sources in these plots by requiring stellarity$`>`$0.8 and $`17<V<22`$. The magnitude limits are chosen because the FSVS is complete within these limits for the point sources as described above and as seen in Figs. 2 and 3. The distribution in $`BV`$ has a bimodal distribution with the red peak attributable to disk stars and the blue to halo stars. Predictions from the Bahcall & Soneira models are plotted alongside the observations and shown in terms of the disk and spheroid components. Again, many features in the observed distributions are matched by the models, but with less success for the mid-Galactic latitudes shown in Fig. 6. We did not attempt to fit the data with the model, of course, and it is possible that the model parameters could be adjusted to match the observations more closely. For the mid-Galactic latitudes, an overabundance of objects relative to the model predictions for $`0.4<BV<1.2`$ suggests that more halo stars are present than predicted by the model. The distribution in $`BV`$ appears to be a better discriminator between the two components than the distribution in $`V`$ shown in Fig. 2.

While most objects lie between $`BV=0.4`$ and 1.8, there are tails in the distribution showing that a few objects have extreme colours. The model does not predict as many of the bluest objects as are observed. The bluest objects will presumably include white dwarfs, CVs, and emission-line objects, and are a prime target for our follow-up classification spectroscopy. Results of the spectra will be discussed in future publications.

### 4.2 Photometric Variability

The most unique aspect of the FSVS dataset is the variability information available for each source. The $`V`$-band light curves show that photometric variability is detected in a few percent of the sources. These variations take place on all of the timescales sampled, from $``$13 minutes to about five days. The amplitudes of variation also display a wide range, from about 5 millimagnitudes (or the minimum amplitudes we could detect) to about one magnitude.

Our sensitivity to detecting photometric variations is a function of the source brightness because sources detected with higher numbers of counts can be measured (photometrically) to a higher precision. To demonstrate our photometric precision as a function of magnitude, we plot the logarithm of the standard deviation measured in the data points in each light curve versus the mean $`V`$-magnitude in Fig. 8. Here we include only point sources by requiring a stellarity$`>0.8`$. Since most sources do not vary, the standard deviations of their light curves reflect the uncertainty in measuring each data point based on counting statistics and these data trace out the locus of a precision vs. magnitude function. The data points in Fig. 8 are shown as either dots or X’s. Light curves whose reduced $`\chi ^2`$ statistic ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$) for a constant fit to the light curve is greater than 10 are represented by the X’s. These stars are variable at a very high level of confidence. The dots represent stars with smaller values of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$. Obviously on this plot variable sources tend to lie above the non-variable sources. There is no distinct dividing line between the two, however, because variable observing conditions mean some fields are observed to higher precision than others as well as the fact that the calculation of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ is a weighted one while that of $`\sigma `$ is unweighted. The threshold of $`\chi _\nu ^2=10`$ is arbitrary, but adopting a high value prevents the misidentification of non-variable objects as variable since sporadic events (e.g., cosmic rays or asteroids in the aperture) can interfere with our photometry.

To select a sample of variable objects from our data tables, we apply statistical tests to each light curve. Our first approach is to calculate the $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ statistic for a constant fit to each light curve and to determine the likelihood that the observed variations are not due to random fluctuations alone. Sources that are found to be variable at a high level of confidence are visually inspected on the images for any unforeseen problems and their light curves are assigned into “bins” by visual inspection and automated testing for different types of variability. We have targeted many of these variable objects with follow-up classification spectroscopy and more detailed photometry to determine their nature.

We show light curves for several variable point sources in Fig. 9. Individual observations are spaced from approximately 13 minutes apart (two consecutive 10-minute exposures with a 3-minute readout time) up to 5 days. Photometric variations are seen with both short- and long-term behaviour, enabling us to create descriptive classifications for each variable object (slow variations, rapid variations, low- or high-amplitude variations, periodicity, etc.)

Periodic variations are actually difficult to detect given the limited number of datapoints in the FSVS light curves. However, visual inspection of the light curves does show a few suggesting periodic variations. Several types of periodic and semi-periodic variable stars are likely to show up in our dataset. These include chromospherically active late-type dwarfs, which show modulations in time with their rotational period as spots move into and out of the observer’s direction, eclipsing binaries of many types, pulsating variables, and interacting binaries.

RR Lyrae stars are likely to be present in the FSVS and good candidates are drawn from those stars having variability on hour time scales and with colours consistent with this class (panel (b) in Fig. 9 shows the light curve of a candidate RR Lyr star). Follow-up time-series photometry can confirm their type and, from their magnitudes, their distances can be estimated.

Since the FSVS is very rich in late-type dwarfs, it is therefore also likely to contain a large number of spotted variables. Indeed we see many stars having slow variations over a 5-day time interval with amplitudes ranging from several tenths of a magnitude down to the smallest amplitudes we can detect. Panels (a) and (d) in Fig. 9 show light curves with this type of behaviour. An analysis of variability versus colour (and by implication, spectral type) will show how often this affects the different late-type dwarf populations.

Without the variability information in the FSVS, rare classes of objects having colours comparable to those of “normal” stars or other objects may go unidentified. For example, one of the main goals of the FSVS is to search for the existence of faint, low mass-transfer rate cataclysmic variable stars (CVs are interacting red dwarf-white dwarf pairs; see Warner 1995). CV candidates would be selected on the basis of rapid variability. The cataclysmic variable GO Comae was observed in field 23 and its light curve is shown in panel (e) of Fig. 9. The colours are relatively blue ($`BV=0.2`$ and $`VI=0.9`$), but this object is most effectively identified via its rapid and high-amplitude variations. Much of the variation in this object is attributable to flickering, although a possible 95-minute period may produce some variations as well (Howell et al. 1990). Candidate CVs will be targeted for follow-up spectroscopy and confirmation would be made by detecting the characteristic broad emission lines in their spectra.

### 4.3 Trans-Neptunian Objects

We searched three ecliptic opposition fields taken during the November 1998 run for trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs, also known as Kuiper Belt objects), using a moving-object detection code written by one of us (HS). To detect TNOs, fields near opposition are needed in order to distinguish TNOs from main-belt asteroids and other objects based on their motion. We found no TNO candidates in these fields.

We expected to find one known TNO, 1997 CS29, within the search area. The predicted position for this TNO fell within one of our observed ecliptic opposition fields on 1998 Nov 16 UT. However, 1997 CS29 was not found, probably due to a bright saturated star located at its expected position.

Although the limiting magnitudes of many of the images from the November run were as faint as $`V=25`$, for detection of moving objects, three, or preferably four images at different times need to be intercompared. The variable observing conditions during the November run resulted in the sets of three or four exposures having varying limiting magnitudes, and our detection sensitivity is limited by the quality of the poorest image in the set. As a result, the effective limiting magnitude for our search was $`V=23.524`$.

Given this limiting magnitude, over the 0.81 square degrees searched, we would have expected to find 0.5 - 1 TNOs on average, based on the TNO luminosity function determined by Gladman et al. (1998). We used the mean $`VR`$ of known TNOs to apply the $`R`$ luminosity function of Gladman et al. to our $`V`$ observations. This is consistent with our negative result. In better weather conditions we can expect consistent limiting magnitudes of $`V>25.5`$ (similar to the best of our November 1998 frames), and the expected number of TNOs then rises to several per field. Thus we will continue to search future FSVS opposition fields for TNOs.

## 5 Conclusions

The Faint Sky Variability Survey is an ongoing deep, wide-field, multi-colour, time-series CCD survey towards moderate and high galactic latitudes. Hundreds of thousands of objects in the magnitude range $`V=1725`$ are observed for classification on the basis of $`BVI`$ colours, temporal and astrometric variability, and morphology. Analysis of the FSVS light curves reveals variable objects of many types, objects with unusual colours, and will soon be extended to include high proper motion stars. Interesting populations have been observed spectroscopically and will be discussed in future publications.

## Acknowledgments

PJG and PMV are partially supported by NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to Ed van den Heuvel. PJG is currently a CfA fellow. SBH acknowledges partial support of this project by NSF grant AST9818770. MEH is partially supported by the Wyoming Space Grant Consortium NASA grant #NGT-40008. The FSVS is based on observations made through the Isaac Newton Groups’ Wide Field Survey Programme with the Isaac Newton Telescope operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.


text:
# THE ‘SECOND PARAMETER’: A MEMORY FROM THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER FORMATION EPOCH

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Evolved sun-like stars which burn helium in their cores occupy the horizontal branch (HB) in the Hertzsprung-Russel (HR) diagram. The distributions of stars on the HB (the HB morphology) differ substantially from one globular cluster (GC) to another. It has long been known that metallicity is the main, but not sole, factor which determines the HB morphology (for a historical review see, e.g., Rood, Whitney, & D’Cruz 1997; Fusi Pecci & Bellazzini 1997). The other factor (or factors) which determines the HB morphology is termed the ‘second parameter’. In recent years it has become clear that mass loss on the red giant branch (RGB) is closely connected with the second parameter, in the sense that the second parameter should determine the HB morphology by regulating the mass loss on the RGB (Dorman, Rood, & O’Connell 1993; D’Cruz et al. 1996; Ferraro et al. 1998; Whitney et al. 1998; Catelan 2000). D’Cruz et al. (2000) suggest that the the amount of mass lost on the RGB can even determine the gaps observed in the distribution of stars along the HB (e.g., in NGC 2808, Bedin et al. 2000).

But what is the process which determines the total mass that is lost by a star on the RGB, and why does it operate differently in different GCs? What other effects does this process have on the HB morphology? Is the variation of mass loss rate by itself sufficient to explain the entire ‘second parameter’? Sweigart & Catelan (1998; also Sweigart 1999; Moehler, Sweigart, & Catelan 1999; and Moehler et al. 2000), for example, claim that mass loss on the RGB by itself cannot be the second parameter, and it should be supplied by another process, e.g., rotation, or helium mixing, which requires rotation as well. They term the addition of such a process a ‘noncanonical scenario’. Behr et al. (2000) find the second parameter problem to be connected with rotation, and note that single star evolution cannot explain the observed rotation of HB stars, even when fast core rotations are considered. Soker & Harpaz (2000) analyze the angular momentum evolution from the main sequence to the HB. Using rotation velocities for stars in the GC M13, they find that the required angular momentum for the fast rotators is up to $`13`$ orders of magnitude larger than that of the sun. Soker & Harpaz (2000) argue that their results show that the fast rotating HB stars have been probably spun-up by planets, brown dwarfs, or low-mass main sequence stars, while they evolved on the RGB. They further argue that these angular momentum considerations support the ‘planet second parameter’ model. In this model (Soker 1998) the ‘second parameter’ process is the interaction of RGB stars with low-mass companions, in most cases gas giant planets, and in a minority of cases with brown dwarfs or low-mass main sequence stars. The masses and initial orbital separations of the planets (or brown dwarfs or low-mass main sequence stars) form a rich spectrum of different physical parameters, which manifests itself in the rich varieties of HB morphologies observed in the different globular clusters, e.g., different values of HBR, gaps and tails.

One of the common approaches in the search for the second parameter is to look for correlations between the HB-morphology and other GC properties other than metallicity. Although some correlations for a limited number of GCs were found, they are weak and are limited to only a fraction of all GCs. In many cases the quantity that is used to characterize the HB-morphology is HBR, which is defined as $`HBR(BR)/(B+V+R)`$. Here $`V`$ is the number of HB-stars within the instability strip, and $`R`$ and $`B`$ are the number of stars redder and bluer, respectively, than the instability strip. This quantity strongly correlates with metallicity, which is the ‘first parameter’ (e.g., Lee 1990). Fusi Pecci et al. (1993) and Buonanno et al. (1997) find some correlations between the HB-morphology and $`\rho _0`$, the central density of GCs (both papers use a different quantity from HBR to characterize the HB morphology). Both papers find the correlation to be weak and/or limited to a small fraction of all GCs in their sample. Fusi Pecci et al. (1993) find correlations with both the ellipticity and total GC luminosity. Again, these correlations were weak, and significant only for GCs within a narrow range of metallicity. The lack of clear correlations between the HB morphology and GCs’ properties (besides metallicity), which holds for most GCs, constrain any second parameter process. The limited correlation with the central density of GCs, for example, may hint at binary mergers and/or tidal stripping of RGB stars’ envelope as the second parameter mechanism. However, there are several problems with this idea (e.g., Landsman et al. 1996; Rood et al. 1997; Rood 1998; Ferraro et al. 1997, 1998), e.g., the presence of blue HB stars in the core of the galaxy M32 (Brown et al. 2000), where the stellar density is much lower than that in GCs. Soker (1998) argues that Rood’s (1998) three points against stellar binary scenarios do not hold for the planet second parameter model.

In the present paper we propose that the lack of clear correlations with present GCs’ properties (besides metallicity) results from the fact that the second parameter reflects GCs’ properties during the formation time of GCs. We then discuss how the planet second parameter model fits this claim. In $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ we present some correlations between HB morphology (HBR) and other GCs properties. These will serve our discussion in $`\mathrm{\S }3`$. Our summary is in $`\mathrm{\S }4`$.

## 2 CORRELATIONS WITH GLOBULAR CLUSTERS’ PROPERTIES

As the basis for the discussion to follow in the next section, we present some correlations, or non-correlations, of the HB morphology with some GC properties. Most of these were found in the past, but it will be useful to present them here in somewhat different forms. For this we use the tables of Milky Way GCs compiled by Harris (1996; available via http://physun.physics.mcmaster.ca/Globular.html, updated June 1999). With the HB morphology parameter defined in the previous section: $`HBR(BR)/(B+V+R)`$. In Figure 1 we present the well known correlation (e.g., Lee 1990) between HBR and metallicity (the ‘first parameter’) for 114 GCs, as indicated in the figure itself (for 33 out of the 147 there were no HBR and/or metallicity given by Harris 1996). From this correlation we can distinguish three main parts: low metallicity GCs, \[Fe/H\]$`1.8`$, all have a large fraction of blue HB stars, i.e., HBR$`>0.1`$; high metallicity GCs, \[Fe/H\]$`0.9`$, all have a low fraction of blue stars; the middle metallicity group, $`1.8`$\[Fe/H\]$`0.9`$, have a spread in HBR over the entire possible range. This last group is the focus of the rest of this section. The correlation between the HB morphology and metallicity points to the sensitivity of the star location on the HB to its metallicity, higher metallicity stars being redder. This is because the metallicity has another effect, which makes stars bluer on the HB, by which higher metallicity RGB stars reach larger radii on the RGB tip, hence a higher mass loss rate is expected (D’Cruz et al. 2000). Higher mass lost on the RGB means a bluer HB star. Despite this effect, low metallicity GCs have bluer HB morphologies, which means that the mass loss effect on the RGB plays a secondary role. As mentioned earlier, it was suggested (e.g., Dorman, Rood, & O’Connell 1993; Catelan 2000), that the total mass lost on the RGB is connected with the second parameter. The question is what determines the amount of mass lost on the RGB. The discussion in the first section of this paper leads us to support the view that a single mechanism causes both higher mass loss rate on the RGB and a ‘noncanonical effect’, e.g., helium mixing plus rotation (Sweigart & Catelan 1998; Sweigart 1999; Moehler et al. 1999). Following works by Soker (1998), Siess & Livio (1999), Behr et al. (2000) and Soker & Harpaz (2000), we take this mechanism to be induced rotation in RGB stars, mainly by planets. Rotation along the RGB may increase the total mass loss, increase the core mass at helium flash (Mengel & Gross 1976), and mix helium to the envelope (Sweigart & Catelan 1998, and references therein).

Next we search for a correlation with the central density of the cluster $`\rho _0`$, as given in units of solar luminosity per cubic parsec. Such a correlation was noted before (e.g., Fusi Pecci et al. 1993; Buonanno et al. 1997; ). Instead of doing it for the entire sample, we divide the entire sample of 147 GCs into four equal groups according to metallicity, with dividing values at \[Fe/H\]=$`1.675`$, $`1.42`$, and $`0.78`$, as indicated by vertical lines in Figure 1. In Figure 2 we present the results for the three lower metallicity quarters (again, not all GCs have HBR values, hence the number of GCs in each quarter is below 36 GCs). We find correlation between HBR and $`\rho _0`$ only in the second quarter, where the metallicity is in the range of $`1.675<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.42`$. Interestingly, the only GC which is not along the diagonal strip of the correlation in the second quarter, NGC 7492, has a very elliptical shape, with minor to major axes ratio of $`b/a=0.76`$ (White & Shawl 1987). We can still keep the correlation in the second quarter if we add the next five GCs below metallicity of \[Fe/H\]$`=1.675`$. One of these, NGC 6144, is to the upper left of the correlation, but it has high ellipticity, $`b/a=0.75`$, similar to NGC 7492. The correlation is also kept if we add the next five GCs above metallicity of \[Fe/H\]$`=1.42`$. Therefore the correlation exists in the metallicity range of $`1.75`$\[Fe/H\]$`1.35`$. Adding more GCs on either sides makes the correlation worse (see Fig. 4 below), hence there is no general correlation between HB morphology and GCs’ densities. It is also interesting to note that the third quarter, with $`1.42<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<0.78`$, shows no correlation with $`\rho _0`$, despite the spread of HBR on the entire possible range (-1 to +1). This demonstrates the points mentioned in the first section, which were found by many authors previously: some correlations hold for a small fraction of all GCs, but besides metallicity no other property holds correlation for all GCs.

Noting the high ellipticity of NGC 7492, and the claim for correlation with ellipticity in the metallicity range of $`1.9`$\[Fe/H\]$`1.4`$ (Norris 1983), we turn to examine correlations with the ellipticity of GCs, taken from White & Shawl (1987; note that not all GCs have measured ellipticity). Again we divide the sample into four groups according to metallicity. In Figure 3 we present the results for the second and third quarters. For the second quarter a weak correlation exist in the sense that high ellipticity GCs (low b/a) have high values of HBR. However, the third quarter does not possess this correlation. Moreover, if we remove the three GCs with \[Fe/H\]$`<1.4`$, marked with squares in the figure, we find a weak opposite correlation, as did Fusi Pecci et al. (1993). We conclude that the positive correlation of blue HB morphology with ellipticity (Norris 1983) is limited to a very narrow range of metallicity, and it is definitely not a general correlation.

To further demonstrate the differences between the metallicity groups in figure 4 we plot the value of HBR versus the core radius $`r_c`$, for four different metallicity ranges. In the lower panel we present the correlation for the second quarter we used in Figures 2 and 3; the metallicity range is $`1.675<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.42`$, with 30 GCs. In the upper panel we extend the metallicity band to $`1.75<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.35`$, where the correlation still holds; there are 36 GCs marked with asterisks. As shown on the same panel, the correlation no longer exists for a lower metallicity band $`1.95<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.75`$ (15 GCs marked with circles) and for a higher metallicity band $`1.35<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.15`$ (9 GCs marked with squares). Again, we see that the correlation, in the sense that GCs with small core radius tend to have high HBR, holds only for GCs in the metallicity range $`1.75`$\[Fe/H\]$`1.35`$. We note that similar correlations, although less prominent, can be found in this metallicity band between the HB morphology and other GC properties, e.g., absolute luminosity of the cluster and the central concentration $`c`$ (Fusi Pecci et al. 1993), half mass radius $`r_h`$, tidal radius $`r_t`$, $`r_t/r_c`$, $`r_h/r_c`$, and the core relaxation time $`t_c`$.

## 3 DISCUSSION: PROPERTIES AT THE FORMATION EPOCH

We conjecture that the lack of any clear correlation with present properties of GCs, besides metallicity, hints that the second parameter effect was determined at the formation time of the GC. Norris (1983) already suggested that the second parameter is the rotation of single stars, and that the rotations of stars in a GC are determined at the formation time of the GC. He based his proposal on the correlation he found between HB morphology and the ellipticity of GCs (but see previous section), which he assumed is linked to the rotations of single stars. The rotation rate of a young star is determined by the interaction between the protostellar disk and the young star. The properties of the protostellar disk are influenced by the environment; the star is too small to be influenced directly by the environment. Therefore, the formation of planets (and brown dwarf and low mass main sequence stars) at several AU from the central star is much more sensitive to the environment than the rotation of the young star. The lack of clear general correlation with GCs’ ellipticity (see previous section), and the higher sensitivity of the disk than that of the young star embedded inside it to the environment make the presence of binary companions, substellar or stellar, a better candidate for the second parameter than the rotations of single stars. We argue that the discussion above further supports the ‘planet second parameter’ model (Soker 1998; see first section here).

The environment can influence the planet formation efficiency and the subsequent planet properties in many ways, most of which are poorly understood. In a high density region close stars can cause disturbances in the outskirts of the protoplanetary disk, causing more material to stream to the inner region. This may enhance planet formation, via a strong perturbation in the gravitational instability process (Boss 1998), and by increasing the disk mass, making planet formation more efficient in the planetesimal accretion process (e.g., Kenyon et al. 1999). But the stellar density around a star during the formation of its planets in a GC has no simple relation to its present density, core radius, and other parameters. The young GC goes through a violent relaxation phase, in which dense regions are formed and destroyed (van Albada 1982), and whose evolution depends on the initial conditions prior to the violent relaxation (May & van Albada 1984). Interestingly, the typical violent relaxation time in GCs, found by scaling the results of van Albada (1982) to initial mass of $`10^6M_{}`$ and radius of $`10\mathrm{kpc}`$, is within an order of magnitude of the typical life time of circumstellar disks, $`10^7\mathrm{yrs}`$. This means that on average a star goes through dense regions no more than a few times during the formation time of planets, on the assumption that planet formation and GC formation occur at the same time; the exact number of times is strongly dependent on the initial condition of the GC. Both processes of planet and GC formation during the relevant epochs are too poorly known to say more here. Finally, we note that the formation of planets in the planetesimal accretion process can be very efficient (e.g., Kenyon & Luu 1999), but it still depends on the metallicity of the circumstellar disk. This may be one of the reasons, but not the only one, behind the different correlations in the different metallicity classes (Figs. 2-4).

## 4 SUMMARY

The goal of the present paper was to present further arguments in favor of the ‘planet second parameter’ model. In this model the main factor after metallicity (the ‘first parameter’) of the ‘second parameter’ of the HB morphology is the presence of planets, and to lesser degree brown dwarfs and low mass main sequence companions. The model was suggested by Soker (1998), with further supporting arguments, mainly angular momentum considerations, in Soker & Harpaz (2000). In the present paper we discussed the correlations, or lack of correlations, between GC properties and the HB morphology (Figs. 1-4). These correlations have been long known, but we have presented them in a way appropriate for our purpose. Our conclusions are as follows.
(1) In addition to being the main factor which determines HB morphology (Fig. 1), the ‘first parameter’, metallicity, also plays a role in determining whether other correlations exist. That is, some correlations exist in a specific metallicity range but not in others.
(2) GCs’ parameters for which partial correlations (i.e., only in a narrow band of metallicity) hold are the cluster central density and similar related parameters, such as the core radius. The correlation with ellipticity is very weak in this metallicity range, and changes its behavior for a slightly higher metallicity (Fig. 3).
(3) Despite the partial correlations, no general correlation exists with any present property of GCs (besides metallicity). We presented the lack of general correlation for central density, ellipticity, and core radius, Figures 2-4, respectively, but checked it for other properties.
(4) We conjectured that the HB morphology is correlated with a property (or properties) at the formation time of GCs. That is, we argued that the second parameter process (or processes) is fixed at the formation time of the GCs, and not later in the evolution. A similar idea, but with respect to single star rotation, was put forward by Norris (1983).
(5) We argued that the ‘planet second parameter’ goes along with this conjecture, since the processes which determine the presence of planets and their properties occur during the formation epoch of the star and its circumstellar disk. The dependence of planet formation efficiency on metallicity can be one of the factors behind the existence of correlations only in a narrow band of metallicity. At this point we cannot expand on this point because of lack of knowledge on the formation of both GCs and planets.

In the present study we used only the HBR value to characterized the HB morphology. When more data become available correlations with other properties of the HB should be sought. Ferrao et al. (1998), for example, note that most high density GCs with metallicity of \[Fe/H\]$`1.5`$ have blue HB tails. Any model for the second parameter should eventually account for these fine details, e.g., tails and gaps, in the HB morphology. In the planet second parameter model, extreme blue HB stars are attributed to interaction with massive planets, brown dwarfs, or low mass main sequence stars (Soker & Harpaz 2000)

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: The HB morphology, as given by HBR, versus metallicity. Values are taken from Harris (1996; updated June 1999 in http://physun.physics.mcmaster.ca/Globular.html). HBR is defined as $`HBR(BR)/(B+V+R)`$, where $`V`$ is the number of HB-stars within the instability strip, and $`R`$ and $`B`$ are the number of stars redder and bluer, respectively, than the instability strip. The three vertical lines are the boundaries between the four quarters of 147 GCs, determined by equal number of GCs in each group. These groups are used in Figures 2-4. Only $`114`$ GCs are shown, since some of the 147 GCs given by Harris (1996) have no HBR value.

Figure 2: The HBR value (see Fig. 1) versus the central density (in solar luminosity per cubic parsec). Values are from Harris (1996, updated June 1996). The number of GCs and the metallicity range are given inside each panel. The lower, middle, and upper panels are for the first (lower), second, and third metallicity quarters marked on Figure 1, respectively.

Figure 3: The HBR value (see figure 1) versus ellipticity, as given by the ratio of minor to major axis of the GC. HBR values are from Harris (1996, updated June 1996), and ellipticities are from White & Shawl (1987). The number of GCs and the metallicity range are given inside each panel. The lower and upper panels are for the second and third metallicity quarters marked on Figure 1, respectively. The three GCs marked by squares in the upper panel have metallicity close to that of the lower panel, $`1.42<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.4`$.

Figure 4: The HBR value (see Fig. 1) versus the core radius (in parsec). Values are from Harris (1996, updated June 1996). The lower panel is for the second metallicity quarter (see Fig. 1). In the upper panel the metallicity range of the second quarter has been extended to $`1.75<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.35`$, and the number of GCs in that range is now 36 (marked with asterisks). The weak correlation seen in the lower panel still exists. For a lower metallicity band $`1.95<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.75`$, 15 GCs marked by circles, and for a higher metallicity band $`1.35<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<1.15`$, 9 GCs marked by squares, the correlation no longer exists.