text:
# Untitled Document

A formula for the number of days between the winter solstice and the latest sunrise

Matthias Reinsch

Department of Physics, University of California,

Berkeley, California 94720

mreinsch@socrates.berkeley.edu, mreinsch@earthlink.net
March 10, 2003

> A simple closed-form expression for the number of days between the winter solstice and the latest sunrise is derived. Formulas for the summer solstice and the sunset are derived as well. These approximate formulas make it easy to see the functional dependence on the latitude of the observer. An approximate expression for the difference in time of day between the latest sunrise and the sunrise on the solstice is also derived. The formulas are not valid in the Arctic, Antarctic or tropics.

Introduction

In this paper, we present a simple closed-form expression for the number of days between the winter solstice and the latest sunrise. This formula is the result of a lengthy calculation which simplifies greatly in the end. A few approximations are made in the derivation of the result, but it agrees well with actual data for sunrise times.

Let us begin by recalling the reasons why the latest sunrise does not occur on the shortest day of the year. There are two effects that contribute to this phenomenon. The dominant effect is that due to the inclination of the Earth’s axis of rotation. The other contribution is due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit.

We first discuss the effect due to the inclination of the Earth’s axis of rotation, that is, we will begin by taking the Earth’s orbit to be a perfect circle. It is useful to work with the concept of the celestial sphere. In the course of a year the sun’s path is a great circle on the celestial sphere. This great circle is inclined at an angle of $`23.44^o`$ relative to the celestial equator. The sun moves along this great circle, the ecliptic, at a constant rate, because we are assuming that the Earth’s orbit is a perfect circle. Thus, the right ascension of the sun does not change at a constant rate. (The right ascension is the east/west coordinate on the celestial sphere that plays the same role as the longitude coordinate on the surface of the Earth.) At a solstice, the right ascension of the sun changes the fastest because the ecliptic is closest to one of the poles there. At an equinox, the right ascension changes the slowest because the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator at an angle.

Thus, if a picture is taken of the sky at 12:00 noon every day for a year, we see not only the sun’s familiar north/south motion, but also an east/west motion. The reason is that 24 hours is the length of an average solar day, but we have seen that during the year the sun’s right ascension changes at a non-uniform rate. The images taken of the sun would trace out a certain figure eight, called the analemma . When drawing the numeral eight with a pen, we see that the pen moves in the same direction at the top and bottom, and in the direction opposite to this during both passages through the center. This corresponds to what we said above about the solstices versus the equinoxes.

In particular, we are interested in the fact that the sun is moving in the east/west direction in this sequence of photos, at the winter solstice. In the northern hemisphere, the day (in the sense of the amount of time that the sun is visible above the horizon) is shortest on the winter solstice, but because of the east/west motion of the sun, the times of both the sunrise and the sunset are still changing at this time of year (by the same amount, because their difference is minimal at this time). Thus, the latest sunrise is not on the shortest day of the year.

Next, we include the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit into the discussion. The path of the sun on the celestial sphere is not changed. What is different is that the sun is no longer moving along this path at a constant rate. Thus, the rate of change of the right ascension of the sun is changed. The result is that the analemma discussed above becomes lop-sided, and this modifies the amount of east/west motion at the solstices.

Statement of result

Let $`n`$ denote the number of days between the winter solstice and the latest sunrise. Then at latitude $`\lambda `$, assumed to be not too close to the equator or the poles as explained below, $`n`$ is given approximately by

$$n=\left(\delta \frac{2\pi }{N_y}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )+\mathrm{cos}(2\lambda )}}{\sqrt{2}\delta ^2\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\lambda },$$
(1)
where

$$N_y=365.2564$$
(2)
is the number of ephemeris days per sidereal year , and

$$\alpha =23.44^o$$
(3)
is the angle between Earth’s rotation axis and the normal to the ecliptic, and

$$\delta =\frac{2\pi \sqrt{1ϵ^2}}{N_y(1ϵ\mathrm{cos}\psi _o)^2}$$
(4)
is the change in the angular position of the Earth about the Sun per ephemeris day at the winter solstice . In this expression,

$$ϵ=.01672$$
(5)
is the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, and

$$\psi _o=1.92\pi $$
(6)
is the eccentric anomaly at the winter solstice. It should be noted that this value for $`\psi _o`$ is approximate; its exact value does not affect the result for $`n`$ significantly. The value of $`\psi _o`$ can be determined from the date of the perihelion if one assumes that the Earth’s orbit is an ellipse. In actuality there are perturbations to the orbit, and the dates of the perihelions vary quite a bit. According to the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html), the dates of the perihelions in the years from 1993 to 1998 were Jan. 4, Jan. 2, Jan. 4, Jan. 4, Jan. 2 and Jan. 4.

We see that the expression for $`n`$ given in Eq. (1) becomes larger as we approach the tropics and that it goes to zero as we approach the Arctic or Antarctic Circle. This is because the $`\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha )+\mathrm{cos}(2\lambda )`$ in the numerator goes to zero as we approach the Arctic or Antarctic Circle. The formula is not valid for values of $`\lambda `$ that are north of the Arctic Circle or south of the Antarctic Circle because the sun does not rise and set on a daily basis in those regions. The other dependence on the latitude $`\lambda `$ is the $`\mathrm{sin}\lambda `$ in the denominator. This formula is not intended for use in the tropics, as explained later in this paper, so there is no problem with a divergence.

The conventions that we use regarding the sign of $`\lambda `$ are that positive values are used in the northern hemisphere and negative values are used in the southern hemisphere. In the northern hemisphere, the values for $`n`$ are positive, indicating that the latest sunrise is after the winter solstice. In the southern hemisphere, the values for $`n`$ are negative, indicating that the extremal (earliest) sunrise is before the December solstice. The term “December solstice” can be used to avoid confusion in these considerations.

We have also derived formulas for the June solstice and the sunset. The results may be summarized as follows. For sunsets the value of $`n`$ is always minus the corresponding sunrise $`n`$ at the same location and for the same solstice. For the June solstice sunrise, the formula for $`n`$ is minus the formula in Eq. (1), with the appropriate $`\delta `$ value used. This $`\delta `$ value can be found from Eq. (4) using the value of the eccentric anomaly for the June solstice, which is approximately $`\pi `$ less than the value at the December solstice. These statements regarding the different formulas for $`n`$ are made under the assumption that the angle of inclination $`\alpha `$ is not greater than $`90^o`$. This is true for most planets in our solar system.

Examples

Table I compares the approximation given in Eq. (1) with tabulated values from the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS\_OneYear.html) for the solstice of December 2001. In tables where times are rounded to the nearest minute, there will be a range of dates that have the latest sunrise time. The corresponding range of $`n`$ values is given in the column labeled “actual value of $`n`$.” We do not expect our approximations regarding atmospheric refraction and the size of the solar disk to be good near the Arctic Circle. Near the tropics, $`n`$ is so large that the Taylor expansion to second order is not sufficient.

|  | $`\mathrm{Table}\mathrm{I}`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| location (city, state) | latitude (degrees) | approximate $`n`$ | actual value of $`n`$ |
| Fairbanks, Alaska | 64.82 | 2.4 | 2 - 5 |
| Anchorage, Alaska | 61.22 | 4.5 | 1 - 8 |
| San Francisco, California | 37.77 | 16.2 | 14 - 16 |
| Key West, Florida | 24.55 | 28.6 | 16 - 31 |

Another comparison of the approximation given in Eq. (1) with actual sunrises is given in Fig. 1. The comparison is made for a range of latitudes, from the Tropic of Cancer to the Arctic Circle.

Derivation of Eq. (1)

Since the derivation of Eq. (1) is a lengthy calculation, we give only a summary here. The analysis begins by describing the motion of the Earth in a heliocentric ecliptic coordinate system, as described in Ref.. We use the angle $`\theta `$ to denote the angular position of the Earth relative to the Sun. This angle also gives the position of the sun in a geocentric ecliptic coordinate system. We define $`\theta `$ to be zero at the vernal equinox, as is standard. Next, we transform to a topocentric equatorial coordinate system, and then to a horizontal coordinate system. This final coordinate system is the one an observer at a given point on the Earth would use, and an angle $`h`$ is used to measure the elevation of objects above the horizon, with $`h=0^o`$ at the horizon and $`h=90^o`$ at zenith. The result for the sun is

$$\mathrm{sin}h=\mathrm{cos}\lambda \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(7)
This equation gives $`\mathrm{sin}h`$ at any instant in time. The angle $`\varphi `$ is an angle that measures the rotation of the Earth about its own axis. The time dependence of $`\mathrm{sin}h`$ is due to the time dependences of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. The angle $`\varphi `$ evolves in time at a constant rate, for our purposes, increasing by $`2\pi `$ every sidereal day. The angle $`\theta `$ increases by $`2\pi `$ every sidereal year, but not at a constant rate, due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit.

If we ignore refraction in the Earth’s atmosphere and the finite size of the solar disk , we could find the times of sunrise and sunset by setting $`\mathrm{sin}h`$ equal to zero and solving the transcendental equation that results for the time $`t`$. The errors made in this way should be more or less constant over a small part of a year, and we hope that they do not affect our search for the latest sunrise too much. The next approximation is to use the same value for $`\theta `$ throughout any given day. This makes it possible to solve for the times of sunrise and sunset using elementary functions. Again, it should be the case that these errors do not vary significantly over a small part of the year and thus do not affect the day with the latest sunrise excessively. Now that we have a formula for the time of the sunrise on any given day, we make a second-order Taylor series expansion about the winter solstice. This is where the calculation gets complicated, but with enough work the coefficients can be simplified. Finally, the extremum of a quadratic function can be found easily, and the result is Eq. (1). More details about this calculation are given in Appendix A. An approximate expression for the difference in time of day between the latest sunrise and the sunrise on the solstice is also derived there.

We note that Eq. (1) does not behave well when $`\alpha `$ goes to zero. Apart from situations where $`\alpha `$ is very small, this result should be applicable to other planets. As $`\alpha `$ goes to zero, the quadratic term in the Taylor expansion discussed above vanishes, so a higher-order expansion would be necessary.

At the beginning of this paper, we stated that the results were intended for use at latitudes that were not too close to the equator or the poles. We can now clarify these limits. Using terminology appropriate for the northern hemisphere, we can say that the formula should not be used for latitudes north of the Arctic Circle because the sun does not rise and set on a daily basis there throughout the year. Such daily risings and settings were assumed in the calculation. From the point of view of mathematics, the formula gives imaginary numbers north of the Arctic Circle. The Tropic of Cancer is more of a soft limit. The value for $`n`$ is so large at the Tropic of Cancer, that the second-order Taylor expansion is no longer sufficient, and the results become less accurate the further south one goes (see Fig. 1).

Classroom activities and projects

The materials for our first activity are a globe and a measuring tape made of cloth or paper. The idea is to get a better understanding of the fact that the right ascension of the sun changes at different rates at different times of the year. The lines of longitude and latitude on the globe form the same type of coordinate system as the one used on the celestial sphere. The purpose of the globe in this demonstration is to provide a sphere with such a coordinate system, and we will think of this sphere as representing the celestial sphere. Place the beginning of the measuring tape at the point on the globe that has longitude and latitude both equal to zero. Then wrap the tape around the globe so that it traces out a great circle that is inclined relative to the equator. An angle of inclination of about 23 degrees would correspond to the inclination of the Earth’s axis as discussed in the Introduction, and the measuring tape would then represent the ecliptic. Now choose a sequence of evenly spaced points along the measuring tape, and find the right ascension of each point (the longitude on the globe). Plotting these values on graph paper will show that the right ascension changes the slowest when the ecliptic crosses the equator (at the equinoxes) and fastest when the ecliptic is furthest from the equator (at the solstices). The effect is easier to see if a larger angle of inclination is used.

An extension of these ideas can be used to create a plot of the analemma. Make a table of the right ascension and declination (longitude and latitude) of 36 evenly spaced points on the ecliptic, starting at the beginning of the measuring tape and going west around globe. The declination column of the table will also be called the $`Y`$ column. Next, we will create a third column of the table, which we will call the $`X`$ column. The values for this column are obtained by taking the values in the right ascension column and subtracting an integer multiple of 10 degrees. The integer is 0 for the first row, 1 for the second row, 2 for the third row, and so on. The result is that the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ columns give the position of the sun relative to its average position at 12:00 noon (see the discussion in the Introduction). Now create a plot with $`X`$ and $`Y`$ axes. The data points should trace out a figure eight. The real analemma is actually lop-sided, due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Some globes have a picture of the analemma, often placed somewhere in the Pacific Ocean where there is space for it.

For our next activity, work out the value of $`n`$ at your latitude using Eq. (1). Compare the results with values in published tables, such as those found in tide books. You can also use one of the the web pages of the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory, http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS\_OneYear.html , to generate a table of sunrise and sunset times for your location. Next, imagine living on Mars at the same latitude. What would the value of $`n`$ be there? It will be necessary to look up various orbital parameters for Mars in order to calculate this, and the length of the Martian day will be needed.

The materials for our last activity are a watch and a piece of chalk. In the Introduction we mentioned a sequence of photographs taken of the sky every day at 12:00 noon. The purpose of these photographs was to record the location of the sun at the same time on different days. We can carry out similar measurements by recording the location of the shadow of the top of a flag pole or other convenient object at the same time on a sequence of days. If class is not in session at 12:00 noon, another time of day can be used. The greatest motion of the shadow from one day to the next will be seen in March and September, near the equinoxes. At these times, the component of the shadow’s movement in the North/South direction will be about 0.4 degrees per day. Shadows cast by the sun are a bit fuzzy because of the nonzero size of the solar disk (about half a degree). Therefore, the motion can be seen more clearly by waiting for several days to pass. The East/West motion in which we are interested in this paper is large near both the solstices and the equinoxes. Its maximal value is on the order of 0.1 degrees per day. At the equinoxes the motion will be in the direction opposite to the motion at the solstices, as discussed in the Introduction. If the shadow falls on an area where there are tiles, an alternative to using chalk marks on the ground would be to use the coordinate system provided by the tiles to record the position of the shadow. A larger project would be to record the location of the shadow once a week or so, for an entire semester or even a year.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Jim Morehead for many useful discussions.

Appendix A

This appendix gives a more detailed description of the derivation of Eq. (1). The angle $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (7) measures the rotation of the Earth about its own axis. The value of $`\varphi `$ as a function of time is

$$\varphi (t)=\left(\frac{2\pi }{T_{sidereal}}\right)t,$$
(8)
where $`T_{sidereal}86164.09`$ seconds is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once about its axis relative to the fixed stars. For our calculation, it is useful also to define

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t)=\left(\frac{2\pi }{T_{ephemeris}}\right)t,$$
(9)
with $`T_{ephemeris}=86400`$ seconds $`=24`$ hours, and the difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\varphi (t)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t).$$
(10)
Substituting $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in for $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (7) and using some trigonometric identities gives

$$\mathrm{sin}h=A\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\zeta )\mathrm{cos}\lambda +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(11)
where $`A`$ and $`\zeta `$ are defined to be

$$A=\sqrt{(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta })^2+(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta })^2},$$
(12)
and

$$\zeta =\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right).$$
(13)
The argument of the $`\mathrm{tan}^1`$ function on the right-hand side of the equation for $`\zeta `$ stays small throughout the course of the year, so there is never a question about which branch of the $`\mathrm{tan}^1`$ function to use. One way to see this is to first imagine replacing $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ with $`1`$, whereupon the numerator becomes $`\mathrm{sin}(\theta \mathrm{\Delta })`$ and the denominator becomes $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta \mathrm{\Delta })`$. Both $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increase monotonically from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ over the course of the year, so the numerator stays close to $`0`$ and the denominator stays close to $`1`$. In actuality, $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ is not $`1`$, but the functions still stay close to $`0`$ and $`1`$, respectively.

Over the course of the year, the values of $`\varphi `$ modulo $`2\pi `$ at sunrise and sunset vary greatly, because $`\varphi `$ measures the rotation of the Earth relative to the fixed stars. In contrast, the values of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ modulo $`2\pi `$ at sunrise and sunset do not vary by such large amounts, because $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ was defined to be an angle that increases by $`2\pi `$ every 24 hours (mean solar day in the year 1900). This is the reason for transforming from $`\varphi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. If we now take the values of $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be constant on any given day, we can solve for the times of day of sunrise and sunset. Expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ (modulo 24 hours, so $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is in the range from $`\pi `$ to $`\pi `$) these are

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\zeta \pm \mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{tan}\lambda \mathrm{sin}\theta }{A}\right),$$
(14)
where the upper sign is for the sunset and the lower sign is for the sunrise. Note that at the vernal equinox, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and the time $`t`$ are zero, and the sun is crossing the meridian at the location of the observer. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is zero near noon, and sunrise times have a negative value for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, while sunset times have a positive value for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$.

The lower sign in Eq. (14) gives an explicit formula for the time of day of the sunrise on each day of the year (expressed in terms of a $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ value). We are interested in finding the extremum near the winter solstice. We use an integer $`k`$ to index the days relative to the winter solstice \[$`k=0`$ on the winter solstice, $`k=1`$ on the next day, etc.\]. Then at some time on day $`k`$ the value of $`\theta `$ is (to order $`k^2`$)

$$\theta (k)=\frac{3}{2}\pi +C_1k+\frac{1}{2}C_2k^2,$$
(15)
where $`C_1`$ is $`d\theta /dt`$ evaluated at the winter solstice, times 24 hours, and $`C_2`$ is $`d^2\theta /dt^2`$ evaluated at the winter solstice, times the square of 24 hours. A similar expansion can be written out for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, but it does not contain a $`k^2`$ term because $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a linear function of time. When these expressions are substituted into the formula for the time of day of the sunrise, the result is a function of $`k`$ that is accurate to order $`k^2`$. By calculating the first and second derivatives of this function with respect to $`k`$, we can calculate a quadratic approximation for the function, and from this find the value of $`k`$ at the extremum. We use $`n`$ to denote this extremal value of $`k`$, and the result is given in Eq. (1). There is actually a small correction term involving the $`C_2`$ coefficient mentioned above, but this term is smaller than the result stated in Eq. (1) by a factor of $`ϵ`$, so it can be neglected.

The quadratic approximation can also be used to calculate another quantity of interest. We let $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ denote the difference in time of day between the latest sunrise and the sunrise on the winter solstice. This time difference can be calculated by substituting the value of $`n`$ back into the quadratic approximation for the time of day of the sunrise. The result can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{T_{ephemeris}}{2}\left(\frac{\delta }{2\pi \mathrm{cos}\alpha }\frac{1}{N_y}\right)n.$$
(16)
Evaluating the constants, we get that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is approximately $`15`$ seconds times $`n`$. It is interesting that the constant of proportionality is independent of the latitude. Sample numbers for San Francisco are $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=245`$ seconds and $`n`$ = 16, with a ratio approximately equal to $`15`$ seconds.

References

 di Cicco, Dennis, “Astro Imaging - Photographing the Analemma,” Sky & Telescope, March 2000, p. 135-140.

 Ottewell, Guy, The Astronomical Companion, published at the Department of Physics, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina, 1979.

 Montenbruck, Oliver, Practical ephemeris calculations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York, 1989.

 Meeus, Jean, Astronomical algorithms, 2nd ed., 2nd English ed., Willmann-Bell, Richmond, Va., 1998.

The result presented in this paper is compared with actual sunrises. The curve is a plot of $`n`$ (the number of days between the winter solstice and the latest sunrise) as a function of the latitude $`\lambda `$, as given by Eq. (1). The dots are the actual values of $`n`$, plotted for latitudes that are integer numbers of degrees. Gray squares are also plotted for latitudes that are integer numbers of degrees. A darker gray square at a value of $`n`$ and $`\lambda `$ means that the time of the sunrise on the $`n`$-th day after the solstice is within 5 seconds of the latest sunrise at that latitude. The lighter gray square is for a value of 20 seconds. The “actual” times for sunrises were computed as discussed in Ref. , using the standard definition of sunrise to be the time when the center of the sun is 50 arc minutes below the horizon. The 50 arc minutes take into account the size of the solar disk and the effects of atmospheric refraction.


format: text

text:
# Stable and metastable states in a superconducting ”eight” loop in applied magnetic field

## Abstract

The stable and metastable states of different configurations of a loop in the form of an eight is studied in the presence of a magnetic field. We find that for certain configurations the current is equal to zero for any value of the magnetic field leading to a magnetic field independent superconducting state. The state with fixed phase circulation becomes unstable when the momentum of the superconducting electrons reaches a critical value. At this moment the kinetic energy of the superconducting condensate becomes of the same order as the potential energy of the Cooper pairs and it leads to an instability. Numerical analysis of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations shows that the absolute value of the order parameter changes gradually at the transition from a state with one phase circulation to another although the vorticity change occurs abruptly.

Starting with the pioneering work of Little and Parks Little  who studied the properties of double-connected superconductors (confined samples with two surfaces, for example rings) in applied magnetic field there has been continued theoretical and experimental interest in those systems. Changing the topology of the system is expected to have a strong influence on the superconducting properties, in particular in the presence of an external magnetic field. For instance in Refs. Mila ; Hayashi  the Möbuis loop was considered and it was obtained that the phase diagram of this system differs considerably from an ordinary loop Hayashi .

In the present paper we investigate a different topology, a loop having an ”eight” geometry. The latter can be considered as a combination of two strongly interacting loops (see Fig.1). In comparison with two unconnected loops the direction and value of the current density in one loop of the ”eight” system will depend on the direction and value of the current in the other loop. As a result, the free energy of such a system will not be merely the sum of the free energy of two unconnected loops. Moreover, we found that for certain values of the relative sizes of the two loops the current density in such a loop will be equal to zero at any value of the applied magnetic field.

In this work we study the stable and metastable states of a loop in the shape of an ”eight”. This geometry can be obtained by grapping two radial sides of a single loop and twisting it over 180 degrees with respect to each other. We assume that there is no physical contact at the crossing point of the ”eight”. We can further distinguish three configurations for this system as shown in Fig. 2. The ”eight” loop was modelled as a combination of two rings with radius $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. We use the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory in order to study the structure of the superconducting state of such a system.

We neglect the finite width $`w`$ and thickness $`d`$ of the loop. This is allowed when the radius of the loop is much larger than $`w`$ and if $`d<<\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the London penetration length. The last condition also allows us to neglect the screening effects (self-inductance of the system). Within these simplifications the GL equations are one-dimensional and using the gauge-invariant momentum $`p`$ we can write it in the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f}{ds^2}}+f(1f^2p^2)=0,`$ (1a)
$`j=f^2p.`$ (1b)
where $`\psi =f(s)e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi (s)}`$ is a undimensional order parameter, the momentum $`p=\varphi A`$ is scaled in units $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \xi )`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the quantum of magnetic flux), the length of the loop is $`L=2\pi (R_1+R_2)`$ and the arc coordinate $`s`$ is in units of the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$. In these units the magnetic field is scaled in the unit $`H_{c2}`$ and the current density $`j`$ in $`j_0=c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/8\pi ^2\lambda ^2\xi `$.

At first we find the dependence of the momentum of the ”eight” loop on the applied magnetic field. From equation $`\mathrm{div}𝐣=0`$ it follows that the supercurrent $`j=f^2p`$ is constant all over the system. Our numerical analysis of Eqs. (1a,b) shows that in the stationary state, $`F`$ does not depend on $`s`$. As a result $`p=const`$ along the loop and the order parameter is equal to $`f=\sqrt{1p^2}`$.

Let us first consider the circulation of the momentum $`p`$ for system $`(A)`$ of Fig. 2

$$𝐩\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}=2\pi (R_1+R_2)p=2\pi n_1^2𝐀\mathrm{𝐝𝐬}_3^4𝐀\mathrm{𝐝𝐬},$$
(2)
where the points 1,2,3,4, are at the twist point of the loop which in Fig. 2 are shown slightly separated from this point for clarity. As a result we find

$$p=\frac{1}{R_1+R_2}(n(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2)),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}=HR_{1,2}^2/2`$ is the magnetic flux through the rings with radius $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, respectively (in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ units), $`n=\varphi ds/2\pi `$ is an integer number defining the circulation (or vorticity) of the phase of the order parameter in the ring . From Eq. (3) follows the interesting property that for $`R_1=R_2`$ the momentum and hence the current density will be equal to zero for any value of the applied magnetic field in system $`(A)`$. Thus this system will have no response to an applied magnetic field and consequently superconductivity should be conserved up to very high magnetic fields. The other consequence of it is that there is no oscillations in the phase diagram $`HT`$ of such a system.

It is easy to show that for the systems $`(B,C)`$ the dependence $`p(H)`$ are, respectively, given by

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1+R_2}}(n\mathrm{\Phi }_1),`$ (4a)
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1+R_2}}(n(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)).`$ (4b)
In the limit $`R_20`$ we obtain from Eqs. (3,4) the well known result

$$p=\frac{1}{R_1}(n\mathrm{\Phi }_1),$$
(5)
which is valid for a single double connected loop (see for example Ref. Tinkham ). It is interesting to note that for system $`(B)`$ the value for $`p`$ is a factor $`(R_1/(R_1+R_2))`$ less as compared to the single loop case.

Using Eqs. (3,4) we can find the stable states of our systems $`(AC)`$. This is determined by the global minimum of the Gibbs free energy

$$G[f]=\left(\left(\frac{df}{ds}\right)^2f^2+\frac{f^4}{2}+f^2p^2\right)𝑑s,$$
(6)
resulting in a minimum value of $`p`$ at given $`H`$. The dependence of $`p(H)`$ is a periodic function of $`H`$ with period $`2/(R_1^2R_2^2)`$, $`2/R_1^2`$ and $`2/(R_1^2+R_2^2)`$ for systems $`(A)`$, $`(B)`$, $`(C)`$, respectively. Note that the maximum value of $`p_{max}`$ for the thermodynamically stable state of our systems $`(AC)`$ is the same: $`1/2(R_1+R_2)`$.

The two rings in our ”eight” loop are strongly coupled and as a result the Gibbs free energy of this system is not simply the sum of the energies of two uncoupled rings plus a small interaction term as for the case of two magnetically coupled rings Baelus ; Morelle . In Fig. 3 the dependence of the equilibrium energy of the ”eight” system (case $`(A)`$ \- curve 4) and two separate rings with different radii (curves 1, 3) are presented. In the same figure the sum of the Gibbs free energies of the two uncoupled rings is shown (curve 2). The dependence $`G(H)`$ of the ”eight” loop is more similar to the dependency of $`G(H)`$ for the separate rings then with the sum of the two energies.

Analysis shows that the state of the system for a specific value of the phase circulation $`n`$ may be stable (more exactly metastable) for $`|p|>p_{max}`$. This state becomes unstable when the second variation of the Gibbs free energy (6) becomes equal to zero. Let’s consider small deviations $`f_ϵf`$, $`p_ϵp`$ (where the full solution are $`\stackrel{~}{f}=f+f_ϵ`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p+p_ϵ`$) from the stable solutions of our systems Fink ; Kramer . The Ginzburg-Landau equations linearized with respect to the small perturbations $`f`$ and $`p`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f_ϵ}{ds^2}}+f_ϵ(13f^2p^2)2fpp_ϵ=0,`$ (7a)
$`f^2p_ϵ+2fpf_ϵ=C.`$ (7b)
The constant $`C`$ in Eq. (7a) has to be equal to zero because otherwise $`p_ϵ0`$ and $`f_ϵ0`$ for any $`f`$ and $`p`$. Using Eq. (7b) we solve for $`p_ϵ`$ and substitute it in Eq. (7a) in order to obtain the following equation

$$\frac{d^2f_ϵ}{ds^2}+f_ϵ(6p^22)=0,$$
(8)
which has the following solution

$$f_ϵ(s)=A\mathrm{cos}(\omega s)+B\mathrm{sin}(\omega s),$$
(9)
with $`\omega =\sqrt{6p^22}`$. Taking into account the boundary condition $`f_ϵ(0)=f_ϵ(L)`$ we find that a state with fixed $`n`$ becomes unstable when the following condition is fulfilled

$$p=p_c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2(R_1+R_2)^2}}.$$
(10)
Inserting $`R_2=0`$ in Eq. (10) we obtain the stability condition of a single loop as was obtained in Ref. Horane  (expressed in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`n`$ and $`\xi /R_1`$). In the case of large (i.e. $`\mathrm{min}[R_1,R_2]\xi `$) loops $`p_c=1/\sqrt{3}`$ and the current density is equal to $`j=p_c(1p_c^2)=j_c=2/3\sqrt{3}`$ \- which is the depairing current density. Thus Eq. (10) has a simple physical meaning: when the kinetic energy of the superconducting condensate (or Cooper pair) becomes of the order of the potential energy the state becomes unstable. The finite length of the loop starts to play an essential role when $`L`$ is about the Cooper pair size which results in different values for $`p_c`$.

Using Eq. (10) it is easy to find the critical values of the magnetic field $`H_{c,n}`$ at which the transition from state $`n`$ to state $`n+1`$ occurs. Consider for example system $`(A)`$ (see Fig. 2), and

combine Eq. (10) with Eq. (3) we obtain

$$H_{c,n}=\frac{2}{R_1R_2}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2(R_1+R_2)^2}}\frac{n}{R_1+R_2}\right].$$
(11)
It is interesting that for the configurations $`(B)`$ and $`(C)`$ the critical fields will be different but $`p_c`$ (and $`p_{max}`$) will be the same under the condition that the length of the loops are the same. Moreover for loops with $`L/\xi 1`$ the value of the critical momentum does not depend on the size of the system. Therefore, we may conclude that condition (10) is an universal condition for one-dimensional double-connected systems of the type shown in Fig. 2. Even if the loops have a different shape, for example ellipsoid, the condition for vortex entry will be described by Eq. (10) (with the change of $`(R_1+R_2)`$ by $`L/2\pi `$) because the order parameter in such a sample will also be uniform along the loop. Indeed, a loop of arbitrary shape with length $`L`$ is equivalent to a one-dimensional wire of length $`L`$ with periodical boundary conditions. The presence of a magnetic field leads to a nonuniform (uniform for a single circular ring) distribution of the vector potential along the wire which is compensated by the term $`\varphi `$ in such a way that the current density and the order parameter are uniform along the wire comm1 .

We checked Eq. (10) through a numerical solution of the time-dependent one-dimensional Ginzburg-Landau equations

$`\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}+i\phi \psi \right)=(\mathrm{i}𝐀)^2\psi +\psi (|\psi |^21),`$ (12a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{ds}}\mathrm{Re}(\psi ^{}(\mathrm{i}𝐀)\psi )\right]=0.`$ (12b)
Here time is scaled in units of $`\tau =4\pi \sigma _n\lambda ^2(T)/c^2`$, the electrostatic potential $`\phi `$ in units of $`c\mathrm{\Phi }_0/8\pi ^2\xi \lambda \sigma _n`$ ($`\sigma _n`$ is the normal-state conductivity), and $`\gamma `$ is a relaxation constant Ivlev .

In Fig. 4 the dependency of $`p`$ (Fig. 4(a)) and the current density (Fig. 4(b)) on the applied magnetic field are shown for the three systems (we took $`R_1=2\xi `$, $`R_2=1\xi `$). The magnetic field was increased linearly from $`H=0`$ to $`2H_{c2}`$ during a time period of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=210^4\tau `$. The theoretical value of $`p_c`$ for such a system is $`p_c=0.593`$. From our numerical calculation we obtained $`p_c0.596`$. The difference between the numerical result and Eq. (10) is in the range of our numerical error.

From our numerical solution of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations we find the evolution of the system from a state with phase circulation $`2\pi n`$ to a state with $`2\pi (n+1)`$. In Fig. 5 the dependence of $`|\psi |`$, $`\varphi `$, $`j_s`$ and $`j_n`$ are shown for the system $`(A)`$ with parameters $`R_1=\xi `$, $`R_2=0.5\xi `$. The magnetic field was increased gradually to $`2.51H_{c2}`$ and then in one step to $`2.52H_{c2}`$. At time $`t=0`$ the ”eight” loop was at a metastable state at $`H=2.51H_{c2}`$. At $`t=t_0513\tau `$ (curve 4 in Fig. 5) the order parameter reaches zero at a certain point on the ring. Simultaneously the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi (+0)\varphi (0)`$ near the zero point becomes equal to $`\pi `$. In Refs. Langer ; Vodol1  the vanishing of the order parameter in one point on a single ring was considered and it was found that when such a solution exists the superconducting current density is equal to zero and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pm \pi `$ (sign depends on the current direction). Although in our time-dependent problem the full current is not equal to zero, nevertheless there is a similarity between the stationary and the non-stationary problems \- in both cases when the order parameter reaches zero there is a phase shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pm \pi `$ near the point where $`\psi =0`$.

For $`t>t_0`$ the superconducting current (see Fig. 5(c)) changes sign near the minimum point and hence it leads to a phase change of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi `$ (from $`\pi `$ to $`+\pi `$) according to Vodol1  (see also Fig. 5(b)). As a result a phase circulation of $`\varphi ds`$=$`2\pi `$ appears in the ring ( see Fig. 5(b)). Then the order parameter increases in the point $`\psi _{min}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ gradually decreases to 0 (see Fig. 5(b)). This is also in qualitative agreement with the results of Refs. Langer ; Vodol1  where it was found that for increasing $`|\psi |_{min}`$ (or $`|j_s|`$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ decreased to zero near the minimum point.

Because $`\varphi `$ is a continuous function everywhere in the loop, the current density (superconducting $`j_s`$ and normal $`j_n`$) will also change continuously. The time evolution of $`j_s`$ and $`j_n`$ are shown in Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 5(d), respectively. These currents are a function of the arc-coordinate during the transition process and only the sum $`j_s+j_n`$ does not depend on $`s`$. For large times the normal current density decays and the order parameter becomes uniform in the system.

In conclusion, the stable and metastable states of three different configurations for the ”eight” loop in a magnetic field were studied. We found that the state with fixed phase circulation becomes unstable when the value of the momentum of the superconducting electrons reaches a critical $`p_c`$. Then the kinetic energy of the superconducting condensate becomes of the same order as the potential energy of the Cooper pairs resulting in an instability. Numerical analysis of the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equations shows that the absolute value of the order parameter changes gradually at the transition from a state with one phase circulation to another although the vorticity changes abruptly.

The work was supported by the Flemish Science Foundation (FWO-Vl), the ”Onderzoeksraad van de Universiteit Antwerpen,” the ”Interuniversity Poles of Attraction Program - Belgian State, Prime Minister’s Office - Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs,” and the European ESF-Vortex Matter. One of us (D.Y.V.) is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of FWO-Vl.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

If lepton flavour is not conserved, neutrinos must have flavour-off-diagonal (transition) magnetic moments, which applies to both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. Under a transverse magnetic field, such magnetic moments will cause a simultaneous rotation of neutrino spin and flavour, spin-flavour precession . This precession can be resonantly enhanced in matter , very much similarly to the resonance amplification of neutrino oscillations, the MSW effect .

The resonance spin-flavour precession (RSFP) of solar neutrinos due to the interaction of their transition magnetic moments with the solar magnetic field can account for the observed deficit of solar neutrinos. The conversion mechanism is neutrino energy dependent, which is a necessary feature to fit the data. RSFP requires relatively large values of the neutrino transition magnetic moment, $`\mu _\nu 10^{11}\mu _B`$ for peak values of the solar magnetic field $`B_0100`$ kG. Although such values of $`\mu _\nu `$ are not experimentally excluded, they are hard to achieve in the simplest extensions of the standard electroweak model. Still, the RSFP mechanism yields an excellent fit of all currently available solar neutrino data (see, e.g., \[7 – 13\] for recent analyses), typically even somewhat better than does the large mixing angle (LMA) oscillation solution, which is the best one among the oscillation solutions. In any case, in pursuit of the solution of the solar neutrino problem it is very important to test all non-standard hypotheses, and neutrino magnetic moment seems to be the most plausible alternative to neutrino oscillations.

As non-vanishing neutrino transition magnetic moments imply lepton flavour violation, they must be accompanied by the usual lepton flavour mixing. Thus RSFP should in general coexist with neutrino oscillations. It is quite possible, however, that the flavour mixing in the solar neutrino sector is too small to be of any relevance to the solar neutrino problem. This is our assumption in the present paper, i.e. we neglect neutrino oscillations and consider pure RSFP transitions. Small flavor mixing in the solar sector does not contradict the large mixing in the atmospheric neutrino sector – the corresponding mixing angles are independent parameters. In this connection, one can recall that the lepton mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$ probed in short-baseline reactor neutrino experiments is known to be small or vanishing  even though the “atmospheric” mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$ is large .

Unfortunately, the RSFP solution of the solar neutrino problem is difficult to establish experimentally. Except for predicting reduced detection rates of solar neutrinos (which the oscillation solutions also predict), it has mostly negative signatures: No time variations beyond the usual $`1/R^2`$ variation due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit (assuming that the strongest component of the solar magnetic field does not vary with time)111There is a caveat here which we shall discuss in Section 3 – strictly speaking, this is only true when the solar magnetic field is spherically symmetric.; no day-night effect; no significant distortions of the solar neutrino spectrum in Super-Kamiokande and SNO experiments. One might therefore think that the RSFP solution of the solar neutrino problem can only be established if all the oscillation solutions are experimentally ruled out. Such a “negative” confirmation would hardly satisfy anyone.

In the present paper we show that in fact this is not the case: the RSFP predictions for the Borexino experiment are very different from those of neutrino oscillations, and different solutions of the solar neutrino problem can therefore be unambiguously distinguished experimentally.

## 2 Predictions for Borexino

The Borexino experiment at Gran Sasso , due to start data taking this year, will detect solar neutrinos through the elastic $`\nu e`$ scattering. Extremely high radiopurity of the liquid scintillator used and very low background will allow the detection of record low energy recoil electrons. In the electron kinetic energy window $`T_e=250`$ – 800 keV which will be used in the experiment, the major contribution to the signal ($`78\%`$) is expected from a monochromatic line of 7Be neutrinos with the energy 863 keV. The next important contributions are from 15O, 13N and $`pep`$ neutrinos ($`10\%`$, $`7.2\%`$ and $`3.6\%`$ respectively), and the predicted detection rate is 55 events/day , all according to the BP00 standard solar model  and assuming that neutrinos are “standard” (i.e. have no mass, mixing and/or magnetic moment). A lower signal is expected if neutrinos undergo RSFP or oscillations.

We have calculated the expected event rates at Borexino in the case of the RSFP mechanism assuming that neutrinos have Majorana-like transition magnetic moments $`\mu _\nu `$ which cause the transitions $`\nu _{eL}\overline{\nu }_{\mu R}`$ or $`\nu _{eL}\overline{\nu }_{\tau R}`$ in the solar magnetic field. We have restricted ourselves to the Majorana neutrino case because it gives much better a fit of the solar neutrino data than the Dirac case does. The transition probability depends crucially on the shape and strength of the solar magnetic field which are essentially unknown; one therefore is forced to use various model magnetic field profiles. In our previous work  we have studied eight different magnetic field profiles. All of them except three gave either very poor or marginal global fits of the data of the Homestake, Gallex/GNO, SAGE, Super-Kamiokande and SNO solar neutrino experiments , while the above mentioned three profiles gave very good global fits of the data (see Table 1 below). In the present paper we use these three profiles to predict the signal at Borexino. We believe that they provide a representative sample of the profiles that are capable of fitting the solar neutrino data. The calculation and fitting procedures are described in detail in our previous papers ,  and . Profiles I and II used here are profiles 1 and 6 of ref. , whereas profile III of the present paper is profile 4 of ref. . The value of $`\mu _\nu `$ was fixed at $`10^{11}\mu _B`$; since only the product of the magnetic moment and magnetic field enters in the neutrino evolution equation, our results apply to any other value of $`\mu _\nu `$ provided that the magnetic field is rescaled accordingly. We use the “BP00 + new 8B” standard solar model, i.e. the solar matter distribution and all the neutrino fluxes except the 8B one from , whereas for the 8B flux we use the new value  which is based on a recent precise measurement of the cross section of the reaction 7Be$`(p,\gamma )`$8B . It is about 17% higher than the previously used value. We have also calculated the Borexino event rates with the “old” 8B flux and found no significant changes in the results.

In Table 1 we give, for the three magnetic field profiles used, the calculated reduced detection rates $`R_i`$ (rates assuming RSFP divided by those for “standard” neutrinos) for SAGE+Gallex/GNO (Ga), Homestake (Cl), Super-Kamiokande (SK) and SNO experiments. The indicated rates correspond to the best global fits of the data (all rates plus day and night spectra at Super-Kamiokande). For each profile we show the corresponding best-fit values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, peak magnetic field strength parameter $`B_0`$, and $`\chi _{min}^2`$ (39 d.o.f.). In the last line we give the experimental detection rates normalized to the “BP00 + new 8B” standard solar model.

As can be seen from the table, all three profiles yield very good global fits of the data. Profile I produces slightly worse a fit than those given by profiles II and III, mainly because it predicts too high a SNO rate. For the “old” values of the 8B neutrino flux, the allowed regions of parameters at 95% CL and 99% CL for profiles I and II and for profile III were given in fig. 1 and fig. 2 of ref. , respectively. If one uses instead the new 8B flux, the allowed regions are slightly shifted (by about 5%) towards higher values of the magnetic field strengths. For illustration, in fig. 1 we show the 95% CL allowed regions for profile III for both old and new 8B fluxes.

In Table 2 predictions are given for the reduction factors of the individual contributions of various solar neutrino fluxes to the Borexino event rate (the contributions to the event rate assuming RSFP divided by those for “standard” neutrinos). The results are given, for each of the three magnetic field profiles, for the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`B_0`$ that produced the best global fits of the currently available data (see Table 1).

Finally, in Table III we present the predicted values of the reduced event rates for Borexino $`R_{\mathrm{Bor}}`$. We give there the values of $`R_{\mathrm{Bor}}`$ corresponding to the best-fit values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`B_0`$ as well as the minimum and maximum values of $`R_{\mathrm{Bor}}`$ corresponding to the 95% CL and 99% CL allowed ranges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`B_0`$.

## 3 Discussion

The main goal of this work was to investigate whether RSFP can be distinguished from the oscillation solutions of the solar neutrino problem at Borexino. There are four main types of oscillation solutions of the solar neutrino problem, depending on the allowed values of the leptonic mixing angle $`\theta `$ and neutrino mass squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$: Large mixing angle (LMA), small mixing angle (SMA) and low–$`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (LOW) MSW solutions, and also vacuum oscillation (VO) solution (for recent discussions see, e.g., ). The LMA, LOW and VO solutions all predict the average suppression of the event rate at Borexino by 35 – 40%, whereas in the case of the SMA solution a suppression by about a factor of five is expected.

The main feature of the RSFP mechanism which can be exploited in order to distinguish it experimentally from neutrino oscillations is the peculiar shape of the energy dependence of the survival probability of solar neutrinos: At high energies it resembles the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability of the LMA oscillation solution, whereas at low energies it is similar to that of the SMA solution. A mismatch in the results of the experiments sensitive to the high-energy and low-energy parts of the solar neutrino spectrum would therefore be an indication for RSFP.

As can be seen from Table III, the RSFP mechanism predicts the suppression of the event rate at Borexino by about a factor of three. The maximum allowed at 99% CL reduced rate is 0.62; this only marginally overlaps with the minimum allowed at 3$`\sigma `$ reduced rate in the case of the LMA solution (0.58, see Table 7 of ref. ). Thus, the predictions of the RSFP and LMA solutions are more than 5$`\sigma `$ away from each other and the probability of mistaking one for another is very low.

The minimum allowed at 3$`\sigma `$ values of the reduced rate at Borexino in the case of LOW and VO solutions, 0.54 and 0.53 respectively , are slightly lower than that for the LMA solution, so that there is a larger overlap with the 99% CL prediction of the RSFP. However, in these cases, too, one can easily discriminate between RSFP and the oscillation solutions. Indeed, in the case of the LOW solution one expects a sizeable (up to 40%) day-night event rate difference at Borexino, while VO should lead to large seasonal variations beyond the usual $`1/R^2`$ dependence. No such effects are predicted by RSFP.

Our predictions for the reduced event rate at Borexino in the case of RSFP are slightly higher than those of the SMA oscillation solution, although there is a significant overlap between the predicted rates in these two cases. It should be noted, however, that the SMA solution is strongly disfavoured by the data on day and night spectra and zenith angle distributions of recoil electrons at Super-Kamiokande . We therefore conclude that Borexino will allow a clear discrimination between RSFP and currently favoured oscillation solutions of the solar neutrino problem. It should be noted that new dedicated low-energy solar neutrino experiments, which are widely discussed now , should have a similar or even stronger discriminative power 222We thank M. Nakahata for pointing this out to us..

The RSFP mechanism may also lead to some specific effects, absent in the case of neutrino oscillation solutions. If the solar magnetic field is not axially symmetric, the rotation of the Sun can lead to a time variation of the signal with the period equal to the solar rotation period (about 28 Earth’s days). Seasonal variations of the signal can also occur due to the inclination (by about $`7^{}`$) of the solar equatorial plane to the Earth’s orbit, provided that the solar magnetic field depends on the polar angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. This effect depends on the three-dimensional structure of the solar magnetic field. For the model profile of ref. , the transverse component $`B_{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }`$; since for solar neutrinos reaching the Earth $`\mathrm{\Theta }=90^{}\pm 7^{}`$, one finds seasonal variations of less than $`\pm 1.5\%`$ for charged-current signals. In the case of neutrino detection through $`\nu e`$ scattering (Super-Kamiokande, SNO and Borexino), these variations are further diluted by the neutral-current contribution to the event rates. Thus, the seasonal variations of this kind are probably too small to be observable.

Another possible signature of RSFP is an observable flux of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from the Sun if neutrinos, in addition to transition magnetic moments, have a sizeable flavour mixing ($`\theta \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.1`$) . The flux of solar $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s at the level of 1% of the $`\nu _e`$ flux can, in principle, be detected at Borexino and SNO. However, these signatures depend on additional assumptions about $`\theta `$ and the structure of the solar magnetic field, whereas our predictions for the Borexino detection rate are essentially model independent. The only possible model dependence is contained in the choice of the solar magnetic field profile, and this freedom is severely constrained by the requirement of fitting the available solar neutrino data. As a result, the predictions for the Borexino event rate, though somewhat different for different profiles (see Table III), all fall below those for the LMA, LOW and VO solutions.

In conclusion, we have shown that the Borexino experiment will be able to unambiguously distinguish RSFP from the currently favoured oscillation solutions of the solar neutrino problem.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to M. Nakahata for useful correspondence. E.A. was supported by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation as a Gulbenkian Visiting Professor at Instituto Superior Técnico.


text:
# Spacetime Foam

thanks: This essay received an honorable mention in the Annual Essay Competition of the Gravity Research Foundation for the year 2002

Spacetime is composed of a fluctuating arrangement of bubbles or loops called spacetime foam, or quantum foam. We use the holographic principle to deduce its structure, and show that the result is consistent with gedanken experiments involving spacetime measurements. We propose to use laser-based atom interferometry techniques to look for spacetime fluctuations. Our analysis makes it clear that the physics of quantum foam is inextricably linked to that of black holes. A negative experimental result, therefore, might have non-trivial ramifications for semiclassical gravity and black hole physics.

Spacetime appears smooth on large scales. On small scales, however, it is bubbly and foamy due to quantum fluctuations. In this essay, we use the holographic principle to show that the fluctuations are much larger than what conventional wisdom leads us to believe. We alternatively derive the same results by carrying out gedanken experiments to measure distances and time intervals. Intriguingly, the fluctuations are large enough that they may one day be detectable with improved modern laser-based atom interferometers.

From the holographic principle to spacetime foam

The holographic principle grew out of the profound insights of Wheeler, Bekenstein, Hawking, ’t Hooft, and Susskind.wbhts  It states that the maximum number of degrees of freedom that can be put into a region of space is given by the area of the region in Planck units. To connect it to quantum foam, let us consider a region of space measuring $`R\times R\times R`$, and imgine partitioning it into cubes as small as physical laws allow. With each small cube we associate one degree of freedom. If the smallest uncertainty in measuring a distance $`R`$ is $`\delta R`$, in other words, if the fluctuation in distance $`R`$ is $`\delta R`$, then the smallest such cubes have volume $`(\delta R)^3`$. (Otherwise, one could divide $`R`$ into units each measuring less than $`\delta R`$, and by counting the number of such units in $`R`$, one would be able to measure $`R`$ to within an uncertainty smaller than $`\delta R`$.) Thus the maximum number of degrees of freedom, given by the number of small cubes we can put into the region of space, is $`(R/\delta R)^3`$. The holographic principle demands that $`(R/\delta R)^3\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}(R/l_P)^2`$, where $`l_P=ct_P(\mathrm{}G/c^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck length. This yields

$$\delta R\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}(Rl_P^2)^{1/3}=l_P\left(\frac{R}{l_P}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(1)
Thus quantum fluctuations from individual bubbles of spacetime inside a distance $`R`$ add together to produce a (curious) $`\sqrt[3]{R}`$-dependence and are much larger than the folkloreMTW  indicates (viz., $`\delta R\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}l_P`$).111Naively, one would assume $`\delta R`$ to be given by $`l_P`$. Then the number of degrees of freedom would be given by the volume of the region of space $`R^3`$ in Planck units. This (wrong) choice of $`\delta R`$ violates the holographic principle. The corresponding metric fluctuation is given by $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}(l_P/R)^{2/3}`$. Note that even for a macroscopic distance $`R`$, the fluctuation $`\delta R`$, though much larger than the Planck scale $`l_P`$, is still incredibly small; e.g., for $`R`$ = 1 km, $`\delta R`$ is to an atom as an atom is to a human being. Since the holographic principle is deeply rooted in black hole physics, this way of deriving spacetime fluctuations is highly suggestive of the deep connection between quantum foam and black hole physics.

From spacetime measurements to spacetime foam

For an alternative means of deriving $`\delta R`$, let us consider a gedanken experiment to measure the distance $`R`$ between two points. The need for carrying out explicit measurements to determine distances is implicit in general relativity, according to which, coordinates do not have any meaning independent of observations; in fact, a coordinate system is defined only by explicitly carrying out spacetime distance measurements. Following Wignerwigner , we can put a clock at one of the points and a mirror at the other. By sending a light signal from the clock to the mirror in a timing experiment, we can determine the distance. However, the quantum uncertainty in the positions of the clock and the mirror introduces an inaccuracy $`\delta R`$ in the distance measurement. Let us concentrate on the clock and denote its mass by $`m`$. Wigner argued that if it has a linear spread $`\delta R`$ when the light signal leaves the clock, then its position spread grows to $`\delta R(2R/c)=\delta R+\mathrm{}R(mc\delta R)^1`$ when the light signal returns to the clock, with the minimum at $`\delta R=(\mathrm{}R/mc)^{1/2}`$. Hence one concludes that

$$\delta R^2\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\frac{\mathrm{}R}{mc}.$$
(2)
One can supplement this quantum mechanical relation with a limit from general relativityngvan1 . To see this, let the clock be a light-clock consisting of two parallel mirrors (each of mass $`m/2`$), a distance $`l`$ apart, between which bounces a beam of light. For the uncertainty in distance measurement not to be greater than $`\delta R`$, the clock must tick off time fast enough that $`l/c\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}\delta R/c`$. But $`l`$, the size of the clock, must be larger than the Schwarzschild radius $`Gm/c^2`$ of the mirrors, for otherwise one cannot read the time registered on the clock. From these two requirements, it follows that

$$\delta R\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\frac{Gm}{c^2},$$
(3)
the product222Here we can appreciate the importance of taking into account the effects of instruments in this gedanken experiment. Usually when one wants to examine a certain field (say, an electromagnetic field) one uses instruments that are neutral (electromagnetically neutral) and massive for, in that case, the effects of the instruments are negligible. But here in our gedanken experiment, the relevant field is the gravitational field. One cannot have a gravitationally neutral yet massive set of instruments because the gravitational charge is equal to the mass according to the principle of equivalence in general relativity. Luckily we can now exploit this equality of the gravitational charge and the inertial mass of the clock to eliminate the dependence on $`m`$. of which with Eq. (2) yields precisely the expression for spacetime fluctuation $`\delta R`$ given by Eq. (1), obtained by using the holographic principle. (Thus one can actually argue that the holographic principle has its origin in the quantum fluctuations of spacetime.) A gedanken experiment to measure a time interval $`T`$ gives an analogous expression:

$$\delta T\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}(Tt_P^2)^{1/3}.$$
(4)
There are also uncertainties in energy-momentum measurements. Such uncertainties may account for some unexpected features in the high energy cosmic ray and gamma ray spectra.jackng

Interrelationship between spacetime foam and black hole physics

It is interesting that an argument, very similar to that used above to deduce the structure of spacetime foam, can be applied to discuss the precision and the lifetime of a clock.ng  For a clock of mass $`m`$, if the smallest time interval that it is capable of resolving is $`t`$ and its total running time is $`T`$, one finds $`t^2\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\frac{\mathrm{}T}{mc^2}`$,ng  the analogue of Eq. (2), and $`t\begin{array}{c}>\\ \end{array}\frac{Gm}{c^3}`$, the analogue of Eq. (3).333 One can combine these two expressions to give $`T/t^3\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}t_P^2=\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}G}`$, which relates clock precision to its lifetime.ng  (Note that this new expression is just Eq. (4) with $`t`$ playing the role of $`\delta T`$.) Now let us apply these two (in-)equalities to a black hole of mass $`m`$ used as a clock. It is reasonable to use the light travel time across the black hole’s horizon as the resolution time of the clock, i.e., $`t\frac{Gm}{c^3}t_{BH}`$, then one immediately finds that $`T\frac{G^2m^3}{\mathrm{}c^4}T_{BH}`$, which is just Hawking’s black hole lifetime! Thus, if we had not known of black hole evaporation, this remarkable result would have implied that there is a maximum lifetime (of this magnitude) for a black hole. This is another demonstration of the intimate (if, in this case, indirect) relationship between quantum foam and black hole physics.

One can also translate the above clock relations into useful expressions for a simple computer. The fastest possible processing frequency is obviously given by $`t^1`$. Thus we identify $`\nu =t^1`$ as the clock rate of the computer, i.e., the number of operations per bit per unit time. The identification of the number $`I`$ of bits of information in the memory space of a simple computer is subtler. Since $`T/t`$ is the maximum number of steps of information processing, we make the identification $`I=T/t`$.444Using the clock relation in the preceding footnote and the identifications of $`\nu `$ and $`I`$ in terms of $`t`$ and $`T`$, one gets $`I\nu ^2\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}G}`$. This expression links together our concepts of information, gravity, and quantum uncertainty.ng  Now imagine that we can form a black hole (of mass $`m`$) whose initial conditions encode certain information to be processed.555It is possible, in principle, to program black holes to do computations in such a way that the results of the computation can be read out of the fluctuations in the apparently thermal Hawking radiation, if black holes indeed evolve in a unitary fashion as we believe.Lloyd  For a black hole computer, the inequality $`I\nu ^2\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}G}`$ is saturated; thus one can even claim that black holes, once they are programmed to do computations, are the ultimate computers. Then the memory space of the black hole computer has $`I=T_{BH}/t_{BH}(m/m_P)^2`$, where $`m_P(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck mass. This gives the number of bits $`I`$ as the event horizon area in Planck units, as expected from the identificationwbhts  of a black hole entropy! Furthermore, the number of operations per unit time for a black hole computer is given by $`I\nu mc^2/\mathrm{}`$, in agreement with Lloyd’s resultsLloyd  for the ultimate physical limits to computation. All these results indicate the conceptual interconnections of the physics underlying simple clocks, simple computers, black holes, and spacetime foam.

Interferometers as detectors of spacetime foam

Now we come to an important question: how do we detect quantum foam, i.e., how do we check Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) experimentally? It has been suggested that modern gravitational-wave interferometers can potentially provide a way, because the intrinsic foaminess of spacetime gives another source of noise in the gravitational-wave interferometers that can be highly constrained.ACNVD  Here we propose to use a smaller and simpler experimental setup; and following a similar analysis by I. Percivalpercival , we optimistically suggest that laser-based atom interferometry experiments may be precise enough in the not-too-distant future to detect spacetime fluctuations on the scales of quantum gravity at the level given by Eq. (1) and Eq. (4). In a laser-based atom interferometer, an atomic beam is split by laser beams into two coherent wave packets which are kept apart before being recombined by laser beams. The phase change of each wave packet is proportional to the proper time along its path, and so the resulting interference pattern depends on the time difference between the two paths. In the absence of spacetime fluctuations, the phase change $`\eta `$ over a time interval $`T`$ is given by $`\eta (T)=\mathrm{\Omega }T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }mc^2/\mathrm{}`$ is the quantum angular frequency associated with the mass $`m`$ of the atom. Due to spacetime fluctuations (Eq. (4)), there is an additonal fluctuating phase $`\delta \eta `$ given by

$$\delta \eta \frac{(Tt_P^2)^{1/3}}{T}\eta =(Tt_P^2)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(5)
For example, in 1992, Chu and Kasevich at Stanford University built an atom interferometer which used sodium atoms ($`m4.5\times 10^{26}`$ kg), and the two wave packets were kept apart for 0.2 sec.chu  For that experiment, one finds that $`\eta (T)7\times 10^{24}`$ radians and $`\delta \eta 3\times 10^4`$ radians. Thus one needs a precision of about 1 part in $`10^{29}`$ to look for spacetime foam (through suppression of the interference pattern), compared with the precision of 1 part in $`10^{26}`$ that was then achieved. In other words, one needs a (mere) thousandfold improvement in noise sensitivity to detect spacetime fluctuations. Though the above argument, a variant of the one given in Ref. percival , is necessarily short and perhaps too simplistic and overtly optimistic, hopefully the conclusion is not too far off the mark.

In summary, we have combined the general principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity to address the problem of quantum fluctuations of spacetime. A simple application of the holographic principle has shown that spacetime undergoes much larger quantum fluctuations than one may expect. This result is confirmed by gedanken experiments for spacetime measurements. We believe that the Planck scale, so far only a hypothetical extreme regime, will eventually become a realm that can be approached and measured, for instance by interferometry techniques. In this essay, we have also highlighted the interconnection between spacetime foam and black hole physics. Hence, if future experiments show that spacetime fluctuates at a level smaller than our prediction $`\delta R\sqrt[3]{Rl_P^2}`$, we will know that our current understanding of semiclassical gravity and black hole physics may need a considerable revision. We hope that these arguments are sufficiently convincing to encourage a determined experimental quest to detect quantum foam, the very fabric of spacetime, for, as Faraday wrote:

> *Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature, and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency.*

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy and the Bahnson Fund of the University of North Carolina.


text:
# Cooling flows in clusters of galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The gas density within the central 100 kpc or so of the centre of most clusters of galaxies is high enough that the radiative cooling time of the gas is less than $`10^{10}`$ yr. The cooling time drops further at smaller radii, suggesting that in the absence of any balancing heat source much of the gas in the central regions is cooling out of the hot intracluster medium. In order to maintain the pressure required to support the weight of the overlying gas, a slow, subsonic inflow known as a cooling flow develops.

X-ray observations made before Chandra and XMM-Newton were broadly consistent with the cooling flow picture (see 23 for a review and 42 for an opposing view), although several issues remained unresolved. The first issue was the observed X-ray surface brightness profile, which was not as peaked as expected from a homogeneous flow. Instead a multiphase gas was assumed, dropping cold gas over a range of radii. The second was the fate of the cooled gas. At the rates of 100s to more than $`1000\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ found in some clusters, the central galaxies should be very bright and blue if the cooled gas forms stars with a normal intial-mass-function. In many cases they do have excess blue light indicative of massive star formation , but at rates which are a factor of 10 to 100 times lower than the X-ray deduced mass cooling rate. It has been argued  that there is no significant sink in terms of cold gas clouds. A third issue involved the shape of the soft X-ray spectrum, which was inconsistent with a simple cooling flow. Absorption intrinsic to the flow was found to be a possible explanation . A final, major, issue was whether the neglect of heating is justified. The effect of gravitational heating as the gas flows was taken into account, but the effects pf any central radio source, which pumps energy into the surrounding gas via jets, together with disturbances due to subclusters plunging into the core every few Gyr were not included due to a lack of quantitative information. Heat flow due to thermal conduction was also generally assumed negligible.

The situation with cluster cooling flows has been clarified over the past year, particularly by the high spatial resolution imaging of Chandra and the high spectral resolution of the XMM-Newton Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS). Chandra images show much detail in the cores of clusters, with bubbles from radio sources  and cold fronts  seen. RGS spectra  confirm the presence of a range of temperatures in cooling flow clusters but fail to show evidence for gas cooling below 1–2 keV. Simply put, the data are consistent with gas cooling at a high rate to about one third of the mean temperature beyond 100 kpc but then vanishing.

At about the same time, the evidence for both warm  and cold  molecular gas at the centres of cooling flows clusters has become widespread. In some extreme cases there may be over $`10^{11}\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of cold gas . The presence of dust in these regions is also widespread, as demonstrated by the Balmer decrement in the optical/UV nebulosities commonly seen (e.g. 32, 15), dustlanes, and submm and IR detections . It is therefore possible that more star formation, and in particular cold gas clouds, may be found in and around central cluster galaxies (see also 29 for a discussion of the properties of very cold gas clouds). There has also been the intriguing detection of OVI emission from A2597 with FUSE . Lastly, recent numerical simulations of evolving cluster which include radiative cooling of the gas predict cooling flows (e.g. 48).

At face value the X-ray data tempt many to assume that some form of heating balances cooling and so dismiss cooling flows altogther. That ignores the how, why and what of the heating, which remains unsolved, although several candidates have been identified . Some form of feedback is probably required to prevent all of the gas from being heated up. If feedback does occur we have a good chance to observe how it works, since the region is spatially resolved and optically thin. The process is of wide importance, since it provides the upper mass limit for galaxies (in simulations of the galaxy luminosity function,  switch off cooling in massive galaxies).

My own view is to treat it as an intriguing astrophysical puzzle whch can be tackled observationally. Heating from radio sources and infalling subclusters must occur at some level, but whether it can balance radiative cooling over the required spatial scales to better than a factor of a few is not yet clear. Cooling probably does account for the observed star formation and cold gas clouds. A major remaining issue is whether the mass cooling rates are reduced from the earlier X-ray deduced rates by a factor of a few, ten or a hundred. We may be witnessing a nearby example of the kind of feedback processes common in galaxy formation; in particular, one in which accretion onto the central black hole and the resultant kinetic energy release play a major role.

## 2 Chandra results

Chandra images show structure in cluster cores. The X-ray emission is steeply peaked into the centres of many clusters but there are holes and fronts in the peak. Markevitch et al  found sharply defined cold fronts on A2142, across which the pressure is continuous yet the temperature changes by a factor of about 2. Ettori & Fabian  note that thermal conduction must be heavily suppressed in order that such sharp features can last long enough to be common. The fronts probably indicate that the gas of subclusters does not readily mix with the existing intracluster medium, presumably because they are separate magnetic structures. Also the cores of infalling subclusters may not be strongly shocked in decelerating into the core (see ).

### 2.1 The Perseus cluster

Holes in the X-ray surface brightness are seen to coincide with some radio lobes. The best examples are in the Perseus cluster, and were first seen with ROSAT . Chandra shows that they have bright rims of X-ray cool gas . This is contrary to the work of  who predicted that the rims would signify shocks. Other holes coincident with radio lobes are found in Hydra A  and many other clusters. The puzzling aspect if radio sources are heating the cooling gas is that in all cases reported the coolest gas seen is that closest to the radio lobes. Of course there is much energy going into the lobes, but the energy from the $`PdV`$ work expended in forming the holes can propagate away as sound waves, and the relativistic energy stored in the bubbles can be lifted away and out of the immediate core by buoyancy.

Provided that the filling factor of the holes by relativistic plasma is high, then the jet power required to make the holes in the Perseus cluster is considerable at about $`10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ .

### 2.2 A1795, A2199 and the Centaurus cluster

The Chandra image of A1795  shows an 80 kpc long soft X-ray feature coincident with an H$`\alpha `$ filament found by . It is plausibly a cooling wake trailing behind the central galaxy, which is at the head of the filament. The galaxy is moving around in the core of the cluster at a few hundred $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. There is no evidence from the temperatures of the gas that this motion has heated the gas significantly. The central galaxy in A2199 may also be oscillating, as deduced from the unusual morphology of its radio source . Again, the coolest gas appears to be close to both the radio source and the central galaxy .

The Centaurus cluster shows a cool, plume-like feature which appears about 20 kpc long . The gas temperature drops from about 3.5 keV down to about 1 keV at the centre, with evidence that more than one phase is present there. Interestingly, the known strong abundance gradient in iron peaks at about 1.5 times Solar at about 15 kpc before dropping back down to about 0.5 near the centre. This limits the amount of widespread mixing or convection that can have occurred within the core.

In summary, the high-spatial-resolution Chandra data are revealing that cluster cores are complex with a combination of holes due to radio lobes as well as filaments, plumes and cold fronts. All cores studied so far where the radiative cooling time of the gas is a few Gyr show significant central temperature drops.

## 3 XMM-Newton results

The most striking results have come from the RGS data which show little evidence for gas cooling below 1–2 keV . Emission lines from FeXX and XVII, for example, should be bright and easily seen if the mass cooling rate is high, but they are absent. EPIC CCD spectra (e.g. ) confirm this result.

Various explanations have been given . The gas may be cooling and yet appear to vanish when it reaches say 2 keV. Clouds of cold gas may photoelectrically absorb the soft X-rays, or the gas may have become dense enough to separate from the flow and mix in with surrounding hotter gas . Alternatively it may mix in with colder gas (for example that associated with the optical filaments or the molecular gas – note that this also explains why the filaments are so bright; ).

Another possibility is that the metals in the gas are not uniformly mixed in, but have a bimodal distribution . Gas in which ten per cent has a metallicity of 3 times solar and 90 per cent has zero metallicity has the same spectrum as gas at 0.3 solar if cooling is unimportant. When it does cool however, the metal emission lines cool only 10 per cent of the gas and so are much reduced as compared with the situation if they were responsible for cooling all the gas.

If heating is the explanation, then it cannot just be some low level of heat which stops the gas at 1–2 keV, since it would then accumulate at that temperature, contrary to observation. It has to halt the cooling over the full range of temperatures, and thus radii. How this can happen is a puzzle. If the radio source is responsible, then it may be intermittent. Maybe we do not see the heating phase, which is short lived. However the power required to stem the flow during the heating phase then goes up to high values. There may not be any problem in the Virgo cluster around M87 where the energy rquirements are relatively small, but in a massive cluster like A1835  the necessary power may exceed $`10^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ .

## 4 Discussion

The central 100 kpc radius region in most clusters has a radiative cooling time shorter than 5 Gyr (Peres et al 1997) and many have central cooling times of only $`10^8\mathrm{yr}`$. The gas temperature drops by a factor of 3 or more over this radius range. It seems plausible that the temperature drop and short radiative cooling times are related and that the low temperatures are caused by radiative cooling.

It is then a puzzle as to why gas which has cooled by a factor of three, and for which the radiative cooling time has reduced by a factor of ten or more, is not seen to cool further.

There are two obvious solutions, both of which have some difficulties. The first solution is that the gas does cool but either the soft X-ray emission is absorbed or the cooling is non-radiative and due, say, to mixing. The problem of the fate of cooled gas then remains. The second solution is that some heating balances cooling. The problem here is that the heat has to balance cooling over a wide range of radii and a wide range of timescales. Also observations of radio lobes which are a likely source of heat indicate that they coincide with the coolest gas in cluster cores.

The answer may be more complex, with the major temperature drop being due to a combination of in situ radiative cooling and gas introduced from dense cooling subclusters. Heat from the kinetic energy of infalling subclusters, and turbulence, continues to be dissipated throughout the core, reducing the age of any steady central cooling region to only a few Gyr. An intermittent central radio source powered by accretion from the intracluster medium heats and churns up some of the coolest gas at the centre. Radiatively-cooling clumps (possibly metal rich) fall out of the mean slow inflow once their temperature drops to below one third of the outer temperature and rapidly mix with cooler gas clouds closer to the centre. The mixture would have a temperature of about $`10^5\mathrm{K}`$ (as in mixing layers; Begelman & Fabian 1990), and rapidly lose its thermal energy by UV emission. Most of this would be absorbed by neighbouring cold gas and dust, to be reradiated as optical/UV line emission and infrared dust emission . Massive star formation take place in cooled clumps and spreads dust into the surrounding gas, further enhancing cooling via infrared emission.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to my many collaborators, in particular Steve Allen, Carolin Crawford, Stefano Ettori, Roderick Johnstone, Jeremy Sanders, Robert Schmidt and Greg Taylor for help and discussions, and the organisers for creating a timely and memorable meeting. The Royal Society is thanked for support.