text:
# A Model of Short Gamma-Ray Bursts: Heated Neutron Stars in Close Binary Systems

## 1 Introduction

In Salmonson et al. (2001) we investigated a model for gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) deriving from a neutrino burst of energy $`10^{53}`$ ergs above a heated, collapsing neutron star in a binary. Such conditions have been suggested by numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulations (Mathews & Wilson, 2000) of compression, heating and collapse of binary neutron stars near their last stable orbit. Such a thermal neutrino burst was found to partially recombine via $`\nu \overline{\nu }e^+e^{}`$ into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair plasma which expands relativistically. This fireball then recombines into photons via $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ and was found to give a gamma-ray burst of energy $`10^{51}10^{52}`$ ergs with spectral and temporal characteristics consistent with observations.

This paper elaborates on the previous work in three distinct ways. 1) The latest general relativistic hydrodynamic calculations by Wilson and Mathews indicate that evolution and compression of the stars in a binary is faster than previously thought; $`1`$ sec, thus making this process a more natural candidate for the generation of “short” GRBs ($`1`$ sec). 2) Herein we use recent work by Salmonson & Wilson (2001) which calculates the neutrino annihilation rate between two neutron stars in addition to the annihilation rate from a single star (Salmonson & Wilson, 1999). This ‘inter-star’ annihilation will not drive a baryon wind from the stellar surface and thus we find no baryon loading in the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair plasma that originates between the neutron stars. 3) We employ three dimensional (3D) relativistic hydrodynamic calculations to model the flow of the wind in the complex, rotating, strong gravity environment around the neutron stars.

It has been known for some time that the population of GRBs is bimodal, with approximately a third of bursts having durations less than 2 seconds, and these short bursts typically have harder spectra than those bursts lasting longer than 2 seconds (Kouveliotou et al., 1993). This bimodality is thought to indicate that short and long bursts are separate populations and mechanisms. This view is bolstered by evidence that spectral break energy (Paciesas et al., 2001) and pulse lags (Norris et al., 2000) have a discontinous jump between short and long populations. The lack of discovery and location of an afterglow associated with short bursts has severely impeded progress in determining the distance scale and thus the energetics of these bursts. In fact, comparisons of BeppoSAX and BATSE data archives indicates a dearth of X-ray afterglows (Gandolfi, 2001). Analysis of BATSE data for short burst decay tails give conflicting results indicating both a lack of an underlying afterglow component (Connaughton, 2000) and the existence of such a component (Lazzati et al., 2001).

## 2 The Model

In this model we estimate that 10% of the rotationally enhanced binding energy of a neutron star ($`10^{53}`$ ergs) is converted to thermal energy via compression, vortices and shocks. This $`10^{53}`$ ergs of energy is released as a monotonically increasing luminosity of neutrinos over a timescale of order $`1/10`$ second as estimated by Mathews & Wilson (1997). This neutrino luminosity $`10^{54}`$ ergs s-1 annihilates into an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair plasma. Annihilation of high neutrino luminosities in the strong gravitational field of the neutron stars can have high efficiencies; near unity (Salmonson et al., 2001). About half of the pair plasma energy is deposited uniformly around the neutron stars due to single star neutrino annihilation (Salmonson & Wilson, 1999) and the other half is deposited between the stars due to interstar neutrino annihilation (Salmonson & Wilson, 2001).

This plasma deposition morphology then becomes input for the 3D relativistic hydrodynamic code, which calculates the expansion of the plasma (Figure 1). These simulations show a plasma of very high entropy expanding out along the plane of symmetry between the neutron stars. In the regions around the stars lower entropy plasma is formed because a baryon wind is blown from the stars. The numerical model follows the baryons, hence some baryons were added in the interstellar region. The calculation yields an estimate of the angular distribution of the baryonic loading of the plasma.

Thus this model predicts a variety of bursts. Viewed along the axis of rotation, a prompt quasi-thermal burst of duration $`1/10`$ second will result from the annihilation of fireball pairs (Salmonson et al., 2001). Because of the dearth of baryons left over to sweep into the interstellar medium, we do not predict the existence of an afterglow. This agrees with preliminary searches of the data archives for short-burst afterglows, which appear to be missing (Gandolfi, 2001).

Viewed far from the axis of rotation a very different burst results. The lower entropy means that there will not be a prompt burst from pair annihilation in the fireball. However, there will be a baryon wind sweeping into the interstellar medium. Thus we expect a burst that decays into an afterglow as a power-law (Salmonson et al., 2001). This behavior will be made chaotic and complex by the rapid rotation of the binary system.

## 3 One-Dimensional Calculations

Using one-dimensional (1D) relativistic hydrodynamics described in Salmonson et al. (2001), we can study the expansion of an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair plasma fireball from the surface of a single neutron star. As per our model, we deposit $`=10^{52}`$ ergs of energy into a narrow (width $`=1`$ km) shell region above the surface of a $`R_0=10`$ km radius and 1.4 $`M_{}`$ mass neutron star. We monotonically ramp the energy over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.1`$ second. This model is run with a range of deposited baryon densities and thus a range of baryon loadings of the fireball.

It is important to note that our hydrodynamics do not track the protons and neutrons separately and, as such, assumes they are well coupled during the expansion and acceleration of the plasma. As was shown by Fuller et al. (2000) and Derishev et al. (1999), the neutrons can decouple from the protons and $`e^+e^{}`$ plasma during acceleration, thus changing the overall baryon load of the plasma. Since it is plausible that the baryon matter blown off of the neutron star is 90% neutrons, it is reasonable to expect, depending on the efficiency of the decoupling, the effective baryon mass to be a factor of several less than the total baryon mass.

The plasma fireball is evolved and we find that it expands adiabatically as a thin shell of constant coordinate thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ (Ruffini et al., 2000). We track this expansion and pair annihilation until the optical depth, $`\tau `$, of the plasma falls below unity: $`\tau N\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R<1`$ where $`N`$ is the coordinate density of electrons and positrons and $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thompson cross-section. The energy in photons, $`E_{\text{photons}}`$, and in the baryons, $`E_{\text{baryons}}`$, is calculated and these results are summarized in Fig. (2). One can see that for $`/10^5`$, where $``$ is the baryonic rest mass energy, most of the energy goes into accelerating the baryons while for $`/10^5`$ a substantial fraction of the energy is expressed as photons directly from the plasma; i.e. a gamma-ray burst.

This result can be understood when one considers that the opacity of the fireball derives from two electron densities: electrons associated with entrained protons, $`N_{electrons}=N_{protons}`$, and electrons and positrons in pairs, $`N_{pairs}`$. Defining the optical depth as $`\tau =\tau _{electrons}+\tau _{pairs}(N_{protons}+N_{pairs})\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, then by comparing the densities $`N_{protons}`$ and $`N_{pairs}`$, we understand the relative importance of these two sources of opacity.

We first consider the baryons. Equating the energy deposition with outgoing flux gives the initial energy density at the surface of the neutron star $`E_0=/(\mathrm{\Delta }t4\pi R_0^2c)3\times 10^{29}`$ ergs cm-3. It follows that the corresponding initial number density of baryons is $`N_{b,0}=E_0/m_pc^2(/)1.3\times 10^{35}(/)\text{cm}^3`$, where $`/`$ is the ratio of baryon rest mass energy to total energy. Finally, we know (Ruffini et al., 2000) that for relativistic adiabatic expansion we have: $`N_b=N_{b,0}(R_0/R)^2`$. Let us assume that 10% of the baryons are protons with associated electrons. Then the optical depth from the entrained baryons is $`\tau _{electrons}0.1N_b\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R0.1(E_0/m_pc^2)(/)(R_0/R)^2\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ and thus optical thinness, $`\tau _{electrons}1`$ happens at a radius $`R_{baryons}10^{12}\sqrt{(/)_5}`$ cm, where $`(/)_5(/)/10^5`$. Notice that this radius depends on the initial baryon loading of the fireball: $`R_{baryons}\sqrt{/}`$.

The opacity due to pairs is a bit more complex. As discussed in Salmonson et al. (2001), the pair number density is governed by the following equation

$$\frac{N_{pairs}}{t}=\frac{\alpha }{r^2}\frac{}{r}(\frac{r^2}{\alpha }N_{pairs}V^r)+\overline{\sigma _{ann}v}((N_{pairs}^0(T^{}))^2N_{pairs}^2)/W^2$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\sigma _{ann}v}`$ is the Maxwellian averaged mean pair annihilation rate per particle and $`N_{pairs}(T^{})`$ is the local coordinate equilibrium $`e^+e^{}`$ pair density at local temperature $`T^{}`$ given by the appropriate Fermi integral with a chemical potential of zero. Early in the fireball expansion $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs are in equilibrium so $`N_{pairs}N_{pairs}^0(T^{})`$ and thus the pairs expand adiabatically: $`N_{pairs}=N_{pairs,0}(R_0/R)^2`$, where the initial pair number density is given by $`N_{pair,0}(aE_0^3)^{1/4}/3k10^{34}\text{cm}^3`$. When the local temperature, $`T^{}`$, of the plasma falls below $`T_{}^{}m_ec^2/31/6`$ MeV the pairs begin to rapidly annihilate. This happens at a radius $`R_{}R_0/T^{}(E_0/a)^{1/4}100R_0`$. The pair number density plummets until the annihilation term in Eqn. (1) no longer dominates, which happens at a density $`N_{pair,}R_{}/(\overline{\sigma _{ann}}R_0^2)10^{20}\text{cm}^3`$. This annihilation happens over a few $`R_{}`$ which is very small compared to the radius at which pairs and photons decouple and therefore these results are independent of the details of this annihilation phase. Beyond this point the pair number density again expands adiabatically: $`N_{pair}=N_{pair,}(R_{}/R)^2`$. Thus the optical depth from the pairs is $`\tau _{pairs}N_{pairs}\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R(E_0/a)^{1/4}\sigma _T\mathrm{\Delta }R/(\overline{\sigma _{ann}}R_0T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3})(R_0/R)^2`$ and optical thinness, $`\tau _{pairs}1`$, happens at a radius $`R_{pairs}\sqrt{(E_0/a/T_{}^{})^{3/4}\sigma _TR_0\mathrm{\Delta }R/\overline{\sigma _{ann}}}10^{12}`$ cm which is independent of $`/`$.

Thus we see that the transition shown in Fig. (2) from baryon-dominated to photon-dominated fireball energy is governed by the relative importance of opacity associated with the baryons and that associated with the $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs. Therefore it is important to consider both the opacity due to electrons associated with protons, which dominate for high baryon loading, and the opacity of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair plasma which dominates for low baryon loads. For initial values $`/<10^5`$, $`R_{\text{baryons}}>R_{\text{pairs}}`$ so the opacity is dominated by the electrons associated with the baryons and thus the baryons are able to “hold” the plasma longer and thus absorb all of the fireball energy. For $`/>10^5`$ we have $`R_{\text{pairs}}>R_{\text{baryons}}`$ and the pairs are the dominant source of opacity and thus determine the radius of optical thinness. If the radius of optical thinness falls below the radius to saturate the energy of the baryons, i.e. the radius at which most of the plasma energy is in the baryons, $`R_{\text{saturate}}=(/)R_0`$, then the acceleration of the baryons is inefficient, they do not attain the energy $`(/)m_pc^2`$, and thus more energy remains in the photons, thus yielding a photon burst.

## 4 Three-Dimensional Calculations

While the 1D hydrodynamics of the last section elucidate the behavior of an expanding relativistic plasma, a 3D calculation is required to capture the structure inherent in the present problem of rotating, emitting binary neutron stars. In this section we introduce the 3D relativistic hydrodynamic equations. Herein we use units $`G=c=1`$. The continuity equation is

$$\frac{D}{t}=6D\frac{\mathrm{log}\varphi }{t}\frac{1}{\varphi ^6}\frac{(\varphi ^6DV^i)}{x^i}.$$
(2)
where the spatial dimensions are indicated by the sum over $`i=1,2,3`$. The energy equation is

$$\frac{E}{t}=6\mathrm{\Gamma }E\frac{\mathrm{log}\varphi }{t}\frac{1}{\varphi ^6}\frac{(\varphi ^6EV^i)}{x^i}P\left[\frac{W}{t}+\frac{1}{\varphi ^6}\frac{(WV^i\varphi ^6)}{x^i}\right].$$
(3)
And the momentum equations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{S_i}{t}=& 6S_i\frac{\mathrm{log}\varphi }{t}\frac{1}{\varphi ^6}\frac{(\varphi ^6S_iV^j)}{x^j}\alpha \frac{P}{x^i}W(D+\mathrm{\Gamma }E)\frac{\alpha }{x^i}\hfill \\ & +S_j\frac{\beta ^j}{x^i}+2\alpha (D+\mathrm{\Gamma }E)\left[W\frac{1}{W}\right]\frac{(\mathrm{log}\varphi )}{x^i},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where the four-velocity is

$$U_i=\frac{S_i}{D+\mathrm{\Gamma }E},$$
(5)
and we define a generalized Lorentz factor

$$W=\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(U_i)^2}{\varphi ^4}},$$
(6)
the coordinate velocity in terms of the four velocity (eqn. 5) is given by

$$V^i=\frac{\alpha U_i}{W\varphi ^4}\beta ^i,$$
(7)
and the equation of state is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+\frac{PW}{E}.$$
(8)
The metric is 3+1 and taken to be conformally flat. The lapse function is given by

$$\alpha \left(\frac{1\frac{F}{2}}{1+\frac{F}{2}}\right).$$
(9)
The spatial factor is

$$\varphi 1+\frac{F}{2},$$
(10)
and the shift vector is

$$\beta ^\varphi 𝛀\times 𝐫A\left(\frac{M_1}{r_1}\frac{M_2}{r_2}\right).$$
(11)
The factor $`F`$ is defined by

$$F\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{M}{r_1}+\frac{M}{r_2}\hfill & r_1>R_{}\hfill \\ \frac{M}{2}\left(\frac{3}{R_{}}\frac{r_1^2}{R_{}^3}\right)+\frac{M}{r_2}\hfill & r_1<R_{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ are the distances from the center of the nearest and farthest stars respectively, each of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R_{}`$.

## 5  Results

An example of a 3D run is shown in Fig. 1. An edit of the final Lorentz factor, $`\gamma _{\text{final}}`$, as a function of angle from the rotation axis in the plane defined by the rotation axis and the line connecting the two stars is shown in Fig. 3. One can see that the highest energy per baryon occur along the rotation axis. From this figure one gets the scale of the opening angle of this high energy material: $`15^{}`$. The simulation does not sufficiently resolve the region of high $`E/D`$ at low angles. Very little baryon mass will make it into this region of high energy density, thus we expect $`E/D`$ to be effectively infinite on the rotation axis. Thus for viewers within this angle we have a thermal burst dominated by $`e^+e^{}`$ pair-photon plasma as described in (Salmonson et al., 2001). An edit of the observed temperature $`T_{obs}\alpha (W^3E)^{1/4}`$ is shown in Fig. 4, where we have used quantities defined in eqns. (3, 6, 9).

One can see from Fig. 3 that, depending on the observer angle with respect to the axis of rotation, a wide range of baryon loadings, parameterized by $`E/D`$, will be observed. Thus we study the range of expected observed signals as it depends on $`E/D`$. Herein we assume a correspondence between the ratio of energy to mass, $`/`$, of the spherically symmetric calculations of Section 3 to the ratio of energy to mass coordinate densities, $`E/D`$, as taken from the 3D code runs. As such, we expect a thermal burst for observers along the axis of rotation of the stars and within an angle $`15^{}`$ where no baryons are deposited and thus $`E/D\mathrm{}`$. As seen in Fig. 3, for increasing $`\theta `$ from the rotation axis, $`E/D`$ decreases rapidly to $`100`$.

For all $`E/D=/<10^5`$ all of the energy of the pair plasma is deposited into the baryons and therefore a prompt thermal burst does not occur. Instead, the mass, $``$, of baryons moving with Lorentz factor, $`\gamma _{\text{final}}=/`$, sweep into the interstellar medium, thus forming a collisionless shock, and decelerate according to (e.g. Piran, 2000)

$$=\gamma _{\text{final}}=4\pi \rho \gamma ^2r^3$$
(13)
for

$$r>r_{dec}\left(\frac{}{4\pi \rho c^2\gamma _{\text{final}}^2}\right)^{1/3}10^{16}\gamma _{300}^{2/3}E_{52}^{1/3}n_1^{1/3}\text{cm}$$
(14)
where $`r_{dec}`$ is the deceleration radius, $`\rho `$ is the interstellar medium (ISM) density, $`n_1\rho /m_p`$ cm-3 is the ISM baryon number density, $`\gamma _{300}\gamma /300`$ and $`E_{52}/(10^{52}\text{ergs})`$. This model was worked out in detail in Salmonson et al. (2001). The shock will emit synchrotron radiation as it decelerates with a characteristic luminosity $`L(n_1\gamma _{300}^8)^{1/3}E_{52}^{2/3}10^{51}`$ ergs s-1 at a characteristic photon energy $`ϵ200\sqrt{n_1}\gamma _{300}^4`$ keV and a duration on the deceleration timescale $`t_{dec}=r_{dec}/2\gamma ^2c3(E_{52}/n_1/\gamma _{300}^8)^{1/3}`$ s. Note that for $`\gamma 300`$ this timescale is consistent with long bursts: $`>3`$ s.

A distinct feature of this progenitor model, since the wind comes from the surface of a neutron star, is that most of the baryons will be in the form of neutrons (say 90%). Thus these neutrons will not couple with the ISM magnetic field and will pass by the decelerating protons. These neutrons will decay back to protons on a timescale of a neutron half-life, $`\tau _{n,1/2}1000`$ s, which happens at a radius $`R_{decay}=\gamma c\tau _{n,1/2}\gamma _{300}10^{16}`$ cm. Comparing this radius with the decelaration radius, $`r_{dec}`$, we see that $`r_{dec}>R_{decay}`$ for $`\gamma <300`$, i.e. the neutrons have decayed into protons before reaching the deceleration radius. So we expect this effect to be important for $`\gamma =/>300`$ (Fig. 5).

Another characteristic Lorentz factor $`\gamma =/`$ is when the time, in the fluid frame, to reach the deceleration radius is shorter then the deposition time, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.1`$ s. The fluid frame deposition distance is $`\mathrm{\Delta }r^{}=\gamma c\mathrm{\Delta }t\gamma _{300}10^{12}`$ cm. Also in the fluid frame, the deceleration distance is $`r_{dec}^{}=r_{dec}/\gamma 10^{15}(n_1\gamma _{300}^5)^{1/3}`$ cm. These are equal at $`\gamma 1500`$ (Fig. 5). Thus for $`\gamma >1500`$ the plasma deposited at the beginning of the deposition time has begun to decelerate before the plasma has completed deposition, so the assumption that the plasma is a thin, shocked shell plowing into the ISM is invalid. Instead, energy will be continuously deposited into the shock.

An important caveat for these high Lorentz factors, $`\gamma 300`$, is that they likely are beyond the regime of validity for the collisionless shock. The detailed physics behind such shocks is not well understood (e.g. Piran, 2000) and assumes that the kinetic energy of the baryons, $`(\gamma 1)m_pc^2`$, will effectively amplify the magnetic field and energize the electrons. However, low densities of ultra-high energy baryons will inefficently couple with the ISM and thus the collisionless shock approximation will be invalid.

Again, for energy, $`=10^{52}`$ ergs, with photon energy $`ϵ200\gamma _{300}^4`$ keV, the observed photon fluence seen at a distance, $`R`$, will be $`\xi /4\pi R^2ϵ250\xi \gamma _{300}^4R_{Gpc}^2`$ cm-2, where $`R_{Gpc}R/(1\text{Gigaparsec})`$ and $`\xi `$ is an efficiency factor which may be about $`10\%`$. For example, given $`\gamma =1500`$, we expect a fluence of $`0.04`$ photons cm-2 with characteristic energy $`ϵ0.1`$ GeV over a duration $`t_{dec}0.04`$ s. So such a burst would be far from recognizable as such (Fig. 5).

## 6 Discussion

A key result of the 3D numerical simulations (Fig. 3) is that the emission from this system is bimodal: about half of the total energy is deposited as a pure, baryon-free, $`E/D\mathrm{}`$, pair plasma along a ‘fan’ of angular half-width $`\theta =15^{}`$ along the symmetry plane between the neutron stars, and the other half of the total energy is blown off of the neutron stars as a wind with $`E/D300`$. Very little of the energy is deposited in intermediate regimes of $`E/D`$. As such we analyse the expected observations from this model.

The solid angle subtended by the fan of baryon-free plasma is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{fan}=4\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and the wind blows off into the rest of space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{wind}=4\pi (1\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$. Therefore the fluence from each component at a distance $`R`$ for total energy $``$ is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_{fan}& =\frac{\xi /2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{fan}R^2}=\frac{\xi }{8\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta R^2}\hfill \\ \hfill F_{wind}& =\frac{\xi /2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{wind}R^2}=\frac{\xi }{8\pi (1\mathrm{sin}\theta )R^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\xi `$ is an efficiency factor. Now the system is rotating so an observer with angle, $`\psi `$, from the rotation axis will see a mixture of the fan and wind, unless he is located within an angle $`\psi <\theta `$. Since the period of rotation of the system is much smaller than the energy deposition timescale, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.1`$ s, we average over the fluences from the wind and the fan to get a total average fluence. The proportion of a rotation subtended by the fan is $`2/\pi \mathrm{arcsin}(\theta /\mathrm{sin}\psi )`$ for $`\theta \psi \pi /2`$ and is unity for $`0<\psi <\theta `$. So the average fluence contributed by the fan as a function of viewing angle is (Fig. 6)

$$\overline{F}_{fan}(\psi )=\frac{}{8\pi R^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2/\pi \mathrm{arcsin}(\theta /\mathrm{sin}(\psi ))}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\hfill & \text{for }\theta \psi \pi /2,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\hfill & \text{for }0<\psi <\theta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
and that of the wind is

$$\overline{F}_{wind}(\psi )=\frac{}{8\pi R^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{12/\pi \mathrm{arcsin}(\theta /\mathrm{sin}(\psi ))}{1\mathrm{sin}\theta }\hfill & \text{for }\theta \psi \pi /2,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }0<\psi <\theta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The total average fluence is

$$\overline{F}(\psi )=\overline{F}_{fan}(\psi )+\overline{F}_{wind}(\psi ).$$
(18)
An observer within $`0<\psi <\theta `$ sees only the fan emission. This is effectively a jet of opening half-angle $`\theta =15^{}`$. Such an observer sees a jet of strong thermal emission over a timescale of 0.1 s. For $`\theta =15^{}=\pi /12`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{F}(\psi =0)& =1.6\times 10^4\frac{\xi E_{52}}{R_{Gpc}^2}\text{ergs cm}^2\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{F}(\psi =\pi /2)& =7.3\times 10^5\frac{\xi E_{52}}{R_{Gpc}^2}\text{ergs cm}^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
so an observer along the jet ($`\psi <\theta `$) will see roughly twice the fluence in a short, $`0.1`$ s, thermal, $`T_{obs}5`$ MeV, gamma-ray burst, than an off-axis observer ($`\psi \pi /2`$) who will see a synchrotron burst of duration $`3`$ s with characteristic photon energy 200 keV.

In conclusion, when the binary system is viewed within $`15^{}`$ of the axis of rotation, we have a model for short gamma-ray bursts, $`0.1`$ s, which have hard spectra, several MeV. In addition, when the binary system is viewed at angles larger than $`15^{}`$ from the rotation axis, our model yields a second group of bursts, 30 times more common, with soft spectra, a few hundred keV, and intermediate time duration of 1 to 5 s. The energy available depends on the neutron star equation of state and the masses of the neutron stars. The energy in a burst could range from $`10^{50}`$ ergs to a few times $`10^{52}`$ ergs. From Fig. 6 we see that if the detector is primarily sensitive to number counts then at intermediate viewing angles the fan contribution to the signal may be missed. The pure fan signal, i.e. a jet viewed within $`15^{}`$ of the rotation axis, will have no afterglow, but the fan plus wind would have an afterglow and a small contribution of high energy photons. Jensen et al. (2001) have observed a 2 s burst with an afterglow. Unfortunately the high energy detector data was not obtained.

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract W-7405-ENG-48.


format: text

text:
# Experiences with the multi-level algorithm.

## 1 Introduction

The physical picture of confinement is often given in terms of formation of a flux tube between a quark and an anti-quark. This picture is also supported by lattice simulations.

Thinking of the flux tube as a source, the Wilson loop $`W(r,T)`$ can be considered as correlation between sources of length $`r`$ propagating for time $`T`$. The theory of this flux tube has been proposed as an effective string model .

This is an effective long distance theory and therefore to test it, one has to measure physically large Wilson loops. The problem however is that large Wilson loops have small expectation values. That makes it difficult to measure them in simulations. To circumvent this problem, recent efforts to measure properties of the flux tube, have relied on asymmetric lattices .

Throughout this article, we will work in 3 dimensions and with SU(2). Even in this restricted case, $`W10^8`$ will take about 1 year to measure to an accuracy of 1% with conventional algorithms on a 1Ghz PIII processor. Here we explore a new algorithm which reduces this time to about a day.

## 2 The Algorithm

The algorithm is based mainly on the factorization property of the partition function. This makes it possible to obtain really small expectation values as products of expectation values of intermediate orders of magnitude. This works for the Wilson action to which we restrict ourselves, but can be generalized to other actions as long as the factorization property holds. We do not go into further discussion of the algorithm but just present the operational details of our implementation of the algorithm. For a detailed discussion we refer the reader to .

Suppose we want to measure a Wilson loop of extent $`r`$ and $`T`$ in $`x`$ and $`t`$ directions respectively. We choose the time extent of the lattice to be a multiple of $`T`$ and divide the lattice into time slices of thickness $`d`$. At $`\beta =4/g_0^2=5`$ ($`g_0`$ is the bare coupling), we found $`d=2`$ to be adequate. Higher $`\beta `$ might warrant a higher value of $`d`$.

First we create a 2-link operator (Fig.1A)

$$𝒯_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=U_{1\alpha \beta }^{}U_{2\gamma \delta }.$$
(1)
Next take a product of two 111It can be any number depending on $`T`$ and $`d`$ of these $`𝒯`$’s to get,

$$\widehat{𝒯}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=𝒯_{1\alpha \mu \gamma \nu }𝒯_{2\mu \beta \nu \delta }.$$
(2)
$`\widehat{𝒯}`$’s are now estimated by an averaging procedure in which only the time slices are updated holding the space-like links at the boundary of the slices fixed. They are then multiplied together to form the averaged propagator T. Finally the sources $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are calculated and the full Wilson loop is obtained as (Fig.1B)

$$W=L_{2\alpha \gamma }𝐓_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }L_{1\beta \delta }^{}.$$
(3)
## 3 Optimization

Let us now try to optimize the parameters of this algorithm. Probably the most important one is the number of sub-lattice updates ($`iupd`$) and we concentrate on that. Among the others, we use three over-relaxation steps to every heat-bath, choose the basic time slice as two lattice spacings and keep the level of averaging at one.

For Polyakov loop correlators ($`P^{}P`$), the optimal value of $`iupd`$ was estimated in  as the one which minimized $`\sqrt{time}\times |P^{}P|`$. We follow a slightly different procedure. The 2-link operator $`\widehat{𝒯}`$ is the main quantity which is affected by the sub-lattice averaging. We propose to define the norm of this operator as

$$N(r)=\sqrt{\underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \{1,2\}}{}(\widehat{𝒯}(r)_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta })^2}.$$
(4)
As seen in Fig.2, $`N(r)`$ depends quite strongly on $`r`$. Moreover the propagator T is a number $`O(N(r)^{T/2})`$. Thus the optimal value of $`iupd`$ depends not only on $`\beta `$, but also on the size of the loop itself. We estimate the optimal value of $`iupd`$ to be the one which minimizes $`N(r)^{T/2}\times \sqrt{iupd}`$. (Note $`iupd`$ time.) $`N(r)^{T/2}`$ is a number $`O(|P^{}P|)`$, but measuring $`N(r)`$ is cheaper. We checked that both methods give values of $`iupd`$ which are similar. We also find the optimal value of $`iupd`$ to be reasonably flat and not too sensitive to the exact definition of $`N(r)`$.

For Wilson loops we have to deal in addition with the sources which lie entirely in the space slices and whose fluctuation is not reduced by this algorithm. Note that it is incorrect to apply multi-hit to any of the spatial links in this algorithm. Fluctuation of the sources greatly reduce the optimal number of $`iupd`$ for Wilson loops. We do not have any quantitative estimate on how to choose an optimal $`iupd`$ for the Wilson loop apriori, but merely point out that if we can estimate the order of magnitude of $`W`$ then it is best to choose $`iupd`$ so that each measurement yields a value which is of the same order of magnitude. In Fig.3 we plot the error on a $`12\times 12`$ Wilson loop against $`iupd`$.

This plot indicates that the optimal value of $`iupd`$ is $``$ 200. In contrast the corresponding value for $`P^{}P`$ is more than 1600.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Polyakov Loop Correlators

As a test of our program, we compute the string tension from $`P^{}P`$. Neglecting higher eigenstates, the static potential between a $`\overline{q}q`$ pair is

$$V(r)\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{ln}P^{}(r,T)P(0,T).$$
(5)
In the string picture, for large $`r`$, $`V(r)V_0+\alpha rc/r`$ where $`V_0`$ is a constant, $`\alpha `$ is the string tension and $`c(=\pi /24)`$ is a universal number. Next we define the force $`F`$, and $`c`$ in terms of $`V`$ as
$`F(r)=[V(r+1)V(r1)]/2`$ and
$`c(r)=[V(r+1)2V(r)+V(r1)]r^3/2`$.
We tabulate our results below.

In each measurement, $`V(r)`$, $`F(r)`$ and $`c(r)`$ were obtained from the same sample for all $`r`$ values to take advantage of correlations while computing the differences. The averages and errors were obtained using the jackknife method. Finite volume corrections and higher state contributions were negligible.

To get the asymptotic value for $`\alpha `$ and $`c`$, we plot $`F(r)`$ vs $`1/r^2`$. The slope and intercept of this plot gives $`c`$ and $`\alpha `$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$. We get $`c=0.134(5)`$. This is very close to the string value of $`\pi /24`$. The string tension $`a\sqrt{\alpha }=0.313(3)`$, compares very well with Teper’s value  of $`0.3129(20)`$.

The above measurement took 10 days on a 1.2 GHz AMD Athlon processor.

### 4.2 Wilson Loops

Polyakov loops are very good for getting the ground state of the flux tube or the string tension, but for the excited states and states of higher angular momentum, it is more useful to evaluate Wilson loops .

With the view of computing the spectrum of the string, we looked at correlation matrices $`C_{ij}(r,T)`$ between sources $`ij`$. As a first step we define the source $`s_i=𝒫\left(_{k=1}^r(U_k+\alpha _iS_k)\right)`$, with only a single smearing step. $`U_k`$ is the original link variable, $`S_k`$ is the sum over all the space-like staples and $`𝒫`$ denotes projection back to SU(2). $`\alpha _i`$ is the smearing parameter and takes values $`\{0.1,0.3,0.5\}`$.

The energies are extracted by

$$E_\alpha (r)=\frac{1}{T_1T_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda _\alpha (r,T_1)}{\lambda _\alpha (r,T_2)}.$$
(6)
$`T_1>T_2`$ and $`\lambda _\alpha (r,T)`$ are the eigenvalues of $`C_{ij}`$. We still do not have enough statistics to get the excited states which are highly suppressed, and are presently using higher smearing levels and better wave functions to extract them. Here we present some $`T`$ dependence for the ground state.

The apparent downward trend of the data might be due to the error  introduced for using smaller values of $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. The energy determined from $`P^{}P`$, which has $`T=24`$, is 0.5717(5).

## 5 Discussion

With the multilevel algorithm it is possible to measure $`W10^8`$ with 1% error in about a day, even on a PC. Even though the algorithm works better for Polyakov loops, the improvement over multi-hit for $`W<10^6`$ is quite significant. It is possible to couple this algorithm with other techniques like smearing to reduce fluctuation of the sources and study correlations among them. For other applications of the algorithm, see .


text:
# Non–commutative phase and the unitarization of 𝐺𝐿_{𝑝,𝑞}(2)

## 1 Introduction

The mathematical construction of a quantum group $`G_q`$ pertaining to a given Lie group $`G`$ is simply a deformation of a commutative Poisson-Hopf algebra defined over $`G`$. The structure of a deformation is not only a Hopf algebra but characteristically a non-commutative algebra as well. The notion of quantum groups in physics is widely known to be the generalization of the symmetry properties of both classical Lie groups and Lie algebras, where two different mathematical blocks, namely deformation and co–multiplication, are simultaneously imposed either on the related Lie group or on the related Lie algebra.

A quantum group is defined algebraically as a quasi–triangular Hopf algebra. It can be either non-commutative or commutative. It is fundamentally a bi–algebra with an antipode so as to consist of either the q–deformed universal enveloping algebra of the classical Lie algebra or its dual, called the matrix quantum group, which can be understood as the q–analog of a classical matrix group . One needs four axioms, namely morphisms, in order to define a bi-algebraic structure: associativity, co–associativity, unit and co–unit. There is an additional structure, called the connecting axiom, which is needed to link the algebra to its dual one.

Although the applications of quantum groups mainly concentrate on the studies of quantum integrable models using the quantum inverse scattering method and non–commutative geometry, there have been many phenomenological applications of quantum algebras in nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, molecular physics, quantum optics and elementary particle physics. The most important and remarkable application arose from the q–deformation of the known quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator algebra. The algebraic approaches to the oscillator algebras involve the known creation, annihilation and number operators. It is worth emphasizing the importance of the algebra possessing hermitian operators, giving rise to the ability of representing the physical observables. An algebra, therefore, needs to have a $``$ structure to be interpreted as an algebra of observables. The simplest matrix quantum group with such a structure is $`SU_q(2)`$ .

Let us now review the quantum group $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$ and then its unitary form $`U_{q,\overline{q}}\left(gl\left(2\right)\right)`$ . The representation matrix and the algebra of the two–parameter deformed quantum group $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$ are defined in the following way

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right),$$
(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}ab=q^2ba& ac=p^2ca& bd=p^2db& cd=q^2dc\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}adda=\left(q^2p^2\right)bc& bc=p^2q^2cb.\end{array}$$
(1.2)
The co–multiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the co–unit $`\epsilon `$, and the antipode( matrix inverse) $`S`$, whose bi–algebra is generated by the matrix elements $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$, are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(A\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}aa+bc& ab+bd\\ ca+dc& cb+dd\end{array}\right),$$
(1.3)
$$\epsilon \left(A\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(1.4)
$$S\left(A\right)=𝒟^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& p^2b\\ p^2c& a\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& q^2b\\ q^2c& a\end{array}\right)𝒟^1,$$
(1.5)
where the quantum determinant of $`A`$ is defined by

$$𝒟det_{p,q}A=adq^2bc=adp^2cb.$$
(1.6)
The co–product and the antipode of the quantum determinant are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝒟\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟𝒟,`$ (1.7)
$`S\left(𝒟\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟^1.`$ (1.8)
A unitarized form of $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$, named $`U_{\overline{q},q}\left(2\right)`$, can be found in Jagannathan and Van Der Jeugt . It is important to notice that our notation is different from the usual one as regards the usage of the deformation parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$. The deformation parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$ should be replaced by $`p^{1/2}`$ and $`q^{1/2}`$ to obtain the usual convention in . The fundamental $`A`$–matrix of the quantum group is given by

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& \overline{q}𝒟c^{}\\ c& 𝒟a^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& qc^{}𝒟\\ c& a^{}𝒟\end{array}\right),$$
(1.9)
where the matrix elements satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}ac=\overline{q}ca& a𝒟=𝒟a& ac^{}=qc^{}a& 𝒟c^{}=e^{2i\theta }c^{}𝒟& cc^{}=c^{}c,\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒟^{}𝒟=𝒟𝒟^{}=1& aa^{}+\left|q\right|^2c^{}c=1& a^{}a+c^{}c=1.\end{array}$$
(1.10)
Here $`q=\left|q\right|e^{i\theta }`$, $`p=\overline{q}`$ and $`\theta `$ is a phase. The case $`𝒟=1`$ which also implies $`\theta =0`$ corresponds to $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$.

In this paper an algebra obtained by imposing $``$ relations on the operators $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ which are the matrix elements of the quantum group $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$ will be considered. We are able to do this for $`pq`$ real. In the limit $`p=\overline{q}`$, our algebra coincides with $`U_{q,\overline{q}}\left(2\right)`$ . We thus name this algebra $`U_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$. Representation of this algebra is constructed and the relationship of these representations to q–oscillators and to two–parameter coherent states are discussed.

## 2 The Unitarization of the Quantum Group $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$ with $`p\overline{q}`$

In order to obtain $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$, elements of the fundamental $`A`$–matrix, $`AGL_q(2,)`$, are chosen in such a way that $`A^{}=A^1=1`$. This choice brings about a restriction on the elements of the matrix such that $`b=qc^{}`$ and $`d=a^{}`$. The procedure applied to the quantum group $`GL_{p,q}(2,)`$ to carry out the unitarization is similar to the one applied to the one–parameter deformed quantum group in order to transform $`GL_q(2,)`$ into $`U_q\left(2\right)`$ but it is not completely the same. The most important point of the procedure we have studied is that the matrix of the quantum group should be factorized into a product which consists of the square root of the quantum determinant and a new matrix whose determinant is unity.

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^2,`$ (2.1)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\delta A_{right}.`$ (2.2)
The co–product and the antipode of $`\delta `$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\delta \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \delta ,`$ (2.3)
$`S\left(\delta \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^1,`$ (2.4)
which are consistent with the equations (1.7) and (1.8). The next step is to impose the unitarity condition on the new matrix, resulting in finding the relation between the elements of this matrix as in the $`U_q\left(2\right)`$ case. Therefore, the elements of the matrix $`A_{right}`$ become the elements of $`SU_r(2)`$ with $`r`$

$$r=pq=\overline{p}\overline{q}.$$
(2.5)
Lastly, the relations between the original matrix elements can be achieved through the relations between the new ones obtained after the unitarization of the matrix with the condition

$$\delta \delta ^{}=s^2\delta ^{}\delta ,$$
(2.6)
where $`s`$ is a central element of the resultant unitarized algebra of $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$. It commutes with all elements in the algebra and is also hermitian $`s=s^{}`$. The co–product, co–unit and the antipode of the central element $`s`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`ss,`$ (2.7)
$`\epsilon \left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.8)
$`S\left(s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`s^1.`$ (2.9)
This leads to the matrix elements $`b`$ and $`d`$ being respectively replaced by a combination of $`c^{}`$ and $`a^{}`$ multiplied by inverse of $`s`$ and a unitary operator $`u`$. The new fundamental $`A`$–matrix of the unitary quantum group is given by

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& \overline{q}^2s^1uc^{}\\ c& s^1ua^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(2.10)
It can be easily checked that with these relations $`a`$, $`c`$ and $`b`$, $`d`$ defined by (2.10) satisfy the commutation relations (1.2) of $`GL_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$. The co–product, the co–unit and the antipode of the unitary operator $`u`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`uu,`$ (2.11)
$`\epsilon \left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (2.12)
$`S\left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`u^{}.`$ (2.13)
The whole algebra of the unitarized two–parameter quantum group, which the matrix elements obey, is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}ac=p^2ca& a^{}c^{}=\overline{p}^2c^{}a^{}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}ac^{}=q^2s^2c^{}a& a^{}c=\overline{q}^2s^2ca^{}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}aa^{}s^2a^{}a=\left(1r^2\right)cc^{}& cc^{}=\frac{q\overline{q}}{p\overline{p}}s^2c^{}c\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}ua=s^2au& u^{}a^{}=s^2a^{}u^{}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}ua^{}=s^2a^{}u& u^{}a=s^2au^{}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}uc=\frac{p\overline{q}}{\overline{p}q}s^2cu& u^{}c^{}=\frac{p\overline{q}}{\overline{p}q}s^2c^{}u^{}\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}uc^{}=\frac{\overline{p}q}{p\overline{q}}s^2c^{}u& u^{}c=\frac{\overline{p}q}{p\overline{q}}s^2cu^{}\end{array}$$

$$uu^{}=u^{}u=1.$$
(2.14)
It can be shown that the commutation relations (2.14) satisfy the co–product algebra homomorphism and the antipode algebra anti–homomorphism.

## 3 The Representation of the Quantum Group $`U_{p,q}\left(2\right)`$

The operators constituting an $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$ matrix which corresponds to $`𝒟=1`$, $`q`$ real in (1.9) can be represented by their action on states $`|n,m`$ where $`n`$ is non–negative integer corresponding to the particle number associated with the creation operator $`a^{}`$ and $`m`$ is a positive or negative integer associated with the Fourier transform of $`c`$ . This serves two purposes. One is that it proves the algebra presented in the previous section is consistent. The second is that it gives physical insight on the oscillator properties of the operators. The action of the operators $`a`$, $`a^{}`$ and $`c`$, $`c^{}`$ of $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$ on the states $`|n,m`$ is given by

$`a|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1q^{2n}}|n1,m,`$ (3.1)
$`a^{}|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1q^{2n+2}}|n+1,m,`$ (3.2)
$`c|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`q^n|n,m1,`$ (3.3)
$`c^{}|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`q^n|n,m+1.`$ (3.4)
Here $`m`$ is an integer and $`n`$ is a nonnegative integer. Motivated by this, we look for a representation of the algebra (2.14) on such states. The deformation parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$ are reparametrized in order to achieve a convenient form for the representation

$$\begin{array}{cc}p=\sqrt{\frac{r}{t}}e^{i\theta /2}& q=\sqrt{rt}e^{i\theta /2}\end{array},$$
(3.5)
where $`r`$, $`t`$ and $`\theta `$ are real independent parameters. The parameters $`r`$ and $`t`$ are positive by definition and $`\theta `$ is a phase angle. The representation also depends on a real integer parameter $`k`$ associated with the eigenvalue of the central element $`s`$. The special case where $`t=1`$, $`\theta =0`$, $`k=0`$, and therefore $`p=q`$, corresponds to the $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$ algebra for which it is necessary that $`q(0,1)`$ whereas the case $`k=0`$, $`t=1`$ corresponds to $`U_{q,\overline{q}}\left(2\right)`$ discussed in Section (1). The operators $`c`$, $`c^{}`$, $`a`$, $`a^{}`$, $`u`$, $`u^{}`$ and $`s`$ act on states

$`c|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`r^n\left(te^{i\theta }\right)^{m1}|n,m\left(k+1\right),`$ (3.6)
$`c^{}|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`r^n\left(te^{i\theta }\right)^{m+k}|n,m+\left(k+1\right),`$ (3.7)
$`a|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1r^{2n}}\left(te^{i\theta }\right)^m|n1,mk,`$ (3.8)
$`a^{}|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1r^{2n+2}}\left(te^{i\theta }\right)^{m+k}|n+1,m+k,`$ (3.9)
$`u|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\left(k2m\right)\theta }|n,m2k,`$ (3.10)
$`u^{}|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\left(2m+3k\right)\theta }|n,m+2k,`$ (3.11)
$`s|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`t^k|n,m,`$ (3.12)
which explicitly shows that $`u`$ is actually a non–commutative unitary phase operator. It can be easily seen that setting $`t=1`$, $`\theta =0`$, $`k=0`$ leads to $`p=q`$. The representation above then reduces to the representation (3.13.4) by the replacement of $`p`$ and $`q`$ by $`p^{1/2}`$ and $`q^{1/2}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

The most interesting aspect of our construction is the appearance of the non–commutative phase described by the unitary operator $`u`$. The work of  was motivated by generalizing $`SU_q\left(2\right)`$, resulting in introducing a parameter $`p`$ and operator $`d`$ satisfying

$$d|n,m=p^{1m}|n,m1.$$
(4.1)
The action of this operator has some resemblance to the action of the square root of the quantum determinant $`𝒟`$ which can be shown to be given by

$$\delta |n,m=\left(te^{i\theta }\right)^m|n,mk.$$
(4.2)
 claimed that the operator $`d`$ can be interpreted as a deformation of a phase operator. The work of this paper shows that a rigorous foundation for a non–commutative unitary phase operator lies in the two–parameter deformed quantum group.

Whether applications such as the quantum phase operator for a quantized boson can be incorporated into this formalism will be the subject of further research.


text:
# SuperWASP: Wide Angle Search for Planets

## 1. Introduction

The observations of the planetary transits of HD 209458 by Charbonneau et al. (2000) and Henry et al. (2000) highlighted the role which can be played by small aperture/ultra-wide field surveys in detecting transits by hot Jupiter-type planets. These surveys have the great advantage of requiring only relatively inexpensive, off-the-shelf equipment, which is then dedicated to the project. The wide field of view allows many thousands of $``$7–13 mag stars to be photometrically monitored simultaneously. As radial velocity surveys indicate $`1`$% of these stars have hot Jupiters, we should, in theory, be able to discover statistically significant numbers of these planets within a reasonably short timescale. Such a sample is necessary to answer questions about the formation and evolution of these planets, and how it is related to factors such as stellar metallicity, age, type, etc. The magnitude range matches that of the radial velocity programs, allowing detailed follow-up observations.

The SuperWASP project has developed from our experience in building and operating the prototype WASP0. This instrument is the subject of separate papers by Kane et al. (this volume) and Street et al. (2000). Having proven that we can achieve the required high-precision photometry from this single, manually-operated camera, we are now building a fully robotic, multi-camera instrument supported by a custom-built mount. SuperWASP, which is primarily funded by Queen’s University, will initially be able to monitor 5 separate fields simultaneously, with the potential for up to 10. This will provide precise photometry on $``$25,000 – 50,000 stars at a time, data which will form an important resource for bright star astronomy. With this in mind, we will be making use of the data to search for a number of phenomena, including Near Earth Asteroids and optical transients in addition to the primary goal of planet-hunting. Here we present our science goals followed by the equipment design, a discussion of the data we expect to gather and our plans for its analysis and dissemination.

## 2. Science Goals

### 2.1. Planetary Transits

From our WASP0 dataset we estimate that SuperWASP will be able to monitor between 5,000 and 10,000 stars per $`9.5^{}\times 9.5^{}`$ field. We therefore expect to have simultaneous photometry for up to 50,000 stars. We plan to observe a set of 5 selected fields continuously for 1–2 months at a time before moving on to the next set. In order to estimate the expected yield of transit detections from this data, we turn to the radial velocity surveys which indicate that $``$1% of Solar neighbourhood stars harbour hot Jupiter companions. Geometric arguments show that $``$10% of these planets should transit their parent stars. Given the approximate numbers of stars within SuperWASP’s magnitude range (7–13 mag), we can estimate the expected number of planets detected per field. Table 1 compares the yield from SuperWASP to those from other similar projects, e.g. VULCAN (Borucki et al. 2001).

SuperWASP is designed to operate continuously round the year. It will therefore be able to monitor a maximum of 6 sets of 5, $`9.5^{}\times 9.5^{}`$ fields per year; in reality this will be less due to poor weather, technical problems, etc. Table 1 indicates that we can expect over one hundred transit detections per year. This would enable us to rapidly provide a large sample of planets for further analysis.

### 2.2. Near Earth Asteriods and Optical Transients

A dataset of continous, highly sampled photometry will be a extremely useful in a number of areas of astronomy beyond planetary detection. In particular, the dense sampling will enable us to detect and closely examine the lightcurves of a range of transient phenomena. Consequentially, our reduction procedures aim to measure all objects present in each frame. Near Earth Asteriods and optical transients are of special interest to our collaboration. We expect that SuperWASP will set constraints on the number of 10 – 100m asteroids in near-Earth space, and discover around 1/$`\mathrm{}^{}`$/year optical transient events, depending on $`\gamma `$-ray burst collimation models.

## 3. SuperWASP: The Design

Figure 1 shows the Torus fork mount on which will be mounted the 5 CCD cameras (as shown on the right). Each camera will consists of a $`2048\times 2048`$ pixel thinned Marconi CCD and a Canon 200mm f/1.8 lens. This combination will give each camera a $`9.5^{}\times 9.5^{}`$ field of view while a pixel size of 13.5 $`\mu `$m means that the plate scale is expected to be 16.7 arcsec/pixel. The cameras will have an operating temperature of $`60^{}`$ C maintained by 3-stage Peltier cooling mechanisms. The readout time is expected to be 4s. Five cameras will be mounted such that each will be targeted individually, although the mounting is capable of supporting up to 10 such cameras. The Torus robotically-operated fork mount has a reported pointing error over the whole sky of 30 arcsec and a tracking error of less than 0.01 arcsec per second. A Global Positioning System receiver will give UTC with less than 1s error. The whole experiment will be housed inside an automated enclosure which will be linked to a weather station. The observatory will open robotically at dusk and observe pre-determined target fields until automatic closure at dawn or if bad weather intervenes.

## 4. SuperWASP: The Data

With the advent of SuperWASP and projects like it, we are entering the era of multi-terabyte astronomical datasets. From our WASP0 experience, we expect to take exposures of $``$30s, each of which will be 8.4MB in size. With a 4s-readout speed and perhaps $`8+`$ hours of observations per night, we expect to obtain at least $`7`$ GB of data per camera, every clear night. With 5 cameras, the expected data rate will be $`12.5`$ TB per year. To handle such a large dataset, the data will be compressed and written to DLT tape at the observatory. These DLTs will be collected about once a month and posted to Queen’s University where backup copies will be made and distributed to collaborators. The reduction of the data will happen via an automated pipeline as soon as the data is obtained, in order to avoid the build-up of an insurmountable back-log. This reduction will provide a catalogue of photometric, positional and quality control data on every object detected in every frame. In this way, we will also be able to detect and monitor transient events in great detail. This catalogue will then be mined and analysed according to the aims of each project. We aim to make this catalogue publically available, probably via a web-based interface, as the data will provide an invaluable resource for a large number of projects.

## 5. Summary

We present our plans for a multi-camera, robotic search for planetary transits. SuperWASP will have a greater field of view than other similar projects, and a higher expected yield of planetary transits. It will provide a very large catalogue of densely sampled lightcurves of hundreds of thousands of stars which could result in more than 100 planets being detected per year. We aim to make this data publically available. SuperWASP is currently under construction, and is on schedule to begin observations from La Palma in early 2003.

## References

Borucki, W. J. et a., 2001, PASP, 113, 439–451.

Charbonneau, D. et al., 2000, ApJ, 529, L45–L48.

Henry, G. W. et al., 2000, ApJ, 529, L41–L44.

Kane, S. et al, 2002, these proceedings.

R.A. Street et al., 2000, Disks, Planetesimals and Planets, ASP Conf. Series, 219,eds. F. Garzon, C. Eiroa, D. de Winter and T.J. Mahoney, p.621 - 625.


text:
# BEC Collapse, Particle Production and Squeezing of the Vacuum

## Scaling of $`t_{collapse}`$ and Critical Dynamics

As we have already noted, even for condensate densities above the stability limit, no particles are seen to be lost from the condensate during a waiting time $`t_{collapse}.`$ Experimentally, $`t_{collapse}`$ is seen to get very large when the threshold of stability is approached from above, in a way which closely resembles the critical slowing down near the transition point characteristic of critical dynamics. In our problem, the quantity which plays the role of relaxation time is the characteristic time $`\epsilon ^1`$ of exponential growth for the first unstable mode. This quantity diverges at the stability threshold, which in our analogy corresponds to the critical point. By dimensional analysis, we are led to the estimate $`t_{collapse}\epsilon ^1.`$ Close to the critical point, we find

$$t_{collapse}=t_{crit}\left(\frac{a}{a_{cr}}1\right)^{1/2}$$
(5)
The power law Eq. (5) describes with great accuracy the way $`t_{collapse}`$ scales with the scattering length; the best fit to the experimental data is obtained for $`t_{crit}5`$ms.

In Fig. 1 we plot the scaling law (5) (full line) derived here and compare it with the experimental data for $`N_0=6000`$ as reported in Refs.  (small black points), the $`t_{NL}\left(uN_0\right)^1`$ prediction (suitably scaled) as given in  (dashed line) and the results of numerical simulations reported in  (large grey dots). While all three theoretical predictions may be considered satisfactory, the $`t_{NL}\left(uN_0\right)^1`$ behavior fails to describe the divergence of $`t_{collapse}`$ as the critical point is approached, and the results of numerical simulations reported in  based on an improved Gross-Pitaevskii equation tend to be systematically above the experimental results, which may be a further indication of the quantum origin of this phenomenon.

## Bursts and Jets as Amplified Quantum Fluctuations

We now consider the evolution of quantum fluctuations, treated as a test field riding on the collapsing condensate whose dynamics is extracted from experiment. The initial state is defined by the condition that $`u=0`$ for $`t<0;`$ we shall take it to be the particle vacuum $`|0`$, defined by $`\psi _0(x,0)|0=0`$ everywhere.

One can introduce a mode decomposition of the $`\xi `$ operator based on the eigenfunctions of $`\left[HE_0\right]H_{eff}`$. For short wavelengths $`\lambda `$, since $`H\lambda ^2>>2u\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2`$, we expect these eigenfunctions will approach the trap eigenmodes. The fact that particles in bursts are seen to oscillate with the trap frequencies  also suggests that their dynamics is determined by the trap Hamiltonian. Based on these observations we can assume a homogeneous condensate $`2u\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2\kappa ^1a\omega _zN_0\left(t\right)`$, where $`N_0\left(t\right)`$ is the instantaneous total number of particles in the condensate. In practice, $`\kappa ^1`$ is a measure of the overlap between the condensate and the excitation modes. Therefore, the approximation may be improved by adjusting $`\kappa `$ according to the range of modes where it will be applied.

Let $`\overline{N}_0`$ be the initial number of particles in the condensate, and $`a_{cr}=\kappa /\overline{N}_0`$ the corresponding critical scattering length. Trap eigenfunctions $`\psi _\stackrel{}{n}\left(r\right)`$ are labelled by a string of quantum numbers $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n_z,n_x,n_y).`$ The eigenvalues of the trap Hamiltonian are (with the zero energy already subtracted) $`E_\stackrel{}{n}=\omega _zn_z+\omega _\rho \left(n_x+n_y\right)`$. There are two kinds of modes, stable (oscillatory, or thawed) modes if $`E_\stackrel{}{n}>\left(\frac{a}{a_{cr}}\right)\omega _z,`$ and unstable (growing, or frozen) modes if not. In the former case we find that, although we assume vacuum initial conditions, these modes do not remain empty. Up to $`t_{collapse}`$, when the number of particles in the condensate is constant, the density

$$\stackrel{~}{n}(r,t)=\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{a}{a_{cr}}\right)^2\omega _z^2\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\psi _\stackrel{}{n}^2\left(r\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\omega _\stackrel{}{n}t}{\omega _\stackrel{}{n}^2}$$
(6)
(where $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}=\sqrt{E_\stackrel{}{n}\left[E_\stackrel{}{n}\left(\frac{a}{a_{cr}}\right)\omega _z\right]}`$) has a constant term and an oscillatory term. This oscillatory term is responsible for the appearance of ‘bursts’ of particles oscillating within the trap observed in the Bose-Nova experiment . In the WKB limit it describes a swarm of particles moving along classical trajectories in the trap potential.

In the opposite case $`E_\stackrel{}{n}\left(\frac{a}{a_{cr}}\right)\omega _z,`$ the formulae for the density is obtained by the replacement of $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}`$ in (6) by $`i\sigma _\stackrel{}{n}`$, thus $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}^1\mathrm{sin}\omega _\stackrel{}{n}t\sigma _\stackrel{}{n}^1\mathrm{sinh}\sigma _\stackrel{}{n}t.`$ Physically their difference is immense. In the first place, the density is growing exponentially, but unlike the previous case, there is no oscillatory component, and these particles do not oscillate in the trap, in the sense described above. These modes come alive at $`\tau _{evolve}`$ (as the scattering length is set to zero), whence they become ordinary trap modes which oscillate in the trap in the same way as the the burst modes . To the observer, they appear as a new ejection of particles from the core of the condensate, which makes up the so-called ‘jets’. The sudden activation of a frozen mode (we are borrowing the language and concept of cosmological structure formation) by turning off the particle - particle interaction may be described as a “thaw”.

Observe that in this picture several conspicuous features of jets become obvious. Jets may only appear if the turn - off time $`\tau _{evolve}`$ is earlier than the formation time of the remnant. Once the condensate becomes stable again, there are no more frozen modes to thaw. On the other hand, jets will appear (as observed) for $`\tau _{evolve}<t_{collapse}`$, when the condensate has not yet shed any particles. Also jets must be less energetic than bursts, since they are composed of lower modes.

Beyond $`t_{collapse}`$ the number of particles in the condensate, and therefore the instantaneous frequency of the excited modes, becomes time dependent. If we confine ourselves to the early stages of collapse we may assume nevertheless that the condensate remains homogeneous. Shifting the origin of time to $`t_{collapse}`$ for simplicity, we write $`N_0\left(t\right)=\overline{N}_0\mathrm{exp}\left(t/\tau \right)`$ (see Fig. 2).

After expanding in trap eigenmodes we find the two kinds of behavior described above. If $`E_\stackrel{}{n}>\left(\frac{a\omega _z}{\overline{a}}\right),`$ the mode is always oscillatory. If $`E__\stackrel{}{n}<\left(\frac{a\omega _z}{\overline{a}}\right),`$ the mode is frozen at $`t_{collapse},`$ but thaws when $`\mathrm{exp}\left(t/\tau \right)E_\stackrel{}{n}\overline{a}/a\omega _z`$. During the frozen period, the modes are amplified, but they only contribute to bursts after thawing. If the evolution is interrupted while still frozen, they appear as a jet. We therefore conclude that the number of particles $`N_{jet}`$ in a jet at time $`\tau _{evolve}`$ is essentially the total number of particles in all frozen modes at that time. This is plotted in Fig 3, for $`\overline{N}_0=16,000,`$ $`\omega _{radial}=110`$ Hz, $`\omega _{axial}=42.7`$ Hz, $`a=36a_0,`$ and $`\kappa =0.46`$ , and compared to the corresponding results as reported in .

We see that the agreement is excellent at early times (up to about $`6`$ms). For later times, this model overestimates the jet population. This is due to the fact that, by not considering the shrinking of the condensate, we are overestimating the overlap between the condensate and the fluctuations, thus delaying the thaw. It nevertheless reproduces the overall slope of particle number with $`\tau _{evolve},`$. It should also be remembered that we are computing the expected number of particles, but in the highly squeezed state which results from the frozen period, the fluctuations in particle number are comparable to the mean number itself.

In this letter, we have presented a new viewpoint towards understanding the salient features in the physics of controlled collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate described in the experiment of , i.e, in terms of quantum vacuum fluctuations parametrically amplified by the condensate dynamics. Our way of thinking here is influenced by insights from the quantum field theory of particle creation and structure formation in cosmological spacetimes as well as theories of spinodal instability in phase transitions. One can conceivably design experiments with BEC dynamics to test out certain basic mechanisms and specific features of quantum proceses in the early universe, thus opening a new venue for performing ‘laboratory cosmology’.

Acknowledgement We are obliged to E. Donley and S. Kokkelmans for their prompt and informative responses to our queries on some details of these experiments and for communicating key unpublished data. EC also acknowledges discussions with Eric Bolda. This research and EC’s visits to UMD are supported in part by a NSF grant PHY98-00967, a NIST grant and by CONICET, UBA, Fundacion Antorchas and ANPCyT under grant PICT99 03-05229.


text:
# Black-hole horizon and metric singularity at the brane separating two sliding superfluids

## Abstract

An analog of black hole can be realized in the low- temperature laboratory. The horizon can be constructed for the ‘relativistic’ ripplons (surface waves) living on the brane. The brane is represented by the interface between two superfluid liquids, 3He-A and 3He-B, sliding along each other without friction. Similar experimental arrangement has been recently used for the observation and investigation of the Kelvin-Helmholtz type of instability in superfluids . The shear-flow instability in superfluids is characterized by two critical velocities. The lowest threshold measured in recent experiments  corresponds to appearance of the ergoregion for ripplons. In the modified geometry this will give rise to the black-hole event horizon in the effective metric experienced by ripplons. In the region behind the horizon, the brane vacuum is unstable due to interaction with the higher-dimensional world of bulk superfluids. The time of the development of instability can be made very long at low temperature. This will allow us to reach and investigate the second critical velocity – the proper Kelvin-Helmholtz instability threshold. The latter corresponds to the singularity inside the black hole, where the determinant of the effective metric becomes infinite.

PACS: 04.50.+h, 04.70.Dy, 47.20.Ft, 67.57.De

1. Introduction. The first experimental realization of two superfluid liquids sliding along each other  gives a new tool for investigation of many physical phenomena related to different areas of physics (classical hydrodynamics, rotating Bose condensates, cosmology, brane physics, etc.). Here we discuss how this experimental arrangement can be modified in order to produce an analog of the black-hole event horizon and of the singularity in the effective Lorentzian metric experienced by the collective modes (ripplons) living on the brane (the interface separating two different superfluid vacua, 3He-A and 3He-B, which we further refer as the AB-brane).

The idea of the experiment is similar to that discussed by Schützhold and Unruh , who suggested to use the gravity waves on the surface of a liquid flowing in a shallow basin. In the long-wavelength limit the energy spectrum of the surface modes becomes ‘relativistic’, which allows us to describe the propagating modes in terms of the effective Lorentzian metric. Here we discuss the modification of this idea to the case of the ripplons propagating along the membrane between two superfluids.

There are many advantages when one uses the superfluid liquids instead of the conventional ones: (1) The superfluids can slide along each other without any friction until the critical velocity is reached, and thus all the problems related to viscosity disappear. (2) The superfluids represent the quantum vacua similar to that in relativistic quantum field theories (RQFT) (see review ). That is why the quantum effects related to the vacuum in the presence of exotic metric can be simulated. (3) The interface between two different superfluid vacua is analogous to the brane in the modern RQFT, and one can study the brane physics, in particular the interaction between the brane matter and the matter living in the higher-dimensional space oiutside the brane. Here, on example of the AB-brane, we show that this interaction leads to the vacuum instability in the AB-brane behind the event horizon. (4) Reducing the temperature one can make the time of the development of the instability long enough to experimentally probe the singularity within the black hole (the so-called physical singularity).

2. Effective metric for modes living in the AB-brane. Let us consider surface waves – ripplons – propagating along the AB-brane in the slab geometry shown in Fig.1.

Two superfluids, 3He-A and 3He-B, separated by the AB-brane are moving along the brane with velocities $`𝐯_1`$ and $`𝐯_2`$ in the container frame. The normal components of the liquids – the systems of quasiparticles on both sides of the interface – are at rest with respect of the container walls in equilibrium, $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}=0`$. The dispersion relation for ripplons can be obtained by modification of the equations obtained in Ref.  to the slab geometry:

$`M_1(k)(\omega 𝐤𝐯_1)^2+M_2(k)(\omega 𝐤𝐯_2)^2=`$
$`=F+k^2\sigma i\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega .`$ (1)
Here $`\sigma `$ is the surface tension of the AB-brane; $`F`$ is the force stabilizing the position of the brane, in experiment  it is an applied magnetic-field gradient; $`M_1(k)`$ and $`M_2(k)`$ are masses of the two liquids involved into the oscillating motion of the brane:

$$M_1(k)=\frac{\rho _1}{k\mathrm{tanh}kh_1},M_2(k)=\frac{\rho _2}{k\mathrm{tanh}kh_2};$$
(2)
$`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are thicknesses of layers of two superfluids; $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are mass densities of the liquids, we assume that the temperature is low enough so that the normal fraction of each of two superfluid liquids is small.

Finally $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the coefficient in front of the friction force experienced by the AB-brane when it moves with respect to the 3D environment along the normal $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ to the brane, $`𝐅_{\mathrm{fr}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐯_{\mathrm{brane}}𝐯_n)`$ (in the frame of container $`𝐯_n=0`$). The friction term in Eq.(1) containing the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the only term which couples the 2D brane with the 3D environment. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, the brane subsystem becomes Galilean invariant; the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-term violates Galilean invariance in the 2D world of the AB-brane.

In a thin slab where $`kh_11`$ and $`kh_21`$ one obtains

$`\alpha _1(\omega 𝐤𝐯_1)^2+\alpha _2(\omega 𝐤𝐯_2)^2=`$
$`=c^2k^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k_\mathrm{P}^2}}\right)2i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\omega ,`$ (3)
where

$`\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{h_2\rho _1}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2}},\alpha _2=1\alpha _1={\displaystyle \frac{h_1\rho _2}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2}},`$ (4)
$$k_\mathrm{P}^2=\frac{F}{\sigma },c^2=\frac{Fh_1h_2}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}k^2\frac{h_1h_2}{h_2\rho _1+h_1\rho _2}$$
(5)
For $`kk_\mathrm{P}`$ the main part of Eq. (3) can be rewritten in the Lorentzian form

$`g^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =2i\omega \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)c^2k^4/k_\mathrm{P}^2,`$ (6)
$`k_\mu =(\omega ,k_x,k_y),k=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2},`$ (7)
while the right-hand side of Eq.(6) contains the remaining small terms violating Lorentz invariance – attenuation of ripplons due to the friction and their nonlinear dispersion. Both terms come from the physics which is ‘trans- Planckian’ for the ripplons. The quantities $`k_\mathrm{P}`$ and $`ck_\mathrm{P}`$ play the role of the Planck momentum and Planck energy within the brane: they determine the scales where the Lorentz symmetry is violated. The Planck scales of the 2D physics in brane are actually much smaller than the ‘Planck momentum’ and ‘Planck energy’ in the 3D superfluids outside the brane. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is determined by the physics of 3D quasiparticles scattering on the brane, and it practically does not depend on velocities $`𝐯_1`$ and $`𝐯_2`$, which are too small for the 3D world.

At sufficiently small $`k`$ both non-Lorentzian terms – attenuation and nonlinear dispersion on the right-hand side of Eq.(6) – can be ignored, and the dynamics of ripplons living on the AB-brane is described by the following effective contravariant metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{00}=1,g^{0i}=\alpha _1v_1^i\alpha _2v_2^i,\\ g^{ij}=c^2\delta ^{ij}\alpha _1v_1^iv_1^j\alpha _2v_2^iv_2^j.\end{array}$$
(8)
Introducing relative velocity $`𝐔`$ and the mean velocity $`𝐖`$ of two superfluids:

$$𝐖=\alpha _1𝐯_1+\alpha _2𝐯_2,𝐔=𝐯_1𝐯_2,$$
(9)
one obtains the following expression for the effective contravariant metric

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{00}=1,\\ g^{0i}=W^i,g^{ij}=c^2\delta ^{ij}W^iW^j\alpha _1\alpha _2U^iU^j.\end{array}$$
(10)
3. Horizon and singularity. The original KH instability  takes place when the relative velocity $`U`$ of the motion of the two liquids reaches the critical value $`U_c=c/\sqrt{\alpha _1\alpha _2}`$. At this velocity the determinant of the metric tensor

$$g(r)=\frac{1}{c^2\left(c^2\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)\right)},$$
(11)
has a physical singularity: it crosses the infinite value and changes sign. However, before $`U`$ reaches $`U_c`$, the system reaches the other important thresholds at which analogs of ergosurface and horizon in general relativity appear. To demonstrate this, let us conisder the simplest situation when velocities $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐖`$ are parallel to each other (i.e. $`𝐯_1`$ and $`𝐯_2`$ are parallel); and these velocities are radial and depend only on the radial coordinate $`r`$ along the flow. Then the interval of the effective 2+1 space-time in which ripplons move along the geodesic curves is

$`ds^2=`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(c^2W^2(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r))dt^22W(r)dtdr+dr^2}{c^2\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)}}+`$
$`+r^2d\varphi ^2=`$
$`=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{c^2W^2(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)}{c^2\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{c^2W^2(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)}}+r^2d\varphi ^2,`$ (13)
$`d\stackrel{~}{t}=dt+{\displaystyle \frac{W(r)dr}{c^2W^2(r)\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r)}}.`$ (14)
The circle $`r=r_h`$, where $`g_{00}=0`$, i.e. where $`W^2(r_h)\alpha _1\alpha _2U^2(r_h)=c^2`$, marks the ‘coordinate singularity’ which is the black-hole horizon if the velocity $`W`$ is inward (see Fig.2). In such radial-flow geometry the horizon also represents the ergosurface (ergoline in 2D space dimension) which is determined as the surface bounding the region where the ripplon states can have the negative energy. We call the whole region behind the ergosurface the ergoregion. This definition differ from that accepted in general relativity, but we must extend the notion of the ergoregion to the case when the Lorentz invariance and general covariance are violated, and the absolute reference frame appears. At the ergosurface, the Landau critical velocity for excitations of ripplons is reached. And also, as follows from Ref.  (see also section 5 below), the ergoregion coincides with the region where the brane fluctuations go unstable, since both real and imaginary (Fig.3) parts of the ripplon energy spectrum cross zero at the ergosurface.

4. Brane instability behind horizon. This means that the brane becomes unstable in the presence of the ergoregion. This instability is caused by the interaction of the 2D ripplons with the 3D quasiparticles living in bulk superfluids on both sides of the brane . The interaction of brane with the environment, i.e. with the superfuids on both sides of the brane, is the source of the attenuation of the propagating ripplons: this interaction determines the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the friction force. In the ergoregion, the imaginary part of the spectrum of ripplons becomes positive, i.e. the attenuation tranforms to amplification of surface waves with negative $`\omega `$ (see Figure 3 where the imaginary part of the spectrum crosses zero with the slope proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). Since the instability of the interface with respect to exponentially growing surface fluctuations develops in the presence of the shear flow, this instability results in the formation of vortices observed in experiment .

In 3He experiments  with shear flow along the AB-interface, one has $`kh_11`$ and $`kh_21`$. Thus the relativistic description is not applicable. Also, in the rotating cryostat the superfluids flow in the azimuthal direction instead of the radial. That is why there was no horizon in the experiment. However, the notion of the ergosurface and of the ergoregion behind the ergosurface, where the ripplon energy becomes negative in the container frame , is applicable. The instability of the brane inside the ergoregion leads to formation of vortices in the vortex-free 3He-B, which were detected using NMR technique with a single vortex resolution. The observed threshold velocity for the vortex formation exactly corresponds to the appearance of the ergosurface (ergoline) in the container .

There are thus two ingredients which cause the vacuum instability in the ergoregion: (i) existence of the absolute reference frame of the environment outside the brane; (ii) the interaction of the brane with this environment ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$) which violates Galilean (or Lorentz) invariance within the brane. They lead to attenuation of the ripplon in the region outside the horizon. Behind the horizon this attenuation transforms to amplification which destabilizes the vacuum there. This mechanism may have an important consequence for the astronomical black hole. If there is any intrinsic attenuation of, say, photons (either due to superluminal dispersion, or due to the interaction with the higher-dimensional environment), this may lead to the catastrophical decay of the black hole due to instability behind the horizon, which we discuss in the Section 5.

Let us estimate the time of development of such instability, first in the artificial black hole within the AB-brane and then in the astronomical black hole. According to Kopnin  the parameter of the friction force experienced by the AB-brane due to Andreev scattering of quasiparticles living in the bulk superfluid on the A-phase side of the brane is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^3m^{}/\mathrm{}^3c_{}c_{}`$ at $`TT_c`$. Here $`T`$ is the temperature in 3He-A; $`m^{}`$ is the quasiparticle mass in the Fermi liquid; $`c_{}`$ and $`c_{}`$ are the ‘speeds of light’ for 3D quasiparticles living in anisotropic 3He-A (these speeds are much larger than the typical ‘speed of light’ $`c`$ of quasiparticles (ripplons) living on 2D brane); $`T_c`$ is the superfluid transition temperature, which also marks the 3D Planck energy scale. Assuming the most pessimistic scenario in which the instability is caused mainly by the exponential growth of ripplons with the ‘Planck’ wave number $`k_\mathrm{P}`$, one obtains the following estimation for the time of the development of the instability in the ergoregion far enough from the horizon: $`\tau 1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_\mathrm{P})10(T_c/T)^3`$ sec. Thus at low $`T`$ the state with the horizon can live for a long time (minutes or even hours), and this life-time of the horizon can be made even longer if the threshold is only slightly exceeded.

This gives the unique possibility to study the horizon, the region behind the horizon; and the physical singularity, where the determinant of the metric is singular, can be also easily constructed and investigated.

At lower temperature $`T<m^{}c_{}^2`$ the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ changes: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^4/\mathrm{}^3c_{}^3c_{}`$ , and at very low $`T`$ it becomes temperature independent: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}k^4`$ which corresponds to the dynamical Casimir force acting on the 2D brane moving in the 3D vacuum. Such intrinsic attenuation of ripplons transforms to the amplification of the ripplon modes in the ergoregion, which leads to instability of the brane vacuum behind the horizon even at $`T=0`$.

5. Instability of the black hole behind horizon? Now let us suppose that the same situation takes place in our (brane) world, i.e. the modes of our world (photons, or gravitons, or fermionic particles) have finite life-time due to interaction with, say, the extra-dimensional environment. Then this will lead to the instability of vacuum behind the horizon of the astronomical black holes. This can be considered using the equation (6) which incorporates both terms violating the Lorentz invariance at high energy: the superluminal upturn of the spectrum which leads to decay of particles, and the intrinsic broadening of the particle spectrum characterized by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)`$. Following the analogy, we can write the intrinsic width as a power law $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\mu (ck/\mu )^n`$, where $`\mu `$ is the energy scale which is well above the Planck scale $`E_\mathrm{P}`$ of our brane world, $`\mu E_\mathrm{P}`$; and $`n=6`$ if the analogy is exact.

We shall use the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric, which together with the superluminal dispersion of the particle spectrum allows us to consider the region behind the horizon:

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{00}=1,g^{0i}=W^i,\\ g^{ij}=c^2\delta ^{ij}W^iW^j,𝐖=\widehat{𝐫}\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}.\end{array}$$
(15)
Here $`G`$ is Newton constant and $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole. This metric coincides with the 3D generalization of the metric of ripplons on AB-brane in Eq. (13) in case when $`𝐯_1=𝐯_2`$. Equation (13) gives the following dispersion relation for particles living in the brane:

$$(\omega 𝐤𝐖)^2=c^2k^22i\omega \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)+c^2k^4/k_\mathrm{P}^2,$$
(16)
or

$`\omega (𝐤)=𝐤𝐖i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\pm `$
$`\pm \sqrt{c^2k^2+c^2k^4/k_0^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2(k)2i𝐤𝐖\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)}.`$ (17)
We are interested in the imaginary part of the spectrum. For small $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)ck`$, the imaginary part of the energy spectrum is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Im}\omega (𝐤)=i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\left(1\pm \frac{𝐤𝐖}{E(k)}\right),\\ E^2(k)=c^2k^2+c^2k^4/k_\mathrm{P}^2.\end{array}$$
(18)
Behind the horizon, where $`W>c`$, the imaginary part becomes positive for $`|𝐤𝐖|>E(k)`$ (or $`k^2<k_\mathrm{P}^2/(W^2/c^21)`$), i.e. attenuation transforms to amplification of waves with these $`𝐤`$. This demonstrates the instability of the vacuum with respect to exponentially growing electromagnetic or other fluctuations in the ergoregion. Such an instability is absent when $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0`$, i.e. if there is no interaction with the trans-Planckian or extra-dimensional world(s).

The time of the development of instability within the conventional black hole is determined by the region far from the horizon, where the relevant $`kk_\mathrm{P}`$. Thus $`\tau 1/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k_\mathrm{P})\mu ^{n1}/E_\mathrm{P}^n`$. If $`\mu `$ is of the same order as the brane Planck scale, the time of development of instability is determined by the Planck time. That is why the astronomical black hole can exist only if $`\mu E_\mathrm{P}`$, which takes place when the 3D and 2D Planck scales are essentially different, as it happens in case of the AB-brane. The black hole decay due to the quantum process of Hawking evaporation corresponds to $`\mu =M`$, where $`M`$ is a black hole mass, and $`n=4`$.

6. Conclusion. In conclusion, the AB-brane – the interface between the two sliding superfluids – can be used to construct the artificial black hole with the ergosurface, horizon and physical singularity. Using the AB-brane one can also simulate the interaction of particles living on the brane with that living in the higher-dimensional space outside the brane. This interaction leads to the decay of the brane vacuum in the region behind the horizon. This mechanism can be crucial for the astronomical black holes, if this analogy is applicable. If the matter fields in the brane are properly coupled to, say, gravitons in the bulk, this may lead to the fast collapse of the black hole.

I thank V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, R. Schützhold and W. G. Unruh for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by ESF COSLAB Programme and by the Russian Foundations for Fundamental Research.