text:
# Measuring the cosmological background of relativistic particles with WMAP

## I Introduction

What is the matter budget of the universe? This fascinating and central question in cosmology is currently being answered with increasing precision, thanks to outstanding measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, correlated with the study of large scale structure (LSS), of the primordial abundances of light elements, and many other observables in the far universe.

One of the most intriguing issues is to determine the contributions of matter and dark energy to the total energy density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in units of the critical density). Inflation predicts $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ but, so far, there is no theoretical prediction on the value of each of these parameters. This explains why in most cosmological parameter analyses they receive much more attention than the radiation density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$, which is often assumed to be well-known. However, the reference value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ relies on a strong theoretical prejudice: apart from the CMB photons, the dominant relativistic backgound would consist of the three families of neutrinos, whose temperature would be fixed with respect to the CMB temperature by the standard picture of neutrino decoupling prior to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).

Measuring the energy density of radiation today is not easy, because it is known to be three orders of magnitude below the critical density. The main constraints come either from the very early universe, when radiation was the dominant source of energy, or from the observation of cosmological perturbations, which imprint the time of equality between matter and radiation. In particular, through BBN models, the primordial abundances of light elements can be related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$, evaluated at the time when the mean energy in the universe was of order $`1\mathrm{MeV}^4`$ – while the power spectrum of photon anisotropies and of matter density carry a clear signature of the time at which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ became comparable to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, at energies of order $`(0.1\mathrm{eV})^4`$. Until now, the BBN constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ was more stringent than the one from cosmological perturbations, by approximately one order of magnitude. This leaves the door wide open for various plausible assumptions concerning the radiation content of the universe, which should not be necessarily the same during BBN and at the time of matter/radiation equality. For instance, a population of non-relativistic particles may decay into relativistic ones, enhancing the radiation energy density. Moreover, the standard BBN scenario itself – which is the simplest way to explain the formation of light elements, but not the only one – needs to be tested. In this respect, the best would be to have some independent measurements of the two free parameters of BBN: the baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and the radiation density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_rh^2`$ (where the reduced Hubble constant is $`hH_0/(100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$). The later controls the expansion rate in the early universe. Some precise bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ were already obtained from recent CMB experiments, while the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_rh^2`$ was still quite loose, compared to BBN predictions.

The goal of this paper is to update this analysis and to show that the outstanding data from the first year sky survey of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Bennett:2003bz ; Spergel:2003cb  gives better constraints, showing increasing evidence in favor of standard BBN, and leaving very small room for extra relativistic degrees of freedom beyond the three neutrino flavors.

## II The effective number of relativistic neutrinos

The energy density stored in relativistic species, $`\rho _r`$, is customarily given in terms of the so-called effective number of relativistic neutrino species $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see Dolgov:2002wy  for a review and references), through the relation

$$\rho _\mathrm{r}=\rho _\gamma +\rho _\nu +\rho _x=\left[1+\frac{7}{8}\left(\frac{4}{11}\right)^{4/3}N_{\mathrm{eff}}\right]\rho _\gamma ,$$
(1)
where $`\rho _\gamma `$ is the energy density of photons, whose value today is known from the measurement of the CMB temperature. Eq. (1) can be also written as

$$N_{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\frac{\rho _r\rho _\gamma }{\rho _\nu ^0}\right)\left(\frac{\rho _\gamma ^0}{\rho _\gamma }\right),$$
(2)
where $`\rho _\nu ^0`$ denotes the energy density of a single species of massless neutrino with an equilibrium Fermi-Dirac distribution with zero chemical potential, and $`\rho _\gamma ^0`$ is the photon energy density in the approximation of instantaneous neutrino decoupling. The normalization of $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is such that it gives $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3`$ in the standard case of three flavors of massless neutrinos, again in the limit of instantaneous decoupling. In principle $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ includes, in addition to the standard neutrinos, a potential contribution $`\rho _x`$ from other relativistic relics such as majorons or sterile neutrinos.

It turns out that even in the standard case of three neutrino flavors the effective number of relativistic neutrino species is not exactly 3. The decoupling of neutrinos from the rest of the primordial plasma occurs at a temperature of $`23`$ MeV, not far from temperatures of order the electron mass at which electron–positron annihilations transfer their entropy into photons, causing the well-known difference between the temperatures of relic photons and relic neutrinos, $`T/T_\nu =\left(11/4\right)^{1/3}`$ (see e.g. kt ). Accurate calculations Hannestad:1995rs ; Dolgov:1997mb ; Esposito:2000hi  have shown that neutrinos are still slightly interacting with $`e^\pm `$, thus sharing a small part of the entropy release. This causes a momentum dependent distortion in the neutrino spectra from the equilibrium Fermi–Dirac behavior and a slightly smaller $`T/T_\nu `$ ratio. Both effects lead to a value of $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.034`$. A further, though smaller, effect on $`T/T_\nu `$ is induced by finite temperature Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) corrections to the electromagnetic plasma heckler ; Lopez:1998vk . A recent combined study of the incomplete neutrino decoupling and QED corrections concluded that the total effect corresponds to $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.03953.04`$ Mangano:2001iu . Therefore we define the extra energy density in radiation form as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}N_{\mathrm{eff}}3.04.$$
(3)
The standard value of $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ corresponds to the case of massless or very light neutrinos, i.e. those with masses much smaller than 1 eV. More massive neutrinos affect the late avolution of the universe in a way that can not be parametrized with a $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ . However, the recent evidences of flavor neutrino oscillations in atmospheric and solar neutrinos, in particular after the recent KamLAND data show that the neutrino masses are not large enough, except in the case when the three mass eigenstates are degenerate (see e.g. Pakvasa:2003zv  for a recent review). We do not consider such a case in the present paper, but assume that the neutrino mass scheme is hierarchical, with the largest mass of order $`m_\nu \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}0.05`$ eV.

The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is constrained at the BBN epoch from the comparison of theoretical predictions and experimental data on the primordial abundances of light elements. Typically, the BBN bounds are of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<0.41`$ Lisi:1999ng ; Esposito:2000hh ; Kneller:2001cd ; Cyburt:2001pq ; Zentner:2001zr . Independent bounds on the radiation content of the universe can be extracted from the analysis of the power spectrum of CMB anisotropies. An enhanced contribution of relativistic particles delays the epoch of matter-radiation equality, which in turn increases the early integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Basically this leads to more power around the scale of the first CMB peak. Previous analyses found weak bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ Jungman:1995bz ; Hannestad:2000hc ; Esposito:2000sv ; Hannestad:2001hn ; Hansen:2001hi , that can be significantly improved by adding priors on the age of the universe or by including supernovae and LSS data Hu:1998tk . One of the most recent bounds on $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, from a combination of CMB and PSCz data Hannestad:2001hn , is $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=6_{4.5}^{+8}`$ (95% CL). Thus these bounds were not as restrictive as those from BBN. However, the precise measurements of WMAP (and those of PLANCK in the near future) are going to significantly improve the CMB constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, as shown in various forecast analyses (see for instance Lopez:1998aq ; Kinney:1999pd ; Bowen:2001in ) and in the calculations of this paper (see section IV).

Many extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics predict additional relativistic degrees of freedom that will contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. There exist models with 4 neutrinos which include an additional sterile neutrino in order to explain the third experimental indication of neutrino oscillations (the LSND results). It was shown in many studies (see for instance DiBari:2001ua ; Abazajian:2002bj ) that all four neutrino models, both of 2+2 and 3+1 type, lead to a full thermalization of the sterile neutrino flavor before BBN, and thus to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$, a value disfavored in the standard minimal model of BBN. Moreover, in these models there exists at least one neutrino state with mass of order 1 eV.

It is also possible that the relativistic degrees of freedom at the BBN and CMB epochs differ, for instance because of particle decays which increase the photon temperature relative to the neutrino one Kaplinghat:2000jj . In some situations $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be effectively negative at BBN, such as the case of a distortion in the $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectra Dolgov:1998st ; Hansen:2000td , or a very low reheating scenario Giudice:2000ex .

A non-standard case that has been considered many times in the past is the existence of relic neutrino asymmetries, namely when the number of neutrinos and antineutrinos of the same flavor is significantly different. These so-called degenerate neutrinos are described by a dimensionless chemical potential $`\xi _\alpha =\mu _{\nu _\alpha }/T`$, and it has been shown that the neutrino energy density always increases for any value $`\xi _\alpha 0`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{\alpha }{}\left[\frac{30}{7}\left(\frac{\xi _\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2+\frac{15}{7}\left(\frac{\xi _\alpha }{\pi }\right)^4\right]$$
(4)
Interestingly, some combinations of pairs $`(\xi _e,\xi _{\mu ,\tau })`$ could still produce the primordial abundances of light elements for a larger baryon asymmetry, in the so-called degenerate BBN scenario Kang . At the same time, the weaker CMB bounds on $`\xi _\nu `$ are flavor blind paper1 ; Kinney:1999pd . However, it was recently shown that for neutrino oscillation parameters in the regions favored by atmospheric and solar neutrino data flavor equilibrium between all active neutrino species is established well before the BBN epoch Dolgov:2002ab ; Wong:2002fa ; Abazajian:2002qx . Thus the stringent BBN bounds on $`\xi _e`$ apply to all flavors, so that the contribution of a potential relic neutrino asymmetry to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is limited to very low values.

## III Method

Using the cmbfast code Seljak:1996is , we computed the cosmological perturbations (temperature and polarization anisotropies $`C_l^{(T,E,TE)}`$, matter power spectrum $`P(k)`$) for a grid of models with the following parameters: baryon density $`\omega _b=\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$, cold dark matter density $`\omega _{cdm}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2`$, hubble parameter $`h`$, scalar tilt $`n_s`$, optical depth to reionization $`\tau `$, global normalization – which is not discretized – and of course an additional contribution from relativistic particles $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. We include corrections to the CMB spectra from gravitational lensing Zaldarriaga:1998ar , as computed by cmbfast. Apart from $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, our set of parameters is the simplest one used by the WMAP team in their parameter analysis Spergel:2003cb , and accounts very well for the first year WMAP data. We restrict ourselves to a flat universe: since the curvature is known to be small from the position of the first CMB peak, we adopt the theoretical prejudice that the universe is exactly flat, as predicted by inflation, rather than almost flat. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equal to $`1(\omega _b+\omega _{cdm})/h^2`$. Allowing for a small curvature could alter our results by a few percent. We also neglect the possible contribution of gravitational waves and a possible scale-dependent tilt. A running tilt, in favor of which the WMAP collaboration finds some marginal evidence, would not change our predictions based on WMAP alone, because the later does not constrain the primordial spectrum on a wide enough range of scales. However, it could slightly alter our results based on CMB and LSS data.

Our grid covers the following ranges: $`0.019<\omega _b<0.028`$, $`0.065<\omega _{cdm}<0.27`$, $`0.5<h<0.9`$, $`0.8<n_s<1.28`$, $`0<\tau <0.5`$, $`3<\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<5`$. We analyze it using an interpolation and minimization routine developed at LAPTH. Our code performs a multi-dimensional interpolation for each value of $`C_l`$ or $`P(k)`$ in order to obtain the spectrum at any arbitrary point, and then, computes the likelihood of the model. For WMAP, the likelihood is calculated using the software kindly provided at the NASA web site nasaweb , and explained in Verde:2003ey . We will also define a combined likelihood including the pre–WMAP CMB data compilation by Wang et al. Wang:2002rt  (which is still useful for constraining high multipoles), and the LSS data derived by Percival et al. Percival:2001hw  (32 points on wavenumbers $`k<0.15h`$Mpc<sup>-1</sup>) from the 2dF redshift survey Hawkins:2002sg . For these two data sets, we use window functions and correlation matrices available from tegmarkwww ; 2dFwww . We constrain each free parameter using a Bayesian approach: the 68% (resp. 95%) confidence limits are defined as the values for which the marginalized likelihood drops by $`\mathrm{exp}[(\chi _0^21)/2]`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{exp}[(\chi _0^24)/2]`$), where $`\chi _0^2`$ is the best chi-square value in the whole parameter space.

## IV Results and discussion

We start the analysis using only the first year WMAP temperature and polarization data, plus a weak prior $`0.5<h<0.9`$, which is implicit from the limitation of the grid. We checked that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$, we find the same bounds as the WMAP collaboration, with a minimal effective chi square $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=1431.5`$ for 1342 effective degrees of freedom (d.o.f.). The best fit over our whole grid has $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}},\omega _b,h,\omega _{cdm},\tau ,n_s)=(0.9,0.024,0.68,0.10,0.16,0.97)`$, and a $`\chi ^2`$ value which is not significantly lower ($`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=1431.1`$ for 1341 d.o.f.), showing that a non–zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is not required in order to improve the goodness of fit. At the 95% confidence level (CL), we can derive only an upper bound $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<6`$, which is impressively smaller than the previous bound from CMB only, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<14`$ Hannestad:2001hn ; Bowen:2001in . At the 1-$`\sigma `$ level, the extra relativistic energy density is limited to the range $`2.2<\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<1.2`$, corresponding to a dispersion of 3.4. This is in nice agreement with the prediction from Bowen:2001in  that with the full WMAP data, one would reach a dispersion of 3.17. The analysis reveals that the indetermination of this parameter is caused mainly by a degeneracy with $`h`$, as shown in previous works. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ runs from -3 to 6, the best-fit value of $`h`$ goes from 0.55 to 0.90 (while $`\omega _{cdm}`$ decreases, maintaining an approximately constant value of the matter fraction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.31\pm 0.03`$). After $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=6`$, the weak prior $`h<0.9`$ is saturated, and the probability drops abruptly.

In order to remove the degeneracy, we add to the definition of the effective $`\chi ^2`$ a gaussian prior on $`h`$ derived from the HST Key Project HST , $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ (at the 1-$`\sigma `$ level). This prior is sufficient to reduce significantly the 95% allowed window: $`2.6<\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<4.0`$. The no neutrino case with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3`$ is compatible with the data only beyond 99% CL. The best-fit model has still a slightly negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.7`$, but this is not statistically significant. The best $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ does not change very much (1431.1 for 1342 d.o.f.) because WMAP alone is in remarkable agreement with the Key Project value Spergel:2003cb .

Finally, when we include the pre-WMAP data compilation and the 2dF redshift survey (i.e., information on the third and fourth CMB peak, and on the scale of the turn–over in the matter power spectrum), the window tends to shift a little bit towards positive values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The best-fit model has $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.5`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}^2=1492`$ for 1396 d.o.f. The $`95\%`$ allowed window is $`1.6<\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}<3.8`$. Using all data, we find that the no neutrino case is excluded at $`99.9\%`$ CL, which constitutes a clear indication of the presence of relic background neutrinos, already shown by pre-WMAP data Hannestad:2001hn .

Note that throughout the analysis, we did not include any constraint from supernovae data. This is because all good–fitting models have naturally ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) very close to (0.3, 0.7). So, adding a supernovae prior would be completely irrelevant - unlike the $`h`$ prior, which plays a crucial role in removing the degeneracy with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In order to emphasize this last point, we show in figure 2 the two-dimensional 1-$`\sigma `$ and 2-$`\sigma `$ confidence limits in ($`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`h`$) parameter space. The contours are based only on the CMB and LSS data (the HST Key Project result is just superimposed as a yellow stripe). The degeneracy between these two parameters clearly appears, showing that any improvement in the direct determination of $`h`$ will be crucial for closing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ allowed window. For instance, large deviations from the standard value $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ would be excluded if $`h`$ were measured to be very close to $`0.70`$, while $`h>0.75`$ would bring strong evidence for extra relativistic species.

To summarize, we show in table 1 the best fit values and 2-$`\sigma `$ (95% CL) limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the three different data sets. Our results show that the first year results of WMAP significantly improve the bounds on an additional contribution to the radiation density of the universe. In the near future, the updated data from WMAP and the new results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Loveday:2002ax  should allow for an even better determination, providing a high-precision test of primordial nucleosynthesis.

Note added: After the submission of this work, our results were confirmed in refs. Pierpaoli:2003kw  (with a generalization of the bounds to a non-flat Universe) and Hannestad:2003xv .

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the WMAP collaboration for providing a user-friendly access to their data, and in particular to Licia Verde for her very useful comments. This work was supported by a CICYT–IN2P3 agreement. SP was supported by the Spanish grant BFM2002-00345 and a Marie Curie fellowship under contract HPMFCT-2002-01831. SP thanks CERN for support during a visit when this work was initiated.


format: text

text:
# Experimental study of high frequency stochastic resonance in Chua circuits

## Abstract

We study the stochastic resonance phenomenon occurring in electronic Chua circuits operating in the chaotic regime when the forcing signal is modulated at relatively high frequency, of the order of magnitude of the main Chua frequency in the absence of forcing ($`f_o`$). In all the cases, a clear maximum in the signal-to-noise ratio for an intermediate noise level is observed. When modulating with a frequency smaller than $`f_o`$ we also observe a resonance at a harmonic of the external frequency which is closer to $`f_o`$ or to one of its harmonic. If the modulating frequency is larger than $`f_o`$ we only observe the resonance at the modulating frequency.

Stochastic resonance is a nonlinear effect that accounts for the optimum response of a dynamical system to an external forcing at a precise value of the noise level. Since its original proposal as a mechanism to explain the observed periodicity of the Earth’s ice ages, it has been found in a very large number of systems of physical, as well as biological, chemical, etc, interest. A related effect is that of coherence resonance where the optimum response (in the sense of optimal periodicity) also occurs for a precise value of the noise level but in the absence of an external forcing. Both effects have been observed in excitable as well as chaotic systems , amongst others.

In this paper we experimentally study stochastic resonance on a Chua circuit operating in the chaotic regime. We consider the transitions from one scroll attractor to its mirror image induced by an external periodic forcing when the system operates under the effect of noise. At variance with similar studies, we chose a relatively large frequency, $`f`$, for the external modulation, of the order of magnitude of the main frequency, $`f_o`$, of the unperturbed Chua circuit. For all frequencies considered we observe a maximum in the signal-to-noise ratio at frequency $`f`$, a clear indication that stochastic resonance is taking place. Moreover, for forcing frequencies $`f`$ smaller than the unperturbed Chua frequency $`f_o`$ we observe stochastic resonance also at the harmonics of the modulating frequency $`f`$.

Our Chua circuit is schematically shown in fig. 1. A digital acquisition board from National Instruments NI-DAQ plugged into a computer was used to digitize the signal at a sampling rate of $`10`$KHz. A Labview program controlled the board in a continuous acquisition mode and an HP–33120 function generator was used to provide the noise signals of intensity $`D`$ ranging from $`0`$ to $`5`$ V\[rms\]. A signal generator is used to force the system with periodic forcing of the form $`V(t)=V_o\mathrm{sin}(2\pi ft)`$, being $`V_o`$ the amplitude of the force and $`f`$ its frequency.

This Chua circuit can be described in terms of three non-linear first order differential equations, including those for the time evolution of the output voltages $`V_1(t)`$ and $`V_2(t)`$ (see fig. 1). These equations predict that, for some range of parameters, and in the absence of external forcing, the system can have several unstable fixed points such that the pair $`(V_1(t),V_2(t))`$ oscillates chaotically in time around the corresponding dynamical attractors. For the set of parameters we have chosen in our experiments (see inset of fig. 1), two unstable fixed points lead to an isolated single scroll attractor and its mirror image (see fig. 1). The main frequency of the oscillations of the unperturbed circuit about each attractor is $`f_o2.7`$ KHz. This is clearly indicated as a maximum in the power spectrum of the system, see fig. 2. Besides the characteristic frequency $`f_o`$, one can observe the appearance of several peaks at other relatively high frequencies, not far from $`f_o`$,

Note that for the chosen set of parameters, and without any external forcing, there is no possibility to jump from one attractor to the other, and which attractor is chosen depends exclusively on initial conditions. The presence of an external periodic forcing, however, can induce jumps between the attractors. For such an external forcing (but still in the absence of noise) a minimum value $`V_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of its amplitude $`V_o`$ is required to induce those jumps. This minimum value is a degree of the sensitivity of the system to the external forcing and it is also plotted in fig. 2 as a function of the frequency $`f`$ of the forcing. It can be seen that close to the main unperturbed Chua frequency $`f_o`$ the amplitude is minimum and that it increases for smaller and larger frequencies.

With this information at hand, for each forcing frequency $`f`$ we now set the amplitude of the external forcing close, but below, the minimum value $`V_{\mathrm{min}}`$ defined before. Under these conditions, the inclusion of noise of very small amplitude is able to induce jumps between the attractors. It is in the periodicity of these jumps where one can observe a resonance effect with respect to the noise intensity. We have focused our study in the cases where the external frequency coincides with some of the major peaks in the power spectrum of the unperturbed Chua system as shown in fig. 2. Namely, we have chosen $`f=0.9`$ KHz, $`f=1.8`$ KHz, $`f=2.7`$ KHz and $`f=4.5`$ KHz. Note that the possibility of having stochastic resonance in a chaotic circuit with two attractors under the presence of noise has been shown theoretically and numerically by Anishchenko and coworkers. This case is the the so–called deterministic stochastic resonance which appears in deterministic chaotic systems close to the onset of intermittency, i.e., a situation different to the one considered here.

Under modulation and noise, the power spectrum varies the relative height of their peaks. We characterize the response by the usual signal to noise ratio indicator. In fig. 3 we plot the results we obtain when modulating with different frequencies. In all the panels it can be clearly seen that even at these high frequencies a maximum of the signal-to-noise ratio is observed for an intermediate noise level, the most important signature of stochastic resonance. Moreover, the maxima occur for approximately the same noise level independently of the forcing frequency. Interestingly, when looking at the response at frequencies $`f`$ corresponding to other peaks in the power spectrum, we observe that for frequencies smaller than the main Chua frequency $`f_o`$ the system also exhibits stochastic resonance at harmonics of this forcing frequency $`f`$. It appears that stochastic resonance appears only for those harmonics whose frequency is closer to $`f_o`$ or to a harmonic of $`f_o`$. For example, in fig.4 panel a) another stochastic resonance effect is observed in the third harmonic of the forcing frequency (in this case $`3f=2.7`$ KHz $`f_o`$) while in panel b) an stochastic resonance effect occurs at $`3f=5.4`$ KHz, which corresponds to $`2f_o`$. On the contrary, when the external frequency is larger than $`f_o`$, we only observe stochastic resonance at the forcing frequency.

In conclusion, we have experimentally shown that stochastic resonance in an electronic Chua circuit occurs even when the system is modulated at relatively high frequencies, as compared to the usual stochastic resonance in which the forcing frequency is small compared with any internal frequency. When forcing with a frequency smaller than the main unperturbed Chua frequency we have also shown that the resonance occurs not only at the forcing frequency $`f`$ but also at harmonics of $`f`$ which are close to the main unpertubed Chua frequency $`f_o`$ or to a harmonic of it.

The work is supported by MCyT (Spain) and FEDER, projects BFM2001-0341-C02-01, BMF2000-1108 and BFM2002-04369. I.G. acknowledges support form the Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional.


text:
# Observed Non-Steady State Cooling and the Moderate Cluster Cooling Flow Model

## 1 Introduction

Several recent papers have shown that the predictions of the steady-state cluster cooling flow (CF) model are inconsistent with Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observations (see review by Fabian 2003). Chandra observations show that the gas in the central regions of relaxed clusters with central dominant galaxies can be described as homogeneous single temperature gas with a positive temperature gradient. Ettori (2002) showed that the ASCA evidence for multiphase CFs was due to the poor spatial resolution of ASCA which could not distinguish between multiphase gas and single phase gas with a temperature gradient. Chandra observations show that only within the central few tens of kpc in clusters does the spectroscopy require additional components above a single temperature. Of course, this could simply be due to statistical and spatial resolution limitations in the Chandra data. The strongest evidence against the steady-state isobaric CF model is the lack of observered line emission in XMM-Newton RGS spectra from gas cooler than $`1/3`$ of ambient cluster temperatures (e.g., Kaastra et al. 2001; Peterson et al. 2001; Fabian 2003). In the so called “standard steady-state CF model”, the age of a CF is assumed to be similar to the age of the cluster; namely the gas has been cooling for a long time. In the so called “moderate CF model” (Soker et al. 2001) heating is intermittent and the hot gas is not in steady-state, in the sense that its cooling time is longer than the time elapsed since the gas was last heated. Many reheating scenarios of the central gas in CFs have been proposed in the past with the aim of suppressing CFs altogether, or significantly reducing the average mass cooling rate (e.g., Binney & Tabor 1995; Tucker & David 1997; Ciotti & Ostriker 2001; David et al. 2001; Quilis, Bower, & Balogh 2001; Brüggen, M. & Kaiser 2001; Ruszkowski & Begelman 2002; Nulsen et al. 2002). These scenarios can be divided into models with steady heating by conduction or AGN, or non-steady, self-regulating models heated by nuclear outbursts. The moderate CF model is in the class of non-steady models where the gas cooling rate is peridocially heated by nuclear outbursts. We present below the evidence for non-steady CFs. The frequent occurrence of X-ray cavities coincident with radio lobes around the central dominant galaxy in CFs (e.g., Abell 496, Dupke & White 2002; Perseus \[Abell 426\], Fabian et al. 2002; Hydra A, McNamara et al. 2000) demonstrates that AGNs have a significant impact on the X-ray morphology of the hot gas. However, there are still significant uncertainties in the detailed physics of how the relativistic and thermal plasmas interact and how much heat is deposited into the hot gas.

In the moderate CF model where the intermittent heating is generated by AGN activity in the central dominant galaxy, it is expected that the amount of cooling gas increases sharply with increasing temperature. Only at very low temperatures is there a steady-state situation (i.e., where the cooling time is short compared to the time between nuclear outbursts). In Soker et al. (2001) we presented the arguments for a moderate CF in which the actual mass cooling rate is significantly below that derived under the assumption of the standard model, but a non-steady CF still exists. Soker et al. (2001) estimate that in the moderate cluster CF model the required kinetic energy of the AGN is $`10^{47}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and its strong activity should last $`10^7`$ yr and occur every $`10^9`$ yr. Only $`1\%`$ of all CF clusters should be found during that stage. In Cygnus A there is a strong radio source which heats the intra cluster medium (Smith et al. 2002). Wilson, Young, & Smith (2003) estimate the mechanical power of the jets in Cygnus A to be $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}6\times 10^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is $`100`$ times larger than the radio emission, and it is in the range required by the moderate CF model.

In recent analyses of XMM-Newton RGS data by Kahn et al. (2003) and Peterson et al. (2003; hereafter P2003) they find that there is less gas than that predicted by the steady-state isobaric CF model at all temperatures below the ambient gas temperature. Also, the discrepancy increases with decreasing temperature. There is not just a deficit in gas below $`1/3`$ of the ambient cluster temperature, there is a deficit of gas at all temperatures below the ambient temperature. They conclude that their results are difficult to reconcile with the newly proposed alternatives to the standard CF model, including those that completely suppress radiative cooling with some form of steady-state heating, and that new physics may be required. Our goal in this paper is to show that the XMM-Newton results are consistent with the expectations of the moderate CF model presented in Soker et al.(2001).

We convert the differential luminosity as a function of temperature as derived from the RGS data on cluster CFs into the distribution of gas mass verses temperature in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$. We also derive $`\dot{M}`$ as a function of temperature in this section and show that the gas in CFs cannot be in steady-sate. In section 3 we apply the moderate CF model to a recent Chandra observation of A2052, and in $`\mathrm{\S }4`$ we summarize our main results.

## 2 Distribution of Gas Mass with Temperature

We show in this and the next sections that the distribution of gas mass with temperature within cluster CFs found by P2003 can be incorporated into a model with intermittent heating, such that the effective age of the cooling gas is only $`13\times 10^9`$ yr.

Based on RGS spectra of 14 CF clusters, P2003 find that the variation in the differential luminosity with gas temperature can be characterized by the following expression:

$$\frac{dL}{dT}=\frac{5}{2}\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}k}{\mu m_p}(\alpha +1)\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(1)
where $`k`$,$`\mu `$, and $`m_p`$ have their usual meaning, $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}`$ is the inferred mass cooling rate based on the assumptions inherent in the steady-state isobaric CF model, $`T`$ is the gas temperature, and $`T_0`$ is the maximum, or ambient cluster temperature. In general, the luminosity of gas cooling isobarically within a temperature interval $`dT`$ is:

$$dL=\frac{5}{2}\frac{k}{\mu m_p}\dot{M}(T)dT.$$
(2)
In steady-state, the rate gas cools into a given temperature interval must equal the rate gas cools out of the same temperature interval. In other words, $`\dot{M}(T)`$ must be a constant and equal to $`\dot{M}_{ocf}`$. Comparing equations (1) and (2) shows that the gas can only be in steady-state if $`\alpha =0`$. Fitting the RGS data on their sample of 14 CF clusters, P2003 find that $`\alpha 12`$. Within the old CF radius$``$where cooling time equals the cluster age$``$most of the radiation comes in the X-ray band. Only in the very inner region of $`r1030`$ kpc a significant fraction of the energy lost by the cooling gas may be emitted in the optical and UV band (e.g., Fabian et al. 2002; Soker, Blanton & Sarazin 2003).

The mass cooling rate as a function of temperature can be written as:

$$\dot{M}(T)=\frac{dM}{dT}\frac{dT}{dt}=\frac{dM}{dT}\frac{T}{\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}},$$
(3)
where we define the cooling time to be:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}(T)\frac{T}{dT/dt}.$$
(4)
¿From equations (2) and (3) we obtain

$$\frac{dL}{dT}=\frac{5}{2}\frac{k}{\mu m_p}\frac{dM}{dT}\frac{T}{\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}}.$$
(5)
Combining equations (1) and (5) gives:

$$\frac{dM}{dT}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}(\alpha +1)\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{\alpha 1}\frac{1}{T_0}.$$
(6)
The cooling time varies as:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}=\tau _0\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{T}{T_0}\frac{n_0}{n}=\tau _0\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{P_0}{P}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^2,$$
(7)
where $`\tau _0`$ is the cooling time of gas at $`T_0`$, $`n`$ is the total number density, $`P`$ is the gas pressure, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the radiative cooling function, such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n^2`$ gives the energy radiated per unit volume per unit time. The last two equations can be combined to give:

$$\frac{dM}{dT}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}\tau _0(\alpha +1)\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{\alpha +1}\frac{1}{T_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{P_0}{P}.$$
(8)
The cooling function can be characterized as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^\eta $$
(9)
where $`\eta 1/2`$ for $`T2\times 10^7`$ and $`\eta 1/2`$ at lower temperatures. For consistency with the expressions derived above, assuming isobaric cooling and integrating equation (8) over temperature gives:

$$M(<T)=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}\tau _0\frac{\alpha +1}{\alpha \eta +2}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{\alpha \eta +2}$$
(10)
Setting $`\alpha 1.5`$ in the last equation, the average value found by P2003, and assuming Bremsstrahlung cooling ($`\eta =0.5`$), gives:

$$M(<T)\dot{M}_{\mathrm{ocf}}\tau _0\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^3.$$
(11)
If we add a heating mechanism to equation (2), then a steady-state condition can be established only if $`H(T)T^\alpha `$. It is difficult to conceive of a heating mechanism that preferentially heats the hottest and highest entropy gas in a CF. The RGS data show that $`\dot{M}(T)`$ increases with increasing temperature. If this were true over the lifetime of a cluster, there would be a large reservoir of gas at intermediate temperatures, which is also inconsistent with the RGS data. This gas must be periodically removed from these intermediate temperatures either by cooling sporadically to very low temperatures, which simply returns us to the classic CF problem, i.e., the lack of a significant reservoir of cool gas, or intermittent heating back to roughly the ambient temperature. We therefore examine the non-steady moderate CF model.

## 3 Moderate Cooling Flow Model

As an example, we consider the CF cluster A2052, which was included in the P2003 XMM-Newton sample, and whose X-ray structure as observed by Chandra was discussed in detail by Blanton et al. (2001, 2003). P2003 assume a cooling radius of $`r_0=51`$ arcsec, and find $`\alpha 3`$ for this cluster. Hence, from equation (10), $`M(<T)T^{4.5}`$, and most of the mass is in the hottest gas.

Indeed, from fig. 4 of Blanton et al. (2003) we find that the mass within 30 arcsec consists of $`30\%`$ of the total gas mass within 50 arcsec. The temperature of the gas at 30 arcsec is 2.5 keV (Blanton et al. 2003). Using this along with an ambient temperature of $`kT_0=3.3`$ keV (Blanton et al. 2003), implies that $`(2.5/3.3)^{4.5}=29\%`$ of the total gas mass up to $`T_0`$ resides at temperatures lower than $`2.5`$ keV. Considering the uncertainties, these two numbers are in excellent agreement. A small fraction of the gas still resides at lower temperatures, presumably because the shock that heated the gas, say $`10^9`$ yrs ago, could not increase the cooling time of the lowest entropy gas above the time between outbursts (Soker et al. 2001).

P2003 did not compare their XMM-Newton results directly with Chandra data. We find the cooling time at 30 arcsec, with $`kT=2.5`$ keV and $`n_e=0.02`$ cm-3 (Blanton et al. 2001), to be $`\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}(30\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})=1.5\times 10^9`$ yr. Interior to this radius the intracluster medium is disturbed by two large radio bubbles (Blanton et al. 2001). In the moderate CF model, the time interval between intermittent energy deposition is $`14\times 10^9`$ yr, hence the gas is prohibited from settling into a steady-state configuration at $`r>30`$ arcsec. Although the gas continues to cool and its cooling time gets shorter, it is unable to reach a steady-state before the next nuclear outburst.

Only within $`r30`$ arcsec may the gas have reached a steady-state, however the Chandra data show that it was recently disrupted by the two radio bubbles. We therefore expect that the actual cooling rate is much smaller than that in the old (standard) CF model. Based on a spectral analysis of the Chandra data, Blanton et al. (2003) find the mass cooling rate to be $`26<\dot{M}<42M_{}`$ yr-1, which is $`1/3`$ of the old value within $`r140`$ arcsec (Perres et al. 1998). Taking the actual cooling radius to be the radius within which steady-state has been established based on the shorter age in the moderate CF model, the cooling rate will be even lower than the value found by Blanton et al (2003), i.e., we argue for a mass cooling rate of $`\dot{M}10M_{}`$ yr-1.

Although we only study one cluster as an example, we note: (1) In the moderate CF model suggested by Soker et al. (2001), the heating doesn’t inhibit the CF in the very inner region $`r10`$ kpc. In this region, the gas continues to cool to temperatures of $`T10^4`$ K, even after a heating event. Only in the outer regions does the heating event prevent the gas from cooling to low temperatures. Therefore, we don’t expect the gas to be isothermal. The heating event can’t heat the gas to extremely high temperature either, because this requires AGN energy output much larger than typical observed values. (2) The moderate CF model thus predicts that $`\alpha `$ in eq. (1), or $`\alpha \eta +2`$ in equation (10) will not take extreme values. We can’t predict the exact range of values of $`\alpha `$ in the present study; this requires numerical simulations with variable conditions in the intracluster medium before each heating event, the energy supplied by the event, the time elapsed between events, and other processes, e.g., mergers. (3) Some CF clusters have central cooling times shorter than those in A2052. This does not pose a problem for the moderate CF model since the central regions of clusters still harbor a CF. (4) In light of the uncertainties, e.g., the temperature profile in the inner regions, the presence of X-ray cavities, and in the model parameters mentioned in point (2) above, it does not warrant a more extensive comparison with other clusters at this point. Future work, in particular numerical simulations of heating events, will include a greater comparison between the moderate CF theory and cluster observations.

## 4 Summary

We show that the differential luminosity of the gas in cluster cooling flows as a function of temperature, as derived from RGS XMM-Newton observations, is inconsistent with steady-state cooling flow scenarios, but is consistent with non-steady heating or moderate cooling flow models. The findings of P2003 imply that most of the gas in cooling flows resides in the highest temperature phase (eqs. 10 and 11 above). Within the context of the moderate cooling flow scenario (Soker et al. 2001), at these temperatures and densities the CF cannot reach a steady-state, and if the intermittent heating continues, it cannot attain such a state. Therefore, the rate of gas cooling at high temperatures is much higher than at lower temperatures.

We demonstrate the applicability of this model to the cooling flow cluster A2052 (Sec. 3). We argue for a mass cooling rate of $`10M_{}`$ yr-1 in this cluster, which is compatible with the upper limit found by P2003 for lowest temperature gas. This is much lower than the cooling rate of hotter gas, $`100M_{}`$ yr-1, found by (P2003) or deduced in the old CF model by Peres et al. (1998), and somewhat lower than the cooling rate derived recently by Blanton et al. (2003) of $`2642M_{}`$ yr-1. Overall, intermittent heating in the moderate CF model (Soker 2001; Fabian 2003), or more frequent heating ( Blanton et al. 2003 for A2052), may account for the P2003 findings without invoking new processes. The intermittent heating model, with time intervals between major heating events of $`13\times 10^9`$ yr has the advantage that no fine tuning is required to balance heating and cooling, since the gas is heated to relatively high temperatures, and then starts cooling. Most of the heated gas does not cool to low temperatures before the next major heating event. Different values of the physical parameters, e.g., energy input and time intervals between heating events, as well as a cluster’s properties, will give different values of $`\alpha `$ in equations (1) and (10). Indeed, a large range of values is observed, $`\alpha 13`$, hinting on a wide range in the physical parameters mentioned above, such that no fine tuning is observed or required. As shown in Soker et al. (2001), it is difficult to prevent the lowest entropy gas from complete cooling (i.e., increasing the cooling time above the time between heating events). Hence, a low $`\dot{M}`$ cooling flow can be sustained in the very central region of clusters.

This paper strengthens the moderate cooling flow model (Soker et al. 2001), by supporting the claim that the unique activities observed in cooling flow clusters (e.g., McNamara 2002 and references therein), can be accommodated within its framework. The problems which are need to be solved, e.g., the exact nature of the heating events, are less severe than the crisis encountered in the old cooling flow model.

We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments. This research was supported in part by grants from the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation and GO2-3171.


text:
# Mechanical Loss in Tantala/Silica Dielectric Mirror Coatings

## I Introduction

The sensitivity of designs for advanced interferometric gravitational wave detectors, such as Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory), is limited in the frequency range from 10’s to 100’s of Hz by thermal noise from the main test masses and their suspensions AdvDesign . These test masses, which under current design plans will be formed from either fused silica or sapphire, will each be supported using a fused silica suspension, and will have multi-layer, dielectric mirror coatings whitepaper . In the current generation of gravitational wave detectors, the test mass mirror coatings are formed by ion-sputtering alternating layers of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5). This type of coating was chosen because it can be made highly reflective in a narrow band around 1.064 $`\mu `$m, the laser wavelength chosen for LIGO, while having very low absorption and scatter losses CurrentCoatings .

For the past several years, many research groups in the gravitational wave field have been concerned that dielectric coatings could be an important source of thermal noise. This concern was strengthened by Levin’s calculation Levin  which indicated that mechanical losses in the mirror surface of a test mass could be much greater than had been generally appreciated. Subsequently, our investigations of mirror coatings showed that multi-layers of Ta2O5/SiO2 and Ta2O5/Al2O3 when applied to fused silica substrates, add significant levels of mechanical loss Crooks ; Harry02 . Using these results and models developed by Nakagawa Nak02 , and Gretarsson Harry02 , we calculated that mechanical loss in the coatings would result in a level of thermal noise which would degrade the design sensitivity of the planned advanced detectors by a significant amount.

In the present study, we have performed a series of experiments to investigate the source of the loss in multi-layer tantala/silica coatings. We hypothesized that the loss would arise primarily either from the coating-substrate interface, from the coating-layer interfaces, from the bulk materials used in the coatings, or possibly from some combination of these sources. We have measured the loss of a series of coatings in which the number and thickness of the coating layers was chosen to test each of these dependencies.

## II Design of coating loss study

### II.1 Experimental technique

As in our previous experiments Crooks ; Harry02 , we determine the level of mechanical loss associated with a given coating by applying the coating to fused silica substrates and measuring the mechanical losses of a subset of resonant modes of the coated samples.

The mechanical loss, $`\varphi `$, at a resonant frequency $`f_0`$ of a sample, is related to the quality factor, $`Q`$ of the resonance by $`\varphi (f_0)=1/Q`$. Assuming all other losses to be negligible, the total loss in a coated sample, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coated}}(f_0)`$, is equal to the sum of the intrinsic loss of the substrate plus any loss associated with the coating Crooks ; Harry02 ,

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{coated}}(f_0)\varphi _{\mathrm{substrate}}(f_0)+\frac{E_{\mathrm{coating}}}{E_{\mathrm{substrate}}}\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}(f_0)$$
(1)
where $`E_{\mathrm{coating}}/E_{\mathrm{substrate}}`$ is the ratio of energy stored in the coating to energy stored in the substrate.

In this study, the substrates were 7.6 cm diameter fused silica disks of two different thicknesses, 2.5 cm and 0.25 cm. The thinner disks had the advantage that the effect from the coating was more pronounced; the coating loss had a greater contribution to the total loss because the energy ratio, $`E_{\mathrm{coating}}/E_{\mathrm{substrate}}`$, was larger for the thin samples. However suspending these thin samples required the direct welding of a low loss silica suspension to the edge of the fused silica substrates, see Harry02 . To minimize any potential damage to the coatings by direct heat from welding, the coating was masked in a 1 cm radius around the weld, see figure 1. In addition, we used miniature welding torches that allowed the weld area to be sub-millimeter in scale. During welding, the glass $`1`$ cm from the weld remained only warm to the touch, which suggests that there was little to no impact on the coating. Although measurements of the loss factors of the thicker samples were less sensitive to the effects of coating losses, they had the advantage that they could be suspended using thin silk thread, see Crooks , without any risk of physically altering the substrate or the coating.

The use of both techniques allowed a more thorough investigation of mechanical losses in the coating over a wider range of frequencies SneddonRowan .

The substrates were made of Corning 7980 grade 0A fused silica Corning . Their faces were polished to sub-angstrom micro-roughness by Wave Precision Inc. WavePrecision , to emulate the required surface properties of actual test masses. Except where otherwise noted, all the coatings were applied by SMA/Virgo SMA  at l’Institut de Physique Nucleaire in Lyon France.

To measure the quality factor of a given mode of a sample, we suspend the sample in vacuum and excite it to resonance using an electrostatic drive. We then remove the excitation signal and record the sample’s motion as it freely rings down. The characteristic decay time, $`\tau `$, is the time required for the amplitude of motion to decrease by a factor $`1/e`$. The quality factor is then given by $`Q=\pi f_0\tau `$. The amplitude of the resonant motion was sensed interferometrically for the thick ($`2.5`$ cm) samples, and by polarimetry for the thin ($`0.25`$ cm) samples. At the vacuum pressure for the experiment, ($`P10^6`$ torr), air damping was negligible. Detailed descriptions of these ringdown techniques are given in Crooks  and Harry02  respectively.

We performed finite element analysis, with the program ALGOR ALGOR , to model the displacement of each mode of the samples. The relevant energy ratios for the coated samples were then calculated from the displacements Crooks . If the intrinsic mechanical loss of the substrate, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{substrate}}(f_0)`$, is known (or is insignificant compared to the effective loss from the applied coating), the loss associated with the coating may then be calculated using eqn. 1.

### II.2 Sequence of coatings studied

We investigated three primary sources of mechanical loss in the coatings, which we postulated to be:

* loss in the coating-substrate interface,
* loss in the interfaces between the multiple coating layers, and
* loss in the bulk coating materials.

To investigate these hypotheses, we designed a set of coatings in which we varied the number and thickness of the coating layers to test for the three dependencies. Table 1 lists the coatings and the substrate treatments investigated. By comparing the measured mechanical loss for sample types B through F, we can test our three hypotheses for the source of the coating loss.

If the dominant source of coating mechanical loss is associated with the coating-substrate interface, then the total loss measured for sample types B -F would be expected to be approximately equal.

On the other hand, the loss may have originated predominantly in the interfaces between the multiple coating layers. In that case the coating loss of sample type D, which has 60 layers, should be twice as large as the loss in sample types C, E and F which have 30 layers.

Finally, the source of dissipation may be intrinsic to the bulk coating material. Under that scenario, the coating loss for sample types C, E, and F should vary with the abundances of the two coating materials.

Clearly there also exists the possibility that the total mechanical loss of the coating is the sum of contributions from a combination of the above mechanisms.

As part of the coating process, samples are heated to a few hundred degrees to reduce residual stresses in the coating. Previous experiments Numata ; Lunin ; Penn  have shown that heating uncoated fused silica samples can result in a significant decrease in loss. Coating Type A was not coated but was cleaned and heated to the same elevated temperature as the coated samples to ensure any change in substrate loss was taken into account in our analysis. We will refer to this process as “annealing” even though the samples were not raised to the standard annealing temperatures for fused silica.

## III Results

### III.1 Thin Sample Results

We present below the results of our measurements on the thin samples. We acquired at least five measurements for each mode of a given sample configuration. As is common in $`Q`$ experiments, we quote the result of the highest measurement. The reason for this selection process is that systematic errors, which in many experiments can equally increase or decrease one’s measurement, will, with rare exception in our measurements, uniformly degrade the $`Q`$. On the other hand, the statistical errors contribute a uniform, Gaussian background that introduces an error to the fit of $`Q`$. Data that does not exhibit uniform background noise is discarded. These statistical errors are normally much smaller that the systematic fluctuations. Therefore we quote the largest value for our $`Q`$ measurements with its associated statistical error.

The suspension system, excitation system, and data analysis routines have all been tested to produce no limiting effect on measurements where the $`Q`$ exceeds 80 million. During these measurements, the dimensions of the suspension system and the position of the excitation system were altered with no observed change in the $`Q`$ of the sample. Finally these measurements were performed at MIT and at Syracuse University with excellent agreement between the two facilities.

The results are listed by mode in Table 2. The mode shapes are shown in Figure 2. The Butterfly-$`\times `$ and Butterfly-$`+`$ modes are the degenerate first mode with a typical resonant frequency of $`f_1=2.7`$ kHz. The additional notation of “$`\times `$” and “$`+`$” refer to the orientation of the nodal lines. The second mode, known as the drumhead mode, has a typical resonant frequency of $`f_2=4.1`$ kHz.

One immediate observation from the data is that for the coated samples, with the exception of the 2-layer coating, $`Q_{\mathrm{coated}}<<Q_{\mathrm{uncoated}}`$. Typical values for $`Q_{\mathrm{uncoated}}`$ indicate that the loss in the substrate is about 2–3% of $`Q_{\mathrm{coated}}`$ and should not significantly affect the results for the coating loss. Moreover, we see that the annealing performed at the end of the coating run dramatically increases the $`Q`$ of an uncoated substrate. If we assume that the substrate in a coated sample also experiences the same increase in $`Q`$, then the loss in the substrate is reduced to about 1% of the loss in the coated sample. Thus, for the thin samples, we assume the loss measured in a coated sample is approximately the loss associated with the coating.

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{coated}}\frac{E_{\mathrm{coating}}}{E_{\mathrm{substrate}}}\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}$$
(2)
To calculate the coating losses we require the fraction of the mode energy stored in the coating. This value is calculated from the displacement values obtained using finite element analysis package, ALGOR ALGOR . This analysis yielded an energy ratio per coating thickness of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}s}{E}}=1488\mathrm{m}^1\mathrm{Butterfly}\mathrm{mode}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}s}{E}}=1575\mathrm{m}^1\mathrm{Drumhead}\mathrm{mode}`$
Then, given the coating thickness, $`s`$, we can rewrite the equation for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ as

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{coated}}(f_0)=s\frac{\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}s}{E}\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}(f_0)$$
(3)
The coatings are made such that the first layer applied to the substrate is a tantala layer. We convert a coating’s optical thickness to its physical thickness using the refractive indices $`n_{\mathrm{silica}}=1.45`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{tantala}}=2.03`$.

Reviewing our results, listed in Table 2, we can test our hypotheses on the source of the coating loss. The first hypothesis was that the coating loss originated in the coating-substrate interface, in which case the loss would be independent of coating thickness. Were this idea true, then coating types B and C, which have 2 and 30 layers respectively, would have similar values for $`Q_{\mathrm{coated}}`$. Instead, $`Q_{\mathrm{coated}}`$ for these samples differ by a factor 10, and the coating loss, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$, which is scaled for coating thickness, is roughly equal for the two coating types. Thus the loss is in the coating, not the coating-substrate interface.

Our second idea was that the coating loss arose in the interfaces between the multiple coating layers. To test this hypothesis we can compare the loss for coating types C and D, which have the same total thickness but 30 and 60 layers respectively. If the loss were dependent on the number of coating interfaces then $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ for coating types C and D would differ by a factor 2. However, coating types C and D have similar values for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$, indicating that the loss does not depend on the number of coating interfaces.

Finally if the loss originates in the bulk coating material, then we would expect to see a dependence in $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ as the proportions of coating materials are varied in coating types E, C, and F. Indeed $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ does increase with increasing proportions of Ta2O5, indicating that the loss is due to the bulk coating materials.

To separate $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ into the losses for the two coating materials, we must partition the energy in the coating into the amounts stored in its silica and tantala layers. Following an analysis by Landau and Lifshitz LaundauLifshitz , it can be shown that, for Poisson’s ratio, $`\sigma <<1`$, the energy stored in a coating, $`E_{\mathrm{coating}}Ys`$, where $`Y`$ is Young’s modulus and $`s`$ is the coating thickness. For a multi-layer coating made up of two materials, we may write:

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=\frac{Y_1s_1}{Y_{\mathrm{coating}}s_{\mathrm{coating}}}\varphi _1+\frac{Y_2s_2}{Y_{\mathrm{coating}}s_{\mathrm{coating}}}\varphi _2$$
(4)
where $`Y_i`$, $`s_i`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are the Young’s modulus, total thickness and loss angle of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ coating material. We use the Young’s moduli of $`7.2\times 10^{10}`$ Pa for fused silica and $`1.4\times 10^{11}`$ Pa for tantalum pentoxide Martin .

For a thin surface layer, the stress will be predominantly parallel to the surface. In this limit, the total Young’s modulus for the multi-layer coating is given by

$$s_{\mathrm{coating}}Y_{\mathrm{coating}}=s_1Y_1+s_2Y_2$$
(5)
Using eqn. 5, we rewrite eqn. 4 as

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=\frac{s_1Y_1\varphi _1+s_2Y_2\varphi _2}{s_1Y_1+s_2Y_2}$$
(6)
Fitting the results for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ from coating types C, E, and F, we obtain the bulk loss values for silica and tantala

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{silica}}=(0.1\pm 0.1)\times 10^4(\mathrm{Butterfly}\mathrm{mode})`$
$`\varphi _{\mathrm{tantala}}=(4.7\pm 0.1)\times 10^4(\mathrm{Butterfly}\mathrm{mode})`$
$`\varphi _{\mathrm{silica}}=(0.1\pm 0.3)\times 10^4(\mathrm{Drumhead}\mathrm{mode})`$
$`\varphi _{\mathrm{tantala}}=(6.1\pm 0.3)\times 10^4(\mathrm{Drumhead}\mathrm{mode})`$
As a final consistency check, we measured two samples with coating type C that were coated by MLD MLD . These measurements yielded $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=3.0\times 10^4`$ for the butterfly mode, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=3.2\times 10^4`$ for the drumhead and 2nd butterfly modes. These results are in basic agreement with the samples coated at SMA/Virgo SMA  and indicate that the coating loss is associated with the materials and not the coating process or manufacturer.

### III.2 Thick Sample Results

#### III.2.1 Initial observations

For the thick fused silica samples (7.6 cm $`Ø\times 2.5`$ cm thick), we measured the $`Q`$ factors of 4 modes both before and after each sample was coated or annealed. The results of these measurements are shown in figure 4. The mode shapes, which were calculated using a finite element package ALGOR , are shown in figure 3.

We suspended the thick samples in a loop of silk thread. Each sample was suspended multiple times, with the suspension length varied each time, and the highest $`Q`$ factor for each mode was used in our analysis. Previous experiments Braginsky ; Logan ; Rowan  have shown that measured $`Q`$ factors may be too low if the resonant frequency of a test mass happens to coincide with a resonant frequency of the suspension wires. Using this technique we have shown that suspension losses can be reduced to a negligible level when measuring $`Q`$’s of the order of a few times $`10^7`$ Crooks .

Before discussing the quantitative analysis of the results, it is instructive to observe the trends in the data shown in figure 4. Firstly, it can be seen that the $`Q`$ factors for sample A, which was annealed, and for sample B, which had a 2-layer coating, were very similar, and that these $`Q`$ factors were considerably higher than the other samples which had thicker coatings. This difference indicates that the coating-substrate interface is not the dominant source of mechanical loss.

Secondly, samples C and D, which have the same total coating thickness, but 30 and 60 coating layers respectively, have very similar $`Q`$ factors. This result suggests that the individual multi-layer interfaces are not the dominant source of mechanical loss.

Finally, the coatings on samples C, E, and F each have 30 layers and the same total thickness, but vary the proportions of SiO2 and Ta2O5. The measured $`Q`$’s show that the loss increases with increasing proportions of Ta2O5 in the coating. These results suggest that the bulk coating materials are the dominant source of mechanical loss in the coatings, and that tantalum pentoxide has a higher mechanical loss than silica.

These observations are all consistent with the trends seen in the thinner samples discussed in section III.1.

It is important to note that the measured $`Q`$ factors for the samples are mode-dependent. This dependence will be discussed in the following section.

#### III.2.2 Quantitative analysis

Calculating the coating loss for the thicker samples requires a slightly different method than for the thin samples. For the thin samples, the loss in the substrate was negligible, so the coating loss could be calculated directly from the measured loss in the coated sample. For the thick samples, a much smaller fraction of the energy was stored in the coating. Thus the loss in the substrate must be considered when calculating the loss in the coating.

For each mode of a thick coated sample, we calculate the energy ratio $`E_{\mathrm{coating}}/E_{\mathrm{substrate}}`$. We then rewrite eqn. 1 as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{coated}}\varphi _{\mathrm{substrate}}\frac{E_{\mathrm{coating}}}{E_{\mathrm{substrate}}}\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}$$
(7)
To obtain $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ versus $`E_{\mathrm{coating}}/E_{\mathrm{substrate}}`$ for each mode. Figure 5 shows this plot for one sample with thirty alternating layers of SiO2 and Ta2O5. It can be seen that the data appears far from the expected straight line.

From Figure 4 it can be seen that there were significant changes in the $`Q`$ factors of modes of a sample which was annealed but not coated. The $`Q`$’s of some modes increased while others decreased. In our case, the mechanism for changes in $`Q`$ is not known but we postulate it may be due to some redistribution of stress in the samples, which may produce mode-dependent losses Numata . Thus while using the measured values for the $`Q`$ of the uncoated substrate seems invalid, replacing these values by the $`Q`$ factors of the modes of the annealed, but uncoated mass, should in principle now allow us to obtain a value for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}(f_0)`$. The results of this are shown in figure 6.

It can be seen that there is a significant improvement of the fit to the data using this analysis. Carrying out the same types of analyses on the data from the other coated samples gave very similar results.

#### III.2.3 Results

The loss factors obtained for each type of coating studied are shown in table 3.

The results shown in table 3 confirm our earlier observations indicating that the dominant source of mechanical loss is associated with the bulk coating materials, and also confirm that the tantalum pentoxide component of the coatings has a higher mechanical loss factor than the silica component. This last deduction can be treated more quantitatively.

As with the thin samples, we use eqn. 6 and the results for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}`$ from coating types C, E, and F, to calculate the loss for the silica and tantala layers. The results are:

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{silica}}=(0.5\pm 0.3)\times 10^4`$
$`\varphi _{\mathrm{tantala}}=(4.4\pm 0.2)\times 10^4`$
We also performed a consistancy check on the thick samples by measuring two samples that had coatings of type C applied by MLD MLD . The measured coating losses were $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=2.8\times 10^4`$ for sample 1, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{coating}}=3.8\times 10^4`$ for sample 2. Like the thin samples, the thick samples yielded similar results for the two coating manufacturers. In both cases the coatings from MLD MLD  showed slightly higher loss than the equivalent coatings produced by SMA/Virgo SMA .

## IV Conclusions

For advanced interferometric gravitational wave observatories to be able to reach realistic astronomical distances, low mechanical loss mirror coatings are necessary. Observatories currently in operation use a multi-layer dielectric coating of silica and tantala. We have measured the loss in this coating to be $`\varphi =2.7\times 10^4`$, which is in basic agreement with the results from our previous work Harry02 ; Crooks . Those references discuss how this coating loss may effect the sensitivity of Advanced LIGO. We have shown in this work that the loss in this coating is predominantly the bulk loss in the tantala layers. Work is underway to investigate other coating materials and processes that may give lower mechanical loss while retaining the high reflectivity, low scatter, and low optical loss required by these advanced detectors.

## V Addendum

The coating applied to the thick disk as reported in reference Harry02  is incorrect. The correct coating thickness of 4.66 $`\mu `$m results in a calculated coating $`\varphi `$ of $`5.2\times 10^4`$.


text:
# High efficiency of soft X-ray radiation reprocessing in supersoft X-ray sources due to multiple scattering

## 1 Introduction

The recent progress in X-ray observations provides us with a wealth of X-ray spectra for a continuously increasing number of objects. A special class of objects are the supersoft X-ray sources, X-ray binaries with a very soft spectrum (most photons have an energy below 0.5 keV) and a very high luminosity ($`10^{37}`$ to $`10^{38}`$ erg/s). These binaries are commonly understood as a white dwarf in a close orbit with a low-mass star where the mass flow towards the compact star forms an accretion disc. The very high accretion rate ($`10^7`$M/yr) causes steady state burning on the white dwarf surface. The high accretion rate also is responsible for a thickening of the accretion disc rim as found to a lower amount also for the discs in low mass X-ray binaries (Milgrom Milgrom (1978), Mason & Cordova MC (1982), White et al. WNP (1995)). A detailed analysis of the lightcurve of CAL 87 ( Schandl, Meyer-Hofmeister & Meyer SMM (1997)) had already shown that the high optical luminosity can only be explained by a severe thickening of the disc rim where the accretion stream impinges. This area is irradiated by the X-rays where it faces the white dwarf. A high reprocessing rate of X-rays to optical light is needed to produce a luminosity as high as observed. A recent detailed study of the soft X-ray radiation reprocessing in supersoft X-ray sources (Suleimanov, Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister SlMM (1999)) has shown that the efficiency is not high enough. We now here discuss a new model. We suggest that due to the high mass flow rate a “spray” exists, a vertically extended area around the impact of the accretion stream at the outer disc rim. This area is filled with gas blobs. In the presented paper we discuss the optical properties of gas blobs and show how the light is reprocessed in such a spray.

In Sect. 2 we discuss the qualitative picture of the soft X-ray reprocessing during multiple scattering between gas blobs. In Sect. 3 the situation simplified to the radiation transfer in a flat cloud slab is considered. In Sect. 4 we desribe the application of the presented model to CAL 87 based on the lightcurve simulation of Schandl et al. (SMM (1997)). A discussion and conclusions follow in Sect. 5 and Sect. 6.

## 2 Reprocessing of soft X-ray to optical radiation by multiple scattering between gas clouds

In previous work (Suleimanov, Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister SlMM (1999)) we showed that the reprocessing efficiency $`\eta `$ is very small (0.05 - 0.1) if an accretion disc is irradiated by a soft X-ray flux ($`E<`$ 1-2 keV). Due to the high opacity in this spectral band the soft X-rays can not penetrate deeply into the disc atmosphere. As a result the soft X-ray flux heats the upper atmospheric layers and is reradiated in the far UV spectral band. The temperature of deeper layers, where the optical disc radiation is formed, is increased only slightly. It is obvious that the same qualitative picture holds for an optically thick gas cloud with a temperature $`T_c10^4`$ K, irradiated by the soft X-ray flux. It means that the reprocessing efficiency $`A`$ due to a single reradiation from the cloud irradiated by the soft X-rays is small too. But the efficiency $`\eta `$ can be higher for a slab consisting of many separate gas clouds, irradiated by the soft X-rays.

We denote by $`A`$ the fraction of incoming soft X-ray/far UV flux that is reradiated in the optical spectral band due to reradiation at a single cloud. By $`\eta `$ we denote the fraction of incoming soft X-ray/far UV flux that is reradiated in the optical spectral band due to reradiation from an accretion disc or a cloud slab. We use the term ”soft X-ray” for the spectral band with photon energy 0.1-1 keV and ”far UV” for the spectral band with photon energy 0.015 - 0.1 keV.

The opacity of a plasma with $`T10^4`$ K is high in the far UV band. If an optically thick cloud is irradiated by a far UV flux this flux can not penetrate deeply into the cloud. The far UV flux heats the upper cloud layers and is reradiated in the same far UV spectral band. The temperature of deeper layers, where the cloud optical radiation is formed, is increased only slightly. Therefore, the reprocessing efficiency $`A`$ for the far UV flux to the optical band is expected to be small for reradiation at a single cloud. Thus reprocessing efficiencies in the soft X-ray and far UV band should be very similar, and thus below we will consider a common soft X-ray/far UV band.

In the stationary case all flux impacting on a cloud must be reradiated. As the electron scattering cross section in a cloud with $`T10^4`$ K is small compared to the absorption cross section we may assume that the incoming soft X-ray/far UV flux is fully absorbed, heats the upper cloud layers, and then is reradiated. We refer to this process as reflection. But the reradiated flux is not a black body radiation with a single temperature. The part reradiated in the far UV band has higher radiation temperature then the part reradiated in the optical band.

For a single reflection from a gas cloud, the main part, $`(1A)F_x`$, of the absorbed soft X-ray flux $`F_x`$ is reradiated in the far UV band, only a small part, $`AF_x`$, is reradiated in the optical band. As mentioned above $`A`$, the reprocessing efficiency for single reflection, is around 0.05-0.1. Therefore, a reflection from a cloud can be considered as a kind of scattering. But this is a not scattering of a photon in the sense of an elementary physical process. It is only sutable description of the process of flux reflection from one cloud, which makes it simpler to describe the radiation transfer through a slab of clouds. If reflected from a slab consisting of many individual clouds radiation can have many such ”scatterings” between clouds before it exits from the slab again, resulting in a reprocessing efficiency that is higher than $`A`$. In the next section we show that this efficiency $`\eta `$ can reach up to 0.5 (with $`A`$=0.1) in the most favourable case.

The optical light curve of the supersoft X-ray source CAL 87 was modelled by Schandl, Meyer-Hofmeister & Meyer (SMM (1997)) with the assumption of $`\eta =0.5`$. They showed that the outer parts of the accretion disc must be extended in z-direction. This extended outer rim is necessary to intercept a significant part of the hot white dwarf flux and to reprocess it into the optical band. In that work it was also shown that this rim can not be homogeneous and the suggestion was made that the rim consists of separate clouds, which can be a spray formed at the impact of the gas stream from the secondary star onto the disc. What we call “clouds” here are geometrically small cloudlets or gas blobs. The cloud radii should be much smaller than the disk radius in agreement with their formation on the scale of a two-stream-instability in the shear interaction. Thus, we suggest the following qualitative picture of the outer parts of the accretion disk in supersoft sources (see Fig. 1). Above the outer geometrically thin disk there is a slab of gas clouds embedded into a hot ($`T510^5`$ K) intercloud medium. This geometrically thick slab intercepts a significant part from the soft X-ray radiation of the central source. This radiation is scattered many times between clouds inside the slab and finally reflected from the slab. We discuss the physical parameters of the clouds and the intercloud medium in Sect. 4. In a single scattering a small fraction (0.05 -0.1) of the soft X-ray/far UV flux is reradiated in the optical band, but due to many scatterings before exit the final reprocessing efficiency increases by several times and can reach up to 0.5. This model can explain the high value of the soft X-ray reprocessing observed in some supersoft sources, such as CAL 83 and CAL 87.

## 3 Radiation transfer in the gas cloud slab

In this section we consider the radiation transfer in the cloud slab quantitatively. For simplicity we make the following approximations:

1) The cloud slab is plane, homogeneous, infinitely extended in the x-y plane and has a finite geometrical thickness $`L`$ in the z-direction (see Fig. 2). This means that the radiation transfer is in z-direction.

2) We consider radiation transfer in two spectral bands only. In band 1, that includes the soft X-ray and far UV bands, the slab is illuminated from the outwards side. Band 2 includes the optical (visual and soft UV) band.

3) We treat the reradiation of the incoming flux by one cloud as a scattering. For single scattering the major part ($`1A`$) of the flux in band 1 is reradiated in the same band 1. The smaller part ($`A`$) of the flux in band 1 is reradiated in band 2. Incoming radiation in band 2 is fully reradiated in the same band 2. We define the scattering coefficient on clouds as

$$\chi _c=\pi R_c^2N_c\mathrm{cm}^1,$$
(1)
where $`N_c`$ is the cloud number density. The corresponding optical depth increment is:

$$d\tau _c=\chi _cdz.$$
(2)
In this case the radiation transfer equation in the two bands can be written as:

$$\mu \frac{dI_{1,2}}{dz}=(\chi _c+\chi _e)I_{1,2}+\eta _{1,2}^c+\eta _{1,2}^e.$$
(3)
We take electron scattering in the intercloud medium into account, too, with the electron scattering coefficient $`\chi _e`$:

$$\chi _e=\sigma _TN_e\mathrm{cm}^1.$$
(4)
Here $`N_e`$ is the electron number density of the intercloud medium, $`\eta _{1,2}^e`$ and $`\eta _{1,2}^c`$ are the emissivities due to electron scattering and cloud scattering in the first and second spectral bands. One can rewrite Eq. (3) as follows:

$$\mu \frac{dI_{1,2}}{d\tau _c}=(1+\alpha )I_{1,2}S_{1,2}^cS_{1,2}^e,$$
(5)
where $`\alpha =\chi _e/\chi _c`$, and $`S_{1,2}^c`$, $`S_{1,2}^e`$ are the cloud scattering and electron scattering source functions in both spectral bands.

4) We take isotropic electron scattering, but we can not consider the cloud scattering as isotropic, since the clouds have a larger dimension than the light wavelength. Therefore, incoming flux is reflected mainly in the opposite direction, and the cloud scattering is described by a redistribution function that is unknown. We treat the radiation transfer in the two-stream approximation (Mihalas Mihalas (1978), Suleimanov et al. SlMM (1999)) for the directions $`\mu _{1,2}=\pm 1/\sqrt{3}`$, and introduce the anisotropy function $`\beta `$ to take unisotropic scattering into consideration. This function describes the fraction of the radiation reflected in opposite direction to the source function. The source functions can be rewritten in this case as:

$$S_1^{c,\pm }=(1A)(\beta I_1^{}+(1\beta )I_1^\pm )$$
(6)
$$S_2^{c,\pm }=A(\beta I_1^{}+(1\beta )I_1^\pm )+\beta I_2^{}+(1\beta )I_2^\pm $$
(7)
$$S_{1,2}^{e,\pm }=(I_{1,2}^\pm +I_{1,2}^{})/2$$
(8)
The value of $`\beta `$ ranges from 0.5 to 1. The cloud scattering is isotropic at $`\beta `$=0.5, and at $`\beta `$=1 the opposite directed radiation contributes to the source function.

In the framework of the above mentioned approximations the radiation field is described by 4 equations:

$$\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{dI_{1,2}^\pm }{d\tau }=(1+\alpha )I_{1,2}^\pm S_{1,2}^{c,\pm }\alpha S_{1,2}^{e,\pm }.$$
(9)
Here and below we do not write the index c at $`\tau `$. Introducing the mean intensity:

$$J_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}(I_{1,2}^++I_{1,2}^{}),$$
(10)
and the Eddington flux:

$$H_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}(I_{1,2}^+I_{1,2}^{}),$$
(11)
we rewrite Eq.(9) in the form:

$$\frac{dH_1}{d\tau }=AJ_1$$
(12)
$$\frac{dJ_1}{d\tau }=3(\alpha +A+2\beta (1A))H_1$$
(13)
$$\frac{dH_2}{d\tau }=AJ_1$$
(14)
$$\frac{dJ_2}{d\tau }=3((\alpha +2\beta )H_2+A(2\beta 1)H_1)$$
(15)
Solution of equations (12)-(15) gives:

$$J_1=C_1\mathrm{exp}(b\tau )+C_2\mathrm{exp}(b\tau )$$
(16)
$$H_1=\frac{d}{\sqrt{3}}(C_2\mathrm{exp}(b\tau )C_1\mathrm{exp}(b\tau ))$$
(17)
$$H_2=C_3H_1$$
(18)
$$J_2=C_4+3(\alpha +2\beta )\tau C_3J_1$$
(19)
where

$$b=(3A(\alpha +A+2\beta (1A)))^{1/2},$$

and

$$d=\left(\frac{A}{\alpha +A+2\beta (1A)}\right)^{1/2}$$

The constants $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$, $`C_4`$ are obtained from the upper boundary condition at $`\tau =0`$ and from the lower boundary condition at $`\tau =\tau _m`$. We consider two cases for the lower boundary condition. In the first case there is no medium and source of radiation under a slab. This case corresponds to a radiation transfer through a cloud along the accretion disc rim. In the second case there is a homogeneous medium under the slab. This medium reprocesses the radiation from the first to the second band with the same efficiency as a cloud. The second case corresponds to radiation transfer through a slab above an accretion disc at a fixed disc radius.

### 3.1 The cloud slab seen along the accretion disc

In this case there is no incoming radiation at the lower boundary from below in both spectral bands: $`I_1^+(\tau _m)=I_2^+(\tau _m)=0`$. At the upper boundary there is no incoming radiation in the second spectral band, $`I_2^{}(0)=0`$, but there is incoming radiation $`I_1^{}(0)=I_1^0`$ in the first spectral band. This means that at the upper slab boundary there is the external irradiating flux $`H_1^0=I_1^0/2\sqrt{3}`$. These boundary conditions are expressed as:

$$J_1(0)\sqrt{3}H_1(0)=I_1^0$$
(20)
$$J_2(0)\sqrt{3}H_2(0)=0$$
(21)
$$J_1(\tau _m)+\sqrt{3}H_1(\tau _m)=0$$
(22)
$$J_2(\tau _m)+\sqrt{3}H_2(\tau _m)=0$$
(23)
The constants obtained using these boundary conditions are:

$$C_1=\frac{I_1^0}{1+d}\left(1\frac{1}{1B}\right),$$
(24)
$$C_2=\frac{I_1^0}{1d}\frac{1}{1B},$$
(25)
$$C_3=\frac{I_1^0}{2\sqrt{3}+3(\alpha +2\beta )\tau _m},$$
(26)
$$C_4=I_1^0+\sqrt{3}C_3,$$
(27)
where

$$B=\mathrm{exp}(2b\tau _m)\left(\frac{1+d}{1d}\right)^2$$

We consider 4 functions for describing the radiation emitted from the slab. The first one is the reprocessing efficiency from first to second band:

$$\eta =\frac{2\sqrt{3}H_2(0)}{I_1^0}.$$
(28)
The second one is the albedo of the cloud slab in the 1-st spectral band:

$$\zeta =1+\frac{2\sqrt{3}H_1(0)}{I_1^0}.$$
(29)
The third and the fourth ones are the ratio of the flux coming out from the lower boundary in the second and in the first band, respectively, to the ingoing flux:

$$\eta _1=\frac{2\sqrt{3}H_2(\tau _m)}{I_1^0}.$$
(30)
$$\zeta _1=\frac{2\sqrt{3}H_1(\tau _m)}{I_1^0}.$$
(31)
It is possible to consider two limiting cases:

1) The cloud slab is absent ($`\tau _m=0`$). In this case there is no reflected flux in the second band, and the flux in the first band is equal to the incoming flux:

$$H_1(0)=\frac{I_1^0}{2\sqrt{3}}.$$

2) The semi-infinite cloud slab ($`\tau _m=\mathrm{}`$). In this case $`C_2=C_3=0`$, and the reprocessing efficiency is:

$$\eta =\frac{2d}{1+d}.$$
(32)
This is the maximum possible value at given $`A,\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$.

We now consider the dependence of $`\eta `$, $`\eta _1`$, $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta _1`$ on the slab optical depth $`\tau _m`$ and on the parameters $`A`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The dependence on $`\tau _m`$ at different values of $`A`$ is shown in Fig. 3 for values $`\alpha =0.1`$ and $`\beta =0.75`$. As expected at small $`\tau _m`$ both reflected and transmitted slab fluxes in the second band are small, and in first band nearly all incoming flux is transmitted through the slab ($`\zeta _11`$). At $`\tau _m1`$ photons on average are scattered once on clouds and, therefore, $`\eta A`$. The flux emitted in the second band from the backside of the slab is also maximal at $`\tau _m110`$. At the largest $`\tau _m`$ $`\eta `$ grows up to its maximum possible value (Eq. 32), and $`\zeta =1\eta `$. This means that the rest part of the flux is reflected in the first band. The fraction $`\zeta _1`$ of the transmitted radiation through the slab in the first band $`\zeta _1`$ decreases exponentially with $`\tau _m`$ increasing, and $`\eta _1`$ decreases when $`\tau _m`$ increases. It is obvious that $`H_1(\tau _m)0`$ at large $`\tau _m`$ and therefore $`H_2(\tau _m)C_3(\tau _m)`$. This gives:

$$\eta _1=(1+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}(\alpha +2\beta )\tau _m)^1.$$
(33)
Electron scattering decreases the reprocessing efficiency (see Fig. 4) ($`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$ decrease when $`\alpha `$ increases). The electron scattering leads to reflection of the radiation without thermalization and if $`\chi _e`$ is larger than $`\chi _c`$ most of the irradiating flux is reflected back by intercloud electrons without significant scattering between clouds. This leads to decreasing $`\eta `$ and $`\eta _1`$.

The functions $`\eta `$, $`\eta _1`$, $`\zeta `$ and $`\zeta _1`$ depend only slightly on the coefficient of anisotropy $`\beta `$ (Fig. 5). It is seen that in the case of isotropic scattering on the clouds ($`\beta =0.5`$) the reprocessing efficiency is higher than in the case of unisotropic scattering ($`\beta =1`$). In unisotropic scattering the radiation is reflected from clouds only backwards and penetrates less deeply into the cloudy slab and therefore undergos a smaller number of scatterings on clouds before escaping.

### 3.2 The cloud slab seen above the accretion disc

The reprocessing efficiency of the accretion disc is the same as for a cloud. In this case the lower boundary conditions are expressed:

$$d_1^2J_1(\tau _m)+\sqrt{3}H_1(\tau _m)=0,$$
(34)
$$H_2(\tau _m)+H_1(\tau _m)=0,$$
(35)
where

$$d_1=(A/(2A))^{1/2}.$$
(36)
Equation (35) leads to $`C_3`$=0, therefore $`C_4=I_1^0`$.

The upper boundary conditions are the same as in the case considered before.

The constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are:

$$C_1=\frac{I_1^0}{1+d}\left(1+\frac{1d}{1+d}\frac{1}{B_1}\right)$$
(37)
$$C_2=\frac{I_1^0}{1+d}\frac{1}{B_1}$$
(38)
where

$$B_1=\frac{1d}{1+d}\mathrm{exp}(2b\tau _m)\left(\frac{d_1^2+d}{d_1^2d}\right).$$
(39)
It is obvious that $`\eta A`$ if a cloud slab is absent ($`\tau _m=0`$) and $`\eta `$ grows up to the value given by Eq. (32) if $`\tau _m`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. One notes that $`\eta `$ in the second case is greater than in the first case at all $`\tau _m`$ (Fig. 6). Radiation does not escape from the slab lower boundary, but returns to the slab due to reflection from the accretion disc. As a result the radiation emitted from the cloud slab has a larger number of scatterings between clouds before escaping.

## 4 Physical parameters of the clouds and the intercloud medium for accretion discs in SSS

There are several costraints on the clouds and the intercloud medium. In the following we describe how the physical parameters are connected to the properties of the matter in the spray, the disc, to the spray geometry, the accretion rate and the radiation from the white dwarf.

(1) The mass flow rate in the spray has to be less than or equal to that coming from the secondary star. Here the cross section of the spray enters and the Kepler velocity. The modeling of Schandl et al. (1997) for CAL 87 gives an example.

(2) For our suggestion of multiple scattering it is necessary that scattering at clouds occurs more often than scattering in the intercloud medium. This is a constraint on filling factor and cloud size for efficient reprocessing.

(3) The temperature difference between the inner irradiated side and the cooler outer side of the spray allows to estimate the optical depth of the cloud slab $`\tau _m`$.

(4) From the value of $`\tau _m`$ the scattering coefficient on the clouds $`\chi _c=\tau _mL`$ ($`L`$ slab thickness) follows and that from the cloud radius $`R_c=\frac{3}{4}f/\chi _c`$ with the filling factor $`f`$ of clouds in the spray. Assuming a value for $`f`$ the density $`\rho _c`$ in the cloud follows from the total amount of gas flowing through the spray.

(5) From a given cloud temperature and $`\rho _c`$ the optical depth in the cloud $`\tau _c`$ follows. The value for $`\tau _c`$ should be large, $`>1`$, becomes large if the opacity $`\kappa _c`$ is large enough. This is a constraint for $`\rho _c`$. This can be reached more easily for a small filling factor.

(6) An important constraint is that the clouds remain confined in the intercloud medium. The pressure in the clouds is related to the values mentioned before in statement (4). For a given temperature ($`510^5`$ K) in the intercloud medium pressure equilibrium requires a certain density. The resultant electron scattering coefficient $`\chi _e`$ should then be smaller than $`\chi _c`$ (statement (2)).

To study the physical parameters in the case of CAL 87 we took the values for white dwarf mass, accretion rate, luminosity and disc size from the light curve modeling of Schandl et al. (1997). We used a slab thickness of $`210^{10}`$ cm. For the temperature at the non-irradiated side of the spray we took $`20000`$ K. With these values we find a filling factor of about $`\frac{1}{10}`$ and the listed constraints are fulfilled.

## 5 Discussion

In the first paper (Suleimanov et al. SlMM (1999)) we have shown that the reprocessing efficiency of the soft X-ray to the optical band due to irradiation is low, $`A`$=0.05 - 0.1 for an accretion disc or a star surface.

The optical depth of the cloud slab in the supersoft X-ray source CAL 87 is large, documented by the small fraction of flux leaving the back side of the spray compared to the irradiated flux at the illuminated side. This means that the reprocessing efficiency in multiple scattering of soft X-ray and far UV flux between clouds can be close to the maximum possible value given by Eq. (32). In our example the electron scattering in the intercloud medium is small in comparison with the scattering on the clouds. Therefore, the reprocessing efficiency $`\eta `$ can reach 0.3–0.5. This is sufficient to explain the large observed optical and UV fluxes in the classical supersoft X-ray sources CAL 83 and CAL 87 (Popham & DiStefano PDS (1996)).

It is obvious that the model considered here is very simple, but it reflects the main physical property of radiation transfer between clouds above an accretion disc in SSS. The model suggested here can be further developed by considering the radiation transfer in the cloud slab using numerical methods that allow to leave the two-stream approximation and to consider a more realistic redistribution function for scattering on clouds. Moreover, the height of the cloud slab can be comparable with the radial thickness, therefore and one may consider the two dimensional radiation transfer problem. Cloud properties can depend on the location in the slab, particularly, the cloud reprocessing efficiency $`A`$ in the center of the slab can be different from the efficiency of a cloud near the slab boundary. One may consider this point, too.

## 6 Conclusions

We suggest that above the outer accretion disc in supersoft X-ray sources there is a spray of geometrically small clouds. In this layer cool clouds ($`T_c`$ around 20000 K) are embedded in a hot intercloud medium ($`T_e510^5`$ K). This rim structure is irradiated by the soft X-ray/far UV flux of a central hot white dwarf ($`T_{eff}510^5`$ K). We show that in multiple scattering between the clouds the reprocessing efficiency of soft X-ray to optical flux can increase significantly in comparison with the reprocessing efficiency in simple scattering on a cloud.

In the framework of a simple analytical model we obtain a solution of the radiation transfer problem in a plane slab of clouds irradiated by a soft X-ray flux. We treat the reradiation of the flux impinging on a cloud as a scattering. In single scattering a fraction $`A`$ ($`A0.050.1`$) of soft X-ray or far UV flux is reprocessed to the optical/soft UV flux and the rest part ($`1A`$) is reflected in the far UV spectral band. The radiation in optical/soft UV band is scattered in the same band. The radiation reflected from the slab has been scattered many times between clouds before escaping, and as a result the fraction of the optical/soft UV radiation in the reflected flux reaches 0.3-0.5. This explains the observed large optical and UV fluxes in some SSS by reradiation of the white dwarf soft X-ray radiation. This is the main conclusion of our work. The result establishes the spray as an important element in the physics of SSS.

###### Acknowledgements.

VS has been supported by the Russian Basic Researches Fund (grant 02-02-17174).