text:
# Summary of Working Group 2

## 1 Introduction

The way people are thinking about neutrino oscillations and how a neutrino factory fits into a program of measurements has changed dramatically between previous NuFact workshops and this one. Although we still consider a neutrino factory the ultimate facility to do precision oscillation measurements, we are becoming more aware of what one can learn with conventional neutrino beams. Understanding how much of the possible parameter space one can explore with conventional beams, and how these experiments might complement neutrino factory measurements has kept many phenomenologists busy this past year. The oscillation working group also has included for the first time discussions on different proposals for these super conventional neutrino beams, as well as a new idea for making a pure $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beam, which can be done by accelerating radioactive ions which undergo beta decay. With these new techniques for measurements, new issues become relevant: cross sections, beam systematics, and backgrounds, the three things that were so straightforward to tackle in the case of neutrino factory experiments.

While the experimental picture is changing, so too is the theoretical motivation for studying neutrino oscillations. With the concept of extra dimensions becoming more fleshed out in the past year, neutrinos have surfaced as an example of particles which have significant activity outside the brane we live on. Furthermore, given that the SNO Experiment has confirmed solar oscillations, and in particular, confirmed that the mixing angle describing solar neutrino oscillations is large, the prospect of seeing leptonic CP violation in the laboratory is still alive. The see-saw mechanism remains an attractive candidate for accounting for the smallness of neutrino mass and can easily accommodate the observed large solar angle. Furthermore the see-saw mechanism allows the possibility that baryon asymmetry is generated in the early universe, but only if CP is violated in the lepton sector. In the past year there has been much theoretical work trying to make the link between the CP violation required by baryon asymmetry and that potentially observable in low energy neutrino experiments.

In this summary we try to give an overview of what the issues are in both understanding the origin of neutrino oscillations, how to go from experimental measurements to oscillation parameters, and finally how to make the experimental measurements themselves.

## 2 Theory

Perhaps the zeroth order question is whether we are actually seeing atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations, or some other non-standard effect? Valle  showed that while the case for atmospheric oscillations looks convincing, there are alternatives to solar oscillations which fit the data well, such as spin flavor precession or flavor changing neutrino interactions. However the magnetic moments and fields, or flavor changing couplings do not appear very natural, and an oscillation signal from KamLAND would rule out such interpretations.

Assuming we are seeing oscillations, and hence neutrino mass, then, ignoring LSND for the moment (discussed later), the atmospheric and solar data imply two possible patterns of neutrino mass, distinguished by the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, together with two large mixing angles and one small mixing angle (also discussed later). From a theoretical point of view the challenge is to account for such a neutrino spectrum. The first point to make is that neutrino masses are zero in the Standard Model, so neutrino oscillations are the first solid evidence for new physics beyond the Standard Model. Three possible ways to extend the Standard Model in order to account for the neutrino mass spectrum above were discussed in this working group, namely the see-saw mechanism, extra dimensions, and R-parity violating supersymmetry.

In his plenary talk Ross  reviewed the see-saw mechanism in which super-heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos are introduced into the Standard Model, which induce light effective left-handed Majorana neutrino masses according to the formula $`m_\nu m_f^2/M`$ where $`m_f`$ represents a typical quark or charged lepton mass and $`M`$ is the heavy right-handed neutrino mass scale. He showed that if one of the right-handed neutrinos plays the dominant role in the see-saw mechanism then a mass hierarchy and large mixing angles may naturally emerge.

Blazek  applied the see-saw mechanism to GUT models such as $`SO(10)`$ where three families of right-handed neutrinos with Majorana masses not far below the GUT scale are predicted. GUT models require supersymmetry (SUSY) in order to allow the gauge couplings to meet, and also to stabilize the hierarchy. One of the consequences of having a see-saw mechanism with SUSY is lepton flavor violation (LFV) which was discussed extensively in this working group. Blazek  showed that sizable branching ratios for $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are expected. Shimizu  confirmed this and presented results for $`\mu e\gamma `$ which also showed large branching ratios. Shimoyama  showed that in a simplified model where right-handed neutrinos have universal masses the standard SUSY model implies branching ratios for $`\mu e\gamma `$ which exceed the experimental limit. Finally Koike  studied the LFV process $`\mu +N_Z^Ae+N_Z^A`$ and concluded that $`Z3060`$ represents the optimal range for experimental searches. He also showed how it may be possible to distinguish models of new physics by measurements on several different kinds of nuclei.

The see-saw mechanism also opens up the possibility of generating the baryon asymmetry of the universe via leptogenesis. The idea due to Fukugita and Yanagida  is that in the early universe the super-heavy lepton number violating Majorana right-handed neutrinos would have been produced, and, if CP is violated, could then decay out of equilibrium giving a lepton asymmetry which is subsequently converted into baryon asymmetry via electroweak sphalerons. The possible link between the CP violating phases necessary for leptogenesis and the CP violating phases measurable by low energy neutrino physics was also explored in this working group. Working in a simple framework of two right-handed neutrinos, Morozumi  discussed the possible correlation between leptogenesis and low energy phases. Ibarra  discussed the case of three right-handed neutrinos, and showed that although in general there is no direct link, the low energy observable phases may contribute to leptogenesis over much of the parameter space.

Neutrino masses in the framework of extra dimensions were considered by Shafi , who specialized to the case of a 5D standard model with warped geometry. The basic idea is that the Standard Model fermions reside in the 5D bulk, and the quark and lepton mass hierarchies can be interpreted in a geometrical way, with the higgs field localized at the TeV brane, and the fermion masses being in direct proportion to the overlap of their wavefunctions with the higgs field. In such a set-up the see-saw mechanism cannot be implemented because of the warped geometry, however the desired Majorana masses may arise from non-renormalizable operators, and the masses again depend on the position of the left-handed leptons in the bulk.

Neutrino masses in R-parity violating (RPV) SUSY were discussed by Valle . In the simplest bilinear RPV scheme one adds an explicit mass term coupling lepton doublets to a Higgsino doublet. The left-handed neutrinos are then mixed in the neutralino mass matrix, resulting in a single neutrino Majorana mass term. The other neutrino masses and mixings are generated by loop corrections, depending on the RPV SUSY parameters. This results in a testable relation between neutrino masses and RPV SUSY physics at colliders.

## 3 Phenomenology

### 3.1 Three flavor mixing

The observation of atmospheric neutrinos (See, e.g., Ref.) and solar neutrinos (See, e.g., Ref.) implies that not only are neutrinos massive, but that the mass eigenstates ($`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$) with mass ($`m_1,m_2,m_3`$) are not identical to the flavor eigenstates ($`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$). The unitary matrix which translates from the mass to the flavor basis is usually parameterized by three mixing angles ($`\theta _{12},\theta _{23},\theta _{13}`$), and a CP violating phase ($`\delta `$), and is often referred to as the MNSP  matrix, after Maki, Nakagawa, Sakata, and Pontecorvo. The atmospheric data largely constrain ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$, $`\theta _{23}`$) and the solar data constrain ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, $`\theta _{12}`$) in this three flavor framework of neutrino oscillations, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$. The constraint from the CHOOZ result  implies $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1`$. So in vacuum the MNSP matrix looks roughly like

$`U_{MNSP}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{}& s_{}& ϵ\\ s_{}/\sqrt{2}& c_{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{}/\sqrt{2}& c_{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (4)
where we have used $`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$ and $`|ϵ|1`$, and $`c_{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}`$, and $`s_{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$.

Choubey  performed model independent and model dependent analyses of solar neutrino data including the neutral current event rate from SNO . She concluded that the Large Mixing Angle solution gives the best fit ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}0.8`$) and the LOW solution is allowed only at the $`3\sigma `$ level. Valle  also gave results on his solar neutrino analyses and his results agree with those in . While whether the LMA solution is the correct one or not will be soon confirmed by the KamLAND experiment, it should be noticed that the goodness of fit (GOF) for each of the other solar solutions (LOW, Quasi Vacuum Oscillation, Small Mixing Angle solutions) is still acceptable. Namely, according to , we have $`\chi ^2`$(LMA)=40.57, $`\chi ^2`$(LOW)=50.62, $`\chi ^2`$(QVO)=56.11, and $`\chi ^2`$(SMA)=70.97 for 45 degrees of freedom. This implies that LMA is 65.99% (0.44$`\sigma `$CL) likely, LOW is 26.14% (1.12$`\sigma `$CL) likely, QVO is 12.39% (1.54$`\sigma `$CL) likely, and SMA is 0.81% (2.65$`\sigma `$CL) likely. As far as GOF is concerned, none of these solutions is excluded from a conservative point of view.111The criterion in the 1996 version of Particle Data Book (sect. 28.5 in ) is that 4$`\sigma `$ or 5$`\sigma `$ is necessary to exclude a hypothesis. They are disfavored when they are compared with the LMA solution, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = $`\chi ^2(QVO)\chi ^2`$(LMA) = 15.54 (3.53 $`\sigma `$CL for d.o.f. = 2), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ = $`\chi ^2(SMA)\chi ^2`$(LMA) = 30.40 (5.16 $`\sigma `$CL for d.o.f. = 2). On the other hand,  argues that GOF is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for a model to survive.  claims that the SMA solution is rejected because it creates strong tension between not only total rate versus spectrum data, but also between SNO data versus all the others, while the LOW and QVO solutions are still acceptable because the tension is much smaller for them than that for SMA.

With the mass hierarchy $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ there are two possible mass patterns, depending on whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is positive (normal hierarchy: $`m_1^2,m_2^2m_3^2`$) or negative (inverse hierarchy: $`m_3^2m_1^2,m_2^2`$). The quantities one has to determine are $`\theta _{13}`$, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and the CP phase $`\delta `$. To discuss CP violation in long baseline experiments, it is helpful to have the exact analytical expressions for the oscillation probabilities in matter. Kimura  gave the expressions in a nice way. The point of his work is that the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{X}_j^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{U}_{\alpha j}\stackrel{~}{U}_{\beta j}^{}`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau `$ are the flavor indices, $`j`$=1,2,3 is the index of the mass eigen states, and no sum on $`j`$ is implied) in matter with constant density can be expressed linearly in the quantity $`X_j^{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}^{}`$ in vacuum with some coefficients which are functions of the eigenvalues $`\stackrel{~}{E}_j`$ of the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`U`$diag($`E_1,E_2,E_3`$)$`U^1`$+diag($`\sqrt{2}G_FN_e`$,0,0), where $`E_j\sqrt{p^2+m_j^2}`$. His results are more useful than previous works (e.g., ) since the expression does not use a particular parametrization for $`U_{\alpha j}`$ and it is relatively easy to see the condition in which enhancement of the oscillation probability occurs. Once we know the form for $`\stackrel{~}{X}_j^{\alpha \beta }`$, we can write down the the oscillation probability as

$`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{~}{X}_j^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{X}_k^{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_{jk}L}{2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{~}{X}_j^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{X}_k^{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_{jk}L\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_{jk}\stackrel{~}{E}_j\stackrel{~}{E}_k`$.

### 3.2 Parameter degeneracy

Naively one might assume that with two general unknowns, ($`\theta _{13},\delta `$), and one discrete unknown, (the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$), and two measurements of the oscillation probability at a neutrino factory (i.e. $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ ) it would be straightforward to extract the mixing parameters. However, since the work , it has been realized that there is in general more than one solution for the set of oscillation parameters, even if we know both $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$ and $`P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e)`$. Reference  shows that there are intrinsically two sets of solutions ($`\theta _{13}`$, $`\delta `$) and ($`\theta _{13}^{}`$, $`\delta ^{}`$). Reference  describes the degeneracy under $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, and Reference  found the ambiguity under $`\theta _{23}\pi /2\theta _{23}`$. Thus there is an eight-fold degeneracy , and the resolution of this degeneracy was one of the main subjects at Nufact’02. The degeneracy in $`\theta _{23}\pi /2\theta _{23}`$ is difficult to resolve as long as we look at only channels $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$, since the first two create the degeneracy while the third gives the information only on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$. As was pointed out in , the best way is probably to look at the channel $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ whose oscillation probability in vacuum is given by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/4E\right)`$, which is compared with $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/4E\right)`$.

To determine $`\theta _{13}`$, Minakata  proposed to tune the neutrino energy at the oscillation maximum ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/4E=\pi /2`$) so that the ellipse in the $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$$`P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e)`$ plane that results from letting $`\delta `$ run from 0 to $`2\pi `$ collapses to a line.222The idea to tune the neutrino energy at the oscillation maximum was given earlier in . Then the ambiguity in $`\theta _{13}`$ is reduced.

Whisnant  discussed systematically whether or not a set of measurements in neutrino oscillation appearance experiments can completely resolve the ambiguities. He showed that experiments with neutrinos and antineutrinos at two different energies, which give the four independent measurements, can in principle resolve all of the parameter degeneracies if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0.002`$.

Mena  showed that by combining a superbeam and a neutrino factory, it is possible to reduce the intrinsic, sign($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$) and $`\theta _{23}`$ degeneracies. She pointed out that the short neutrino factory baseline (e.g. $`L=732`$ km) becomes an interesting distance to combine with a superbeam experiment for values of $`\theta _{13}`$ near its present limit. For smaller $`\theta _{13}`$, an intermediate neutrino factory baseline of $`O`$(3000km) is still required.

Meloni  showed how the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ (“golden”) and $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ (“silver”) transitions observed at an OPERA-like 2 Kton lead-emulsion detector at $`L=732`$ Km, in combination with the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions observed at a 40 Kton magnetized iron detector with a baseline of $`L=3000`$ Km, strongly reduce the intrinsic $`(\theta _{13},\delta )`$ ambiguity. He also showed how a moderate increase in the OPERA-like detector mass (4 Kton instead of 2 Kton) completely eliminates the degenerate regions even for small values of $`\theta _{13}`$.

Huber  compared the physics potential of planned superbeams with the one of neutrino factories. He showed that JHF–SuperK (0.75MW, 110Kt$``$yr), JHF–HyperK (4MW, 8Mt$``$yr) and NuFact–I (0.75MW, 50Kt$``$yr), NuFact–II (4MW, 400Kt$``$yr) can explore $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ down to $`210^2`$, $`10^3`$, $`510^4`$, respectively, while only JHF–HyperK and NuFact–II can probe the CP phase for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>`$several$`\times 10^3`$, $`10^4`$, respectively.

A previous study showed that two simultaneous baselines for a neutrino factory could be used to resolve degeneracies  where something like a combination of 3000km plus either 700km or 7000km baselines might be optimal. For one neutrino factory to access two baselines, a triangular or bow-tie ring would be necessary. Depending on what the first generation of neutrino superbeams measures, the argument for making two simultaneous baselines may be less compelling.

### 3.3 Matter effect

In very long baseline experiments, it is important to estimate the magnitude of the matter effect. Unlike in shorter or medium long baseline experiments, in which neutrinos go through only the crust or the upper mantle of the Earth, a constant density approximation is not good in very long baseline experiments.

By using the method of a Fourier series expansion of the matter profile, Ota  showed that neglecting the matter profile effect leads to an extra uncertainty ($``$ 5%) on the average density for 5,000km $`<`$$``$ $`L`$ $`<`$$``$ 10,000km. He proposed to treat the first coefficient in the Fourier series as a fitting parameter.

Winter  compared three different methods (single perturbation, random fluctuations, and the measured mean) to evaluate uncertainties in the Earth’s matter density profile. He gave advantages and disadvantages for each method and he concluded that matter density uncertainties probably would not be the bottleneck of the statistical analysis of a planned experiment, while he claimed that somewhat more effort should be spent on improving the results from geophysics.

### 3.4 Exotic scenarios

Although the LSND result  is not yet confirmed, we can still try to explain the LSND result in at least three different ways. The first way is to assume a fourth mass eigenstate, which implies one sterile neutrino (with a (2+2) or (3+1) mass scheme, depending on the mass pattern). The LSND signature is then simply the result of three independent mass squared differences. Valle  gave the results of his recent analyses on the solar and atmospheric neutrino data for the (2+2)–scheme, and it is strongly disfavored. The (3+1)–scheme is allowed only at 99%CL. A second possibility is to give up CPT invariance  and to take full advantage of the difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos. This possibility would be excluded if KamLAND observes the deficit. The third idea  is to assume a lepton number violating interaction $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$). Interestingly, this scenario predicts that the MiniBooNE experiment will see no signal. There are other exotic scenarios which can be tested at neutrino factories.

Wong  considered the situation where the equivalence principle is violated in neutrino oscillations with three flavors. The $`3\times 3`$ matrix which describes the propagation of neutrinos is

$`H=U\text{diag}(E_1,E_2,E_3)U^1+\text{diag}(\sqrt{2}G_FN_e,0,0)+2E|\varphi |U_G\text{diag}(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)U_G^1,`$
where $`\gamma _j`$ is the relative gravitational coupling constants, Violation of the Equivalence Principle (VEP) implies $`\gamma _j1`$, $`U_G`$ stands for the mixing matrix between the gravitational and flavor eigenstates, and $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential. Assuming $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ||\gamma _3\gamma _2||\gamma _2\gamma _1|`$ for simplicity, she gets the following ratio of T violation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{P}_T`$ with VEP to that $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_T`$ without VEP

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{P}_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }P_T}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{4E^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{}}}\left|\varphi \right|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma \mathrm{sin}2\phi ,`$
where $`\phi `$ is the mixing angle between the first and the third eigenstates in $`U_G`$ and other mixings in $`U_G`$ are assumed to be zero for simplicity. She showed that T violation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{P}_T`$ with VEP is deviated from $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_T`$ without VEP if the violation $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ||\varphi |`$ is large and therefore may be measured in long baseline experiments.

Sato  discussed the measurement of new physics which is described by an interaction such as $`g(\overline{e}\gamma __\lambda \mu )(\overline{\nu }_\mu \gamma ^_\lambda \nu _\beta )`$ ($`\beta e`$) in long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. Through the neutrino oscillation, the probability to detect the new physics effects such as flavor violation is enhanced by the interference with the weak interaction. Assuming a neutrino factory and an upgraded conventional beam, he examined the possibility to observe new physics numerically and pointed out that it is possible to search for new interactions using some channels, for example $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$, in these experiments. He also showed that there is a chance to observe a flavor-changing effect in $`\tau `$ appearance experiments such as ICARUS and OPERA.

Campanelli  discussed a new flavor changing interaction which gives the contribution $`(ϵ_{\alpha \beta })`$ ($`\alpha \beta =e,\mu ,\tau `$) to the $`3\times 3`$ matrix in the flavor basis. He showed that the new physics effect becomes important in the channels $`\nu _e\nu _\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\mu ,\tau `$) at sufficiently high neutrino energies, since the contribution from the conventional physics is suppressed by $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`1/E_\nu `$. Therefore it may be possible to observe the new physics effect particularly by looking at the energy spectrum which would be different in the presence of new physics.

## 4 Oscilation Measurements

It is clear from the discussion above that to measure the oscillation parameters and to probe exotic scenarios, we will need more than one measurement of oscillations to understand phenomena visible at the atmospheric $`\delta _m^2`$. Furthermore, there is much than can be learned at high intensity, conventional (that is, meson decay) beams. If a signal is seen in a conventional beam, that information may still be an important constraint even in the advent of a neutrino factorybecause of the different energies of the beams. The challenge with doing any of the measurements described above in conventional neutrino beams is that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition probability is limited by the CHOOZ non-observation of $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance to be small, less than $`5\%`$ in the absence of enhancement from CP violation or matter effects. Intrinsic $`\nu _e`$ backgrounds in conventional beams at the per cent level, due primarily to the decay chain $`\pi ^+\nu _\mu \mu ^+,\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, and significant background processes present if neutrino energies are above a few hundred MeV from neutral current events mimicking electron signals will make these measurements difficult.

For a given detector mass, one gets the best sensitivity for seeing a non-zero value of the muon to electron neutrino transition probability by placing an experiment near or slightly below the first oscillation maximum ($`1.27\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/E\pi /2`$). In order to see evidence for matter effects, and thereby deduce the mass hierarchy, however, one needs to go to baselines on the order of 1000km, and therefore use neutrino energies well above 1GeV. Finally, to look for CP violation, one might still run at the first oscillation peak, as described by Minakata, but it has also been argued that one should consider running an experiment at the second or third oscillation maximum , since the CP-violating contribution to the transition grows with $`L/E`$.

To get around the problem of backgrounds, several different strategies have been proposed. For example, the JHF to SuperK, the NUMI Off-axis, and the CNGT proposals all take advantage of the two-body decay kinematics of the pion, and put the far detector slightly off the main axis of the neutrino beamline . This trick, first suggested in BNL proposal E889 , allows one to maximize the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux in a very narrow energy region, reduces the flux at higher neutrino energies, and does not alter the flux from three-body decays, which are the source of intrinsic $`\nu _e`$’s in the beam. This results in an improved signal to background ratio at the peak beam energy since the background from high $`E_\nu `$ neutral current interactions that fake electron charged current events at this peak energy is reduced. However, since the $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum is significantly narrower than the shape of the appearance probability, one suffers from statistics. This must be mitigated by the use of massive detectors and very high proton beam power.

Another way to reduce the effect of backgrounds is to consider a distance of thousands of kilometers where the matter effects will significantly amplify either the neutrino or the antineutrino probability, so that even for a small value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ a large probability would be expected. This is the strategy of the Brookhaven to NUSL proposal, as described by S.Kahn . However, to go such large distances, even with a wide band beam, requires a “megaton class” detector. By combining a large distance and a broad band neutrino energy spectrum, this proposal can see not only the first but the second oscillation maximum, and as such can have more constraints on the oscillation parameters.

A third way to reduce the backgrounds inherent in a conventional beam is to go to neutrino energies of a few hundred MeV and to construct only a short decay tunnel so that few muons decay to produce $`\nu _e`$’s, as described by M.Mezzetto. The intrinsic $`\nu _e`$ contamination of the proposed CERN SPL beam is at the parts per mil level, and at this neutrino energy the few neutral pions that do get produced are easy to distinguish from electrons since there is a large angle between the two decay photons. However in the few hundred MeV energy range, the cross-section varies quadratically with energy, suppressing the rate, so again a megaton-class detector must be used.

Finally, a novel technique for creating a beam with extremely low backgrounds is to accelerate a beam of radioactive ions in a long storage ring, and let them decay to electron neutrinos. The intrinsic backgrounds here are just as low as that of a neutrino factory, and in fact the beam is really only $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ depending on the ion in the ring, with contaminations from any other flavor at less than the $`10^4`$ level. The resulting neutrino beam would be at a very low neutrino energy, and a water Qerenkov 333Here we use the correct Cyrillic spelling and not the often seen used ethnically inaccurate version with the Čech accent detector located in the Frejus tunnel could be used for both this “beta beam” concept and the CERN SPL neutrino beam. This concept was presented in the plenary session by P. Zucchelli and in a parallel session by M. Mezzetto.

Table 1 gives a summary of the different neutrino experiments that are being considered worldwide, and the different strategies being adopted. The experiments listed below are at very different stages of completion, as well: the JHF to SuperKamiokande uses an existing $`50`$ kTon detector, but will require a new beamline to be built at the Japanese Hadron Facility. The beamline is being designed not only to handle both a first stage experiment with a 1MW proton source, but also an upgraded stage with a 4MW proton source, and a megaton-class water Qerenkov detector . The NUMI Off-axis experiment would use the (almost) existing NUMI beamline, but a new $`30`$ kTon detector would need to be built somewhere in northern Minnesota or perhaps even in Canada . The CNGT project would require instrumenting a large body of water, perhaps in the gulf of Taranto for a detector, and the CNGS beamline would have to be tuned at a lower energy which would preclude measuring $`\tau `$ appearance  at Gran Sasso. Finally, the other programs (CERN SPL and the BNL proposal) require both new beamlines and new detectors .

### 4.1 Far Detector Strategies

For most of the proposals listed in table 1, the detector of choice is a water Qerenkov device–either the SuperKamiokande detector, or a new larger version, which would also presumably be instrumented well enough to search for proton decay and supernovae neutrinos. At energies at or below $`1`$ GeV, the SuperKamiokande detector is able to keep detector misidentification at a level comparable to or below the intrinsic electron neutrino backgrounds in the JHF off-axis beamline.

For a neutrino factory, the energies are $`10`$s of GeV, and because charge identification is required, there is an appropriate and proven candidate detector technology, a steel-scintillator detector like the one being built for the MINOS experiment . For the $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ measurements that were described by Sato and Meloni, an OPERA-like detector, even one that was twice the mass of the current design, could provide very interesting measurements.

A detector technology which in principle could work for any of the conventional beamlines, is a liquid argon TPC, such as that being built by the ICARUS collaboration. Its very precise imaging capabilities would mean very good background rejection, while maintaining high efficiency, as described by D. Cline. Because the backgrounds from neutral current events can be eliminated, and the signal efficiency remains high, the reach per kton of a liquid argon detector can be as much as 3 times that of other technologies. Therefore, one would require in principle a much smaller detector mass than those listed in the table above. Although using the 600 Ton module size of ICARUS would be prohibitively expensive even for a 6kton fiducial mass, K. McDonald showed that for large enough single vessels, and large enough wire plane separation, this may become a very economical technology. Certainly the technology to make extremely large (order 100kton) cryogenic vessels is well-understood thanks to the natural gas companies, and the biggest challenge will likely be elsewhere.

For the NUMI Off Axis beamline, another detector technology being considered is fine-grained calorimetry, as described in a talk by A. Para. Fine grained calorimeters have a long history in the field of neutrino physics, and are well-understood and well-simulated. By making a low-Z calorimeter which was segmented every third of a radiation length, one could build a detector with reasonably high efficiencies, which would be able to reduce the neutral current background in the NUMI Off-Axis beamline to below that of the intrinsic $`\nu _e`$ contamination, which is itself about $`0.4\%`$ under the peak energy. The challenge here will be to design a device that is economical to construct and realizes these large background reductions.

### 4.2 Measurement Issues in Few GeV Beams

As can be seen by the large number of proposals being considered, it is clear that one or more “neutrino superbeams” are likely to provide measurements before the advent of a neutrino factory. What’s more, these neutrino superbeams are likely to be between a few hundred MeV region, such as the CERN SPL proposal, to the few (up to 6?) GeV region as in the BNL proposal. The experimental challenges associated with measurements with these beamlines are extremely different from those associated with those from a neutrino factory.

In the absence of oscillations, the number of events at a detector is simply the product of the neutrino flux times the cross section times the detector efficiency. Uncertainties in any of these can degrade the ability to use precise measurements of multiple transition probabilities to extract oscillation parameters, and in fact all of them may have complicated energy dependence, in particular in the sub to few GeV region. To address these issues, we convened a joint session with the neutrino scattering working group.

#### 4.2.1 Cross Sections

At very low energies, the cross-section is dominated by elastic or quasi-elastic processes which are few body reactions and relatively easy to model, at least in a free nucleon target. At very high energies, the cross-section is dominated by deep inelastic scattering, where complex multi-body final states can be effectively modeled with small corrections to a dominant picture of neutrino-quark scattering with an outgoing “jet” created by recoil hadronic system. However, the neutrino energies are on the order of the nucleon mass the second portion of the cross-section becomes dominated by intermediate resonant hadronic states with discrete masses, which complicate the picture significantly. In addition, the few body nature of the final state requires modeling exclusive reactions in order to correctly predict signal and background efficiencies.

Quasi-elastic cross-sections can be predicted very accurately, although the effects of final-state interactions in nuclei give $`10`$$`20`$% uncertainties in observed rates. Deep inelastic cross-sections are known to a few percent in the high energy limit. However, in the “resonance” region the rates for exclusive final states typically have $`50`$$`100`$% uncertainties, and often differential distributions are completely unmeasured as discussed by Casper at this workshop, and as shown in Reference . Bodek has been looking at a way to extend deep inelastic scattering predictions for cross sections to the resonance regime using global fits of many different data sets, and has shown that for charged lepton scattering, this treatment results in an accurate prediction of the mean cross section in the resonance region. By then using the data from charged leptons in the resonance region, it is hoped that this treatment can result in correct modeling of resonances in neutrino scattering at low energies .

#### 4.2.2 Flux Predictions

To first order, flux predictions will be made in these upcoming superbeam experiments by simply measuring the neutrino event distributions as a function of energy in a near detector and then by using a beamline simulation to extrapolate from near to far. However, this is complicated by the fact that the neutrino source is usually so close to the near detector that the source does not appear point-like. Also, if the neutrinos are from 3-body or non-pion decays, (i.e. the $`\nu _e`$’s, which are from three-body decays of the muon and kaon) the near-far extrapolation is different.

Several different strategies for making flux predictions were discussed in this workshop. One very straightforward strategy in principle is to simply measure directly (or indirectly) the distributions of the secondaries that are creating the tertiary neutrinos in the first place. Kobayashi discussed the data from the pion monitor used by K2K, which gives the angular distribution of pions at a given radius. The pion angular distribution, combined with the near detector measurements, gives a systematic uncertainty on the flux extrapolation to the far detector of 5% . Coney discussed how MiniBooNE would be using muon counters located at the end of a small pipe set at a large angle with respect to the decay pipe at MiniBooNE. Most of the muons which were accepted at the end of that pipe are products of high angle kaon decays, and by measuring the energies of those muons, one could get a good constraint (estimated uncertainty goal of 10%) on the ratio of pion to kaon decays in the beamline. This constraint is important for limiting the uncertainty in the kaon-induced $`\nu _e`$ background in MiniBooNE.

Another strategy for extrapolating from the near to the far detector was outlined by Szleper, using as an example the both the on and off-axis fluxes expected at the NUMI beamline. He considered, among other effects, the uncertainties in near to far extrapolation due to hadron production uncertainties. Because the bulk of the $`\nu _\mu `$’s expected in both the near and far detectors are from pion decays, and the low energy $`\nu _e`$’s from muon decays, where the muons were also from pion decays, Szleper showed how there is a straightforward correlation between what is measured in a near on-axis detector and far detectors, both on and off axis. The standard technique is simply to take the near detector energy spectrum and use the beamline simulation to create a “far over near ratio” for each energy bin, and then multiply by that ratio. The new technique developed by Szleper and Para, however, involves a “matrix approach” where for every neutrino event at the near on-axis detector there is a spectrum of events at the far detector, and those events are not be all reconstructed with the same energy as the event in the near detector . For the $`\nu _\mu `$’s coming from the focused pions, the two techniques result in similar hadron production uncertainties of 1-2%, but for neutrinos for higher energy pions, those just underfocused, the differences are reduced from 15% (using the traditional approach) to 5%. Para offered a wager of a bottle of good sake during the conference that if K2K were to use this technique their far detector flux would be predicted to 1%, rather than to the 5% uncertainty currently assigned . The error has yet to be reduced and no sake has yet changed hands.

Of course at a muon storage ring, the issues of flux prediction are quite different because the beam and decay kinematics as well known. As evidence of this point, Broncano showed that the $`𝒪(\alpha _{EM})`$ corrections to the neutrino distributions were below the $`0.1\%`$ level . Therefore, it is likely that a neutrino factory will be in the enviable position of having the primary challenge to knowing the flux be knowledge of the phase space distribution and number of muons in the beam.

#### 4.2.3 Near Detector Strategies

Near Detectors play a very different role depending on whether or not one is discussing disappearance or appearance measurements. In the case of disappearance measurements, where it is assumed the oscillation probability will be large and the backgrounds to the signal small, the near detector is used to make an accurate prediction of the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux. In particular for a wide band neutrino beam, the energy dependence of both the flux and the detector response must be well understood. For appearance measurements, however, one wants to use a near detector to measure the backgrounds, and in particular how the backgrounds enter as a function of the neutrino energy, and the measured (visible) energy. For both kinds of measurements there are conflicting requirements for the near detector: one would like a detector that resembles the far detector as much as possible, but at the same time one would like a near detector that could make detailed studies of neutrino interactions in order to best model the far detector response.

One solution to this near detector problem is to have a suite of near detectors, as has been done very successfully by the K2K experiment, reported by Yoshida. While they have a 1kTon water Qerenkov device for a near to far detector ratio where the cross sections cancel, they can also compare events in the near water Qerenkov detector with those seen in their fine-grained scintillating fiber detector. The fine-grained detector can see the recoil proton in the neutrino interaction, and K2K can use this to deduce the energy resolution and acceptance of their far detector. Furthermore, there is also a large muon chamber which can see the profile of the neutrino beam and verify that indeed the beam is pointing towards the far detector.

The success of this near detector suite is evidenced by the fact that very similar plans are in place for an off-axis near detector suite for the JHF to SuperKamiokande experiment, as described by Kajita. There will be near detectors at 280m to study cross sections and verify the position of the neutrino beam, and a “less near” detector at 2km consisting of a water Qerenkov device to make the most accurate far/near prediction .

Because of the difference in energies and detector technologies, the MINOS experiment can use one near detector which will be used to not only measure the flux and event rates (using both quasielastic and non-quasielastic events, respectively), but which can also verify the direction of the neutrino beam (during special high energy runs). As described by Morfin, MINOS is also considering adding a specially-modified cross section detector in front of the near detector, which can study neutrino interactions more precisely, and also can study the Z dependence of neutrino cross sections by having planes of various materials: carbon, steel, and tungsten .

For a NUMI off-axis experiment, however, one would like to study the detector-related backgrounds with an off-axis detector. This is because the on-axis beam spectrum is very different from the off-axis spectrum, and also because the visible energy in the background events is often far from the initial neutrino energy. One definite requirement for an off-axis experiment would be an off-axis near detector which mimics a far detector, but there have also been thoughts about also including a more fine-grained near detector, à la K2K. Bodek described a possible new detector for cross section studies that were relevant for a NUMI off-axis experiment, as well as a possible site for such a detector in the NUMI beamline .

## 5 Conclusions

From this workshop, it is clear that conventional neutrino beams will occupy the foreground of oscillation measurements until perhaps 2010. Then, a crucial decision will have to be made in choosing between hyper conventional experiments on one hand combining multi MegaWatt proton beams combined with MegaTon detectors, and neutrino factories on the other hand whose design should be mature by that time.

## References


format: text

text:
# Formation of Cool Cores in Galaxy Clusters via Hierarchical Mergers

## 1 Introduction

The potential impact of radiative cooling by the hot intracluster medium (ICM) has been recognized for many years (Cowie & Binney, 1977; Fabian & Nulsen, 1977). The X-ray emitting gas is trapped in approximate hydrostatic equilibrium in the cluster’s potential well. A “cooling flow” is believed to form as the radiating gas loses pressure support and flows inwards to higher density values thus accelerating the cooling rate. In cooling flow clusters, typically, the gas within approximately 100 kpc of the cluster center has a cooling time less than the age of the cluster. This theoretical scenario is well known (see Fabian 1994 for a review) and, for example, has been examined extensively for its effect on cluster dominant galaxies and to determine the ultimate fate of the cool gas.

Cores of cool gas were found to be quite common in the flux-limited ROSAT sample of Peres et al. (1998), occurring in 70 to 90 percent of their clusters. Similarly, White et al. (1997) found cool cores in $`62\pm _{15}^{12}`$ % of the 207 clusters in their Einstein sample. Though these samples are flux limited and will exhibit bias towards intrinsically bright core X-ray clusters, they nonetheless argue for cool cores being a common occurrence in nearby clusters.

Substructure is also a common characteristic in galaxy clusters. For example, in the REFLEX+BCS cluster sample, Schuecker et al. (2001) find evidence for substructure in the central 1 Mpc (for $`H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) in a majority ($`52\pm 7`$%) of their clusters. The presence of substructure argues for accretion or merger events that occurred sufficiently recently to not be erased by relaxation of the cluster to a spherically symmetric state (Roettiger et al., 1996).

The prevalence of both substructure and cool cores presents a puzzle as one might expect mergers to disrupt the cores of cool gas present in one or both clusters before their merger. Sparks (1992), however, argued that it was ultimately accretion events that powered the X-ray excess in cooling flow clusters through conductive heat transport from the hot ICM into accreted cores of cool gas. While this scenario was later shown by Fabian et al. (1994) to be untenable on theoretical grounds, this does not negate the observational arguments that Sparks presented for a correlation between cooling flow and merger signatures in clusters.

Early theoretical work on the merger of galaxy clusters suggested that the X-ray emitting gas will be strongly impacted during the interaction and that cooling flows may be disrupted by mergers though these calculations did not treat the fluid of the intracluster medium (McGlynn & Fabian, 1984). While investigating the cluster Abell 2256, Fabian & Daines (1991) concluded that this particular cluster is undergoing a merger currently and suggested that the accreted subcluster may donate pre-cooled gas to seed a future, massive cooling flow. In a series of controlled numerical experiments, Burns et al. (1997) and Gómez et al. (2002) examined the fate of an idealized, spherical cooling flow cluster in collision with another cluster for a variety of cluster mass ratios ($`1/4`$ and $`1/16`$), cooling flow strengths (100 and 400 $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$) and central densities of the accreted subcluster ($`1.5\times 10^3`$ to $`1\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$). They found that the ram pressure of the merging subcluster impacting the cooling flow is the main mechanism for disrupting cooling flows. However, the work of Gómez et al. treated the hydrodynamics in two dimensions and considered only collisions at zero impact parameter (head on), thus simulating the most efficient case for disruption. Furthermore, their simulations treated the merging system in isolation from the larger, supercluster environment. Given the simplifications made, these previous results do not reflect the rich complexity of interactions observed in both cosmological simulations and in observations. In more recent work, fully three-dimensional cluster collision calculations have been performed by Ritchie & Thomas (2002) and Ricker & Sarazin (2001). In both investigations the authors find that major mergers disrupt cooling flows.

The formation and evolution of cool cores in a realistic environment can be investigated via numerical simulations that evolve both a collisionless dark matter component and a fluid that approximates baryonic matter from cosmological initial conditions to the present. At a minimum, the numerical algorithm must incorporate energy loss from the fluid by radiation. The majority of numerical simulations that treat radiative cooling by the baryonic component have used the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) formalism. Early SPH simulations with radiative cooling, starting with the work of Thomas & Couchman (1992) and Katz & White (1993), already found rough agreement with observed systems given the limited resolution possible at the time. However, additional physical processes, supernova feedback in particular, were hinted at being necessary to avoid the “cooling catastrophe”, whereby unrealistically large amounts of fluid would cool. The next generation of SPH calculations (Evrard et al., 1994; Frenk et al., 1996; Suginohara & Ostriker, 1998) seemed to confirm the need for additional physics in the simulations and helped to quantify the strong resolution dependence of the over-cooling problem in SPH simulations. In Suginohara & Ostriker (1998), for example, doubling the spatial resolution initiated substantial over-cooling that led to an improbably large X-ray luminosity for their cluster, given the cluster’s average temperature. Star formation was again found to be necessary to prevent the divergence of the central density and X-ray luminosity in the recent, high resolution simulations by Valdarnini (2002). For the SPH simulations of Pearce et al. (1999, 2000), realistic clusters were found (with radiative cooling actually lowering the total X-ray luminosity for their clusters) provided that their SPH code was modified as follows. First, cold and hot gas phases were identified and gas in the cold phase was excluded when calculating average density values in nearby regions of hot gas. Second, a minimum mass limit for cooling was enforced and the resolution was set to an optimal value. At higher resolution, however, over-cooling is expected to again contaminate their results. Star formation was incorporated in one of the simulations of Lewis et al. (2000) where they examined the properties of a Virgo-like cluster at the present epoch and concluded that cooling with star formation eliminated the problems evidenced in Suginohara & Ostriker (1998). However, in their simulation Lewis et al. did find a very large fraction of gas condensing (up to 30%, roughly a factor of three too large compared to observations) despite the energy input from supernova feedback. The phenomenon of over-cooling in SPH simulations has recently been cast in a very interesting light by Tittley et al. (2001). Briefly, a numerical “drag” was demonstrated as cold, condensed material traverses a hotter medium, causing spurious over-merging and over-cooling in SPH calculations.

In grid-based (Eulerian) treatments of the hydrodynamics of structure formation, radiative cooling has been included in simulations calculated with a first order accurate scheme (Cen & Ostriker, 1992) and recently with a more accurate total variation diminishing (TVD) scheme (Cen & Ostriker, 1999). While it is much more straightforward to incorporate additional physics such as star formation and multiple fluid components in grid-based programs, these methods have historically suffered from a lack of spatial resolution when implemented on static, uniform grids. Compared to the resolution of current SPH simulations in dense regions, previous fixed grid Eulerian simulations have about an order of magnitude coarser spatial resolution (roughly 100 kpc in the best cases) if they are to evolve a useful subdomain in the universe. For such simulations, the regions where radiative cooling dominates (roughly 100 kpc) would be unresolved with even a more accurate numerical scheme such as PPM. The partial differential equations of hydrodynamics may, however, be solved on a sequence of nested grids of finer and finer resolution to allow a large range of length scales to be treated. The grid system must be dynamic to follow hierarchical collapse of the fluid during structure formation. We use just such an adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) algorithm to attain the requisite spatial dynamic range to resolve cool cores while retaining the many desirable attributes of Eulerian hydrodynamics techniques.

In the current paper we address the issue of the formation and evolution of cool cores of gas in clusters through direct numerical simulations that proceed from realistic initial conditions. We introduce radiative cooling by the fluid component into our algorithm and evolve clusters from cosmological initial conditions through the non-linear hierarchical assembly phase to the present day. We are thus able to observe merger processes in the simulated clusters where the full complexity of the system - ram pressure stripping, tidal disruption and shock heating - are treated accurately.

In §2 we describe our numerical code noting physical processes that are not included in the current work and their potential importance. In §3 we present our simulation sample, their gross physical properties and compare them to results from other simulations that include the effect of radiative cooling. We then present a brief analysis of a test case where we have performed otherwise identical simulations with and without radiative cooling in §4. In §5 we present an overview of subclusters in our simulations and in §6 we present a history of cluster interactions from a redshift of one to the present. The impact of the cluster environment and subcluster mergers are detailed in §7. We then analyze our simulated data from an observational point of view in §8. Finally we compare our simulation results to recent observational results from Chandra, and XMM in §9 and summarize our conclusions in §10.

## 2 Numerical Technique

Our simulation tool is a coupled N-body Eulerian hydrodynamics code (Norman & Bryan, 1999; Bryan, Abel & Norman, 2001). We use an adaptive particle-mesh, N-body code to evolve dark matter particles. To treat the fluid component, we use the PPM scheme (Colella & Woodward, 1984) on a comoving grid. We employ adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) to concentrate our numerical resolution on the collapsed structures that form naturally in cosmological simulations. The dark matter particles exist on the coarsest three grids; each subgrid having twice the spatial resolution in each dimension and eight times the mass resolution relative to its parent grid. At the finest level, each particle has a mass of $`9\times 10^9\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We use second order accurate TSC interpolation for the adaptive particle mesh algorithm. Up to seven levels of refinement are utilized for the fluid component for most of the results presented here, yielding a peak resolution of $`15.6\mathrm{h}^1`$ kpc within our simulation box with sides of length 256 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ Mpc at the present epoch. We have chosen a standard, flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with the following parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.026`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{h}=0.7`$, and $`\sigma _8=0.928`$.

The fluid is allowed to radiatively cool in the present simulations. We use a tabulated cooling curve (Westbury & Henriksen, 1992) for a plasma of fixed, 0.3 solar abundance to determine the energy loss to radiation. The cooling curve falls rapidly for temperatures below $`10^5\mathrm{K}`$ and is truncated at a minimum temperature of $`10^4\mathrm{K}`$. Heat transport by conduction is neglected in our algorithm and it is expected that even a weak, ordered magnetic field can reduce conduction by two to three orders of magnitude from the Spitzer value (Chandran & Cowley, 1998). Indeed, Vikhlinin et al. (2001a) find that thermal conduction is suppressed by a factor of 30 to 100 at the interface of the ISM for NGC 4874 in the Coma cluster. While Vikhlinin et al. find that conduction is suppressed, the energy transport into NGC 4874 approximately balances the energy lost through radiation and therefore thermal conduction should be included in simulations that treat the detailed state of small scale structures. Furthermore, the theoretical work of Narayan & Medvedev (2001) has shown that if turbulence extends over a sufficiently large range of length scales within the ICM, the effective conductivity coefficient is expected to be about one fifth of the Spitzer value making thermal conductivity significant to the global energy balance of the ICM. The potential importance of including conduction in future work is also bolstered by recent data from Fabian, Voigt & Morris (2002) who report that in a sample of 29 clusters most have an effective conductivity between the Spitzer value and one-tenth the Spitzer value and from Zakamska & Narayan (2003) who show that half of the 10 clusters they studied are consistent with heat transport by conduction balancing radiative cooling.

We also neglect energy input into the fluid from supernovae feedback or discrete sources such as AGN in our current simulations. Lewis et al. (2000) have found that supernova feedback and cooling can significantly alter the fluid properties in the centers of clusters though the large scale temperature distribution depends predominantly on shock heating and is relatively insensitive to both supernova feedback and radiative cooling (Davé et al., 2001). The expected effect from supernova feedback on our results is two-fold. First, by neglecting additional sources of energy such as supernova feedback our simulations generate cool cores with density profiles that are too steep and thus we will overestimate the resilience of cool cores during mergers. Second, it is precisely the cool material in cores that can collapse to form assemblies of stars, removing that fluid from the flow and yielding a less dense core. Nonetheless, the case of maximal stability for cool cores is of theoretical interest as a limiting case and also as a guide to constrain the largely uncertain parameterization of supernova feedback prescriptions.

As described in Loken et al. (2002) we have identified clusters within our $`256^3\mathrm{h}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ parent volume and performed AMR simulations of sub-volumes to create a “catalog” of simulated clusters. From this set of adiabatic simulations we present two clusters, chosen because of their interesting merger history, that have been rerun with radiative cooling included. One cluster, hereafter C1, undergoes a major merger between approximately equal mass components at $`z0.4`$ while our second simulation, hereafter referred to as C2, merges with a subcluster of approximately half its mass. In future work, we will present results from an ensemble of radiative cooling clusters to address issues such as the cluster $`\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{X}\mathrm{T}`$ relation and the probability of cool core disruption by cluster collisions. For our present purpose we will limit our scope to these two clusters as a guide to interpreting the wealth of recent X-ray observations of galaxy clusters and to emphasize the importance of mergers in assembling cool cores in rich galaxy clusters.

## 3 Rich Cluster Properties

Projections of the gas density at the present epoch within the refined volumes for our simulated clusters C1 and C2 are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. In both cases we see that the dominant cluster lies at the intersection of a network of filaments that convey material into the clusters. In both figures we have outlined a square region 5 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ Mpc on a side about the center of mass of each cluster. In subsequent images we will be zooming in on this region to examine the detailed structure present in our clusters. The clusters we present here are the two most massive structures that form in our simulation volume and are exceptional in that respect. They correspond to $`R4`$ and $`R3`$ clusters for C1 and C2, respectively, given the cluster mass function in Bahcall & Cen (1993). In adiabatic simulations of the clusters, they exhibit a central cooling time shorter than the Hubble time (except for short intervals around major mergers) during the simulations and would therefore be expected to posses cool cores.

In Table 1 we list gross parameters for the clusters C1 and C2 at a redshift of zero. The virial radius, $`R_{\mathrm{virial}}`$, is calculated for an overdensity $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ of 200. $`M_{\mathrm{virial}}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{dm}}`$, and $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ are the total mass, total mass of dark matter particles, and total fluid mass within the virial radius, respectively. Similarly, $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ is the total X-ray luminosity (line and continuum) within $`R_{\mathrm{virial}}`$ in the 1 to 10 keV band assuming a 0.3 solar metal abundance. The average physical temperature of the ICM within the virial radius is listed as $`\overline{\mathrm{T}}`$. The velocity dispersion, $`\sigma `$, is the average, three-dimensional velocity dispersion for the dark matter particles within the virial radius and $`f_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ is the ratio of gas mass colder than 15,000 K to the total gas mass within the virial radius.

The properties of our clusters are physically reasonable when compared to actual clusters. In particular, unlike the high resolution simulation of Suginohara & Ostriker (1998), we do not find our clusters to be overluminous for their temperature and do not conclude that additional physics is required to offset radiative cooling based on gross cluster properties alone. We note that our simulations have a peak resolution (grid cell size) less than half the size of the smoothing length for Suginohara and Ostriker’s high resolution (MR) run.

We also find that the fraction of cool gas in our clusters, 8.5% and 11.7%, is in excellent agreement with the observational data for clusters summarized by Balogh et al. (2001) and is in reasonable agreement with the numerical results of Pearce et al. (2000). We have also rerun our C2 simulation with 6 and 8 levels of refinement (corresponding to peak spatial resolutions of $`31.2\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`7.8\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ respectively). As would be expected, the coarsest simulation produced a cluster with a low fraction of cool gas, 2%, this resolution not being sufficient to accurately treat condensed cores. For the highest resolution simulation, the fraction of cool gas within the virial radius is 9.9% - nearly identical to the result listed in Table 1 for our 7 level calculation. Other cluster properties are similar between the 7 and 8 level simulations. We would like to emphasize that we do not see large $`f_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ values for rich clusters as has been reported in recent smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations (Pearce et al., 2000; Lewis et al., 2000; Suginohara & Ostriker, 1998) nor do we find that the fraction grows as our resolution improves beyond that used for the results presented here.

## 4 Comparison to Adiabatic Simulations

We have, as a test, performed simulations of the same refined volumes in the adiabatic limit and with radiative cooling. In Figure 3 we show projections of the X-ray luminosity (top row) and emission-weighted temperature (bottom row) for the adiabatic and radiative cooling realizations of C1 at the present epoch. The image scales are indicated by the color bars and and the surface brightness has been normalized to its maximum value. The most noticeable distinction is that when radiative cooling is included, subclusters form dense cores of cool gas (bright and dark blobs in the X-ray and temperature images, respectively) as expected and seen in previous simulations (c.f. Katz & White, 1993). In particular note the tight, high density core of cool gas at the center of the primary cluster (the cluster center of mass is indicated by the tick marks for reference). As infalling cores interact with the primary cluster, they produce complex structures such as the bow shock and “comet tail” associated with the subcluster to the bottom of the cluster center and the extended, irregular distribution of cool gas (“cool front”) to the bottom right of the cluster center. Without the density enhancement generated by cooling, the collisions of clusters in the adiabatic simulations lack this rich structure.

The larger scale structure of the adiabatic and cooling clusters are generally similar, however, as they are dictated by the overall cluster properties rather than perturbative interactions. For example, the ridge of shocked, hot gas at the bottom of the clusters is in nearly the same location in both the radiative cooling and adiabatic simulations and has comparable temperatures in both cases.

As another example, Figure 4 shows images for the C2 simulation at a redshift of 0.25. Again, a core of dense cool gas is readily apparent in the radiative cooling results though the core is more regular in this instance. This snapshot also demonstrates cluster interactions; a subcluster can be seen below the cluster center of mass with a leading shock front and a trailing stream of stripped, cooler gas. While the filamentary network is bringing material into the cluster in the same manner in both the radiative cooling and adiabatic simulations, the infalling subclusters are much more condensed in the radiative cooling simulation and are hence more readily apparent. The more strongly peaked density profile also serves to shield the infalling cluster from disruption. This core of cool gas has survived a cluster crossing with only some ram pressure stripping and tidal stripping in evidence. In the adiabatic case, this infalling cluster was absorbed into the primary ICM with only a relatively small elongation of the central surface brightness distribution and small shock front at the bottom of the cluster to betray its presence.

In Figure 5 we show profiles of the X-ray surface brightness and the projected, X-ray emission-weighted gas temperature corresponding to the snapshots shown in Figures 3 and 4. The results from the adiabatic simulations are drawn as dashed curves while the radiative cooling profiles are solid lines. Both C1 and C2 show an excess X-ray luminosity and falling temperature within about 100 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ kpc of the cluster center, as would be expected for a cool core. Outside of the core there is little difference between the adiabatic and radiative cooling simulations in spite of the rich structure of cool gas clumps in the images. Also note that the gas in the core is not very cool, remaining above a million Kelvin for both simulations. As noted in §2 our cooling function continues down to approximately $`10^4`$ K meaning that the fluid can lose energy by radiation until this floor value is reached (neglecting temperature changes due to mechanical work on the fluid). The high temperatures of the “cool” gas in our cooling clusters is due to two effects. First, we have shown the profiles derived from a projection of the temperature field onto the plane of the sky. The cool core is seen along with the hotter material lying along the line of sight. Second, as will be discussed in more detail later, the physical temperature of the core reaches values above $`10^6`$ K. There are only two means of heating possible given the assumptions we have made for these simulations: shock heating and adiabatic compression. We find this to argue for the importance of accurately treating shocks in the ICM.

## 5 Subcluster Properties

The vast majority of cluster interactions in our simulations can be described as accretion of smaller subclusters by the dominant cluster. In this section we detail the properties of these subclusters. In Table 2 we list gross properties for a sample of outlying subclusters that reside between 2 and 5 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ Mpc of C1’s center of mass at a redshift of zero. Of these 13 subclusters, ten are falling in for the first time. Two of the subclusters (the first and third entry in Table 2) are climbing out of the cluster potential well at the current epoch and one subcluster (the fifth entry) has orbited about the main cluster for the past six billion years at a typical separation between 2 and 3 Mpc.

In Table 2, we list the distance from the C1 center of mass which helps gauge how well the subclusters may be treated as isolated systems. We also list the virial radius, virial mass, the total dark matter and fluid mass and X-ray luminosity within $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{virial}}`$. We tabulate the average physical temperature of the gas within the virial radius ($`\overline{\mathrm{T}}`$) and within a core of 50 kpc ($`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{core}}`$), the average, three-dimensional velocity dispersion of dark matter within the virial radius, the fraction of gas that is cooler than 15,000 K within the subcluster, the average cooling time within the core and the virial ratio for the subcluster. The virial ratio is computed as $`\sigma ^2\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{virial}}/\left|W\right|`$ where $`\sigma `$ is the previously described velocity dispersion and $`W`$ is the gravitational potential energy calculated from spherically averaged profiles of the dark matter distribution from

$$W=4\pi G_0^{\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{virial}}}\rho \left(r\right)M\left(r\right)r𝑑r.$$
(1)
The virial ratio is expected to be approximately unity for isolated structures in virial equilibrium. The two subclusters with a measured virial ratio greater than 2 have already interacted with the main cluster before this time and in particular, the fifth subcluster (with a virial ratio of 4.1) has orbited within the clusters virial radius for a significant fraction of the simulation. The pristine, infalling subclusters are all relatively well described as gravitationally bound systems in virial equilibrium.

Overall, the subclusters have properties similar to galaxy groups (in terms of extent, mass, average temperature and luminosity). Their baryons are locked in cool, condensed gas; all subclusters have low core temperatures and high fractions of cool material. Furthermore, the cooling time is much shorter than the Hubble time for all subclusters in Table 2. In our simulations we have only included the effect of radiative cooling without any heat sources or transport mechanisms beyond the adiabatic physics level. For this set of assumptions, an isolated subcluster has no recourse but to cool a large fraction of its baryons.

Given the large fraction of cool material, star formation feedback will obviously impact the detailed structure of these subsystems. They will, however, likely remain as gravitationally bound structures and act as sources of condensed gas for the rich clusters that form from them. As mentioned previously, we are focusing our attention on the properties of rich clusters and considering only the limiting case where radiative cooling is as efficient as possible.

## 6 Merger Histories

In this section we present a detailed discussion of the history of our simulated clusters. In Figure 7 we show projected, normalized X-ray surface brightness and X-ray emission-weighted temperature maps for C1 from a redshift of one to the present day in approximately 500 million year intervals. The images have all been scaled to the same range of values so that a given color corresponds to the same value (within the discreteness of the color map) throughout the sequence of images. We note that the X-ray images have been prepared to emphasize the rich substructure by firstly showing all pixels with a surface brightness 1% or greater than the peak as white. Secondly, the dynamic range extends far beyond that possible with current observations (please note the color bars in Figure 7). On this scale, there is a very rich array of subclusters and substructure visible. In Figure 6 we show the X-ray surface brightness for C1 at the present epoch with three example image scales. For a more realistic dynamic range of $`10^3`$ there is only one structure feature visible within 1.5 Mpc of the cluster center of mass. For observations with a dynamic range of $`10^4`$ there are two subclusters visible within an Abell radius while the remainder of projected subclusters and substructure seen in Figure 7 are fainter still.

At $`z=1`$ the primary has a regular core of cool gas though it is interacting with a set of irregular subclusters to the lower left and a comparable mass cluster is assembling to the far right (in projection). Through a redshift of 0.75 the primary core is bar shaped and there are several filaments of cool, dense gas running through the cluster.

Interactions continue through a redshift of 0.5 when the central cool core is noticeably reduced in extent in the temperature map. At this epoch the cluster to the right is still taking shape and is moving closer to the primary through $`z=0.43`$ and finally collides nearly head on with the primary at a redshift of 0.37. There is a collar of shock-heated gas surrounding the core at this epoch which expands outwards. The impactor reaches its turning point after passing through the cluster at approximately $`z=0.3`$. There is a strong shock front at the head of the impactor and a trail of cooler gas leading back from the shock front to the cluster center. Surprisingly, a core of cool gas is still visible at the cluster center of mass.

By $`z=0.25`$ the impactor has fallen back towards the center and there is a binary cool core system that persists through $`z=0.21`$. At $`z=0.25`$ the shock fronts continue to expand away from the cluster center. The binary cores have merged by $`z=0.16`$ and the core is rather small in extent. From $`z=0.12`$ to 0.08 a smaller subcluster passes through from left to right across the cluster and from $`z=0.08`$ to the present a set of subclusters fall through the cluster from the upper left to the bottom right, one of which produces a significant bow shock ahead of it and is finally disrupted at $`z=0.0`$ into an irregular patch of cool gas (also see Figure 3 for an enlarged view of this cluster at $`z=0`$).

Similar images for C2 are shown in Figure 8. The C2 sequence begins as the primary cluster has merged with a subcluster of about half its mass. The cores of the two systems nearly overlap one another at the cluster center. There are, in addition, several smaller scale interactions lasting to $`z=0.65`$. From $`z=0.65`$ through $`z=0.43`$ the primary cluster is left largely unperturbed. Nonetheless, the central cool core is almost totally absent at $`z=0.5`$. From $`z=0.37`$ through to $`z=0.12`$ a cluster with about 5% of the mass of the primary falls from top to bottom through the cluster. It passes through the cluster center between redshifts of 0.31 and 0.25 and excites a spherical shock wave that expands through the cluster from redshifts of 0.25 to 0.16. The infalling cluster is disrupted by the encounter, ultimately becoming the “Y” shaped structure below the primary cluster in the snapshots at 0.16 and 0.12. Excepting a few minor, off axis, interactions the C2 system is left largely undisturbed from z = 0.25 to the present. It is interesting to note that the central cool core does not regain a spherical shape in this intervening time, remaining instead bar-like in this projection.

As a means of gauging the disruption of the cool cores we plot the X-ray surface brightness and spherically averaged temperature profiles for clusters C1 and C2 at a variety of redshifts in Figures 11 and 12 respectively. The temperature profiles for both clusters are very complex, though in all cases there is cool gas in a core of some form. The temperature curve for C1 at $`z=0.25`$ has an odd shape because there are two cool cores in a binary at this epoch and the profiles are taken about the center of mass of the cluster as a whole which lies between the two cores. The smoothing over the binary core system is also responsible for the isothermal profile shape for the X-ray surface brightness of C1 at $`z=0.25`$. At $`z=0.31`$, however, the X-ray surface brightness signature of a cool core is washed out by the recent passing of the companion cluster through the primary. At redshifts of $`z=1`$ and 0.84, C1 again does not exhibit an X-ray excess. For C2 the surface brightness profiles are much more straightforward; for all redshifts from 0.43 to 1 (with the exception of 0.57) there is no evidence for an X-ray excess. From 0.37 up to the present, C2 does not suffer any major interactions and shows a remarkably static luminosity excess from its cool core.

From an observational point of view, one may see clear evidence for a cool core at only certain points in the cluster’s history. If there has been a major merger event or frequent, though less extreme interactions, the cool core signature may disappear in the X-ray surface brightness. However, cool gas remains in these two systems at all times, despite the vigorous merger activity.

## 7 The Dynamical Cluster Environment

In this section we further explore the complex dynamical environment that acts on the cool core clusters. We note in particular that our simulation results are inconsistent with expectations arising from the simple cooling flow model for an isolated cluster. The dynamical cluster environment is seen very clearly from the velocity field which we plot for 4 epochs for cluster C1 in Figure 13. These are representative examples of the flow field; similar features are seen for both clusters and for other slices through the clusters. We plot the velocity in the x-y plane for a $`1\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ region centered on the cluster center of mass. At a redshift of 0.25, two cores are about to collide with one another and a similar collision is seen at a redshift of 0 where a subcluster has passed through the core. In all plots, the velocity field is irregular with material streaming through the cluster core. Recall that the clusters lie at the intersection of filaments (see for example Figures 1 and 2) that flow into the clusters. The asymmetric streams result in a complex flow field that dominates over the orderly, spherically symmetric radial flow of material arising from a “cooling flow”. In addition to the features exemplified in Figure 13, we also see circulation within the cluster center. The rotation arises from the residual angular momentum of merging structures colliding at non-zero impact parameter.

The response of the cool core is characterized in Figure Formation of Cool Cores in Galaxy Clusters via Hierarchical Mergers where we plot the following quantities versus the lookback time (and redshift) for the C1 and C2 clusters: (1) the amount of cool gas (gas with temperature less than 15,000 K) within 100 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ kpc of the cluster center of mass, (2) the cooling radius, that is the radius where the cooling time equals the Hubble time at that particular redshift, (3) the characteristic core temperatures of the gas which we take to be the average temperature within 50 kpc of the cluster center of mass, and (4) the fraction of gas cooler than 15,000 K within the virial radius. The characteristic temperature is calculated from both a spherical average of the gas temperature (solid curve) and from a circular region of 50 kpc radius from the projected, emission-weighted temperature (dashed curve). Recall from the discussion in §5 that C1 experiences a major merger that lasts from $`z=0.37`$ to $`z=0.21`$ and several minor interactions. C2 experiences a major interaction at $`z=1`$.

The mass of cool gas grows for both clusters, though it often increases by discrete units causing peaks in the plots of cool mass. For C1 at $`z=0.25`$, the sharp drop in cool gas mass is due to a binary core system orbiting the cluster center of mass beyond our chosen aperture of 100 $`\mathrm{h}^1`$ kpc for this measurement. The mergers are complicated phenomena, infalling cores both donate cool material to the core and shock heat the ICM which mixes hot fluid into the core material.

The cooling radius shown in the second row of plots in Figure Formation of Cool Cores in Galaxy Clusters via Hierarchical Mergers also changes abruptly. As dense, condensed material accumulates in the core the cooling time drops causing the cooling radius to grow. During the quiescent period for C2 (from Figure 12, the epochs where there is a static luminosity excess, $`z=0.5`$ to 0) the cooling radius grows slowly with time. The characteristic core temperature is shown in the third row of plots in Figure Formation of Cool Cores in Galaxy Clusters via Hierarchical Mergers. The projected temperature is at nearly all times systematically higher than the physical core temperature and responds less strongly to merger events. The characteristic physical temperature of the core exhibits abrupt changes as shocks arising from the cluster collisions heat fluid in and around the core. We also note that the characteristic projected temperature for the cores of C1 and C2 agree with recent observations of cool core clusters where minimum temperatures have been consistently found to be approximately one keV for a variety of clusters (Fabian, 2002). For a global view of the evolution of clusters C1 and C2, we also show the fraction of gas cooler than 15,000 K within the virial radius ($`f_{\mathrm{cool}}`$ from Tables 1 and 2). Cool gas is present in both clusters throughout their evolution despite collisions. As subclusters fall in (objects with a majority of their baryons in a cool phase as shown in Table 2) most of their baryons are heated by shocks and compression so that as the cluster grows in mass, the cool fraction generally declines with time. However, as noted previously, some cool gas survives these interactions and merges in the cluster core as well. As an example of the interaction process, a typical infalling cluster at a redshift of 0.5 will lose $`90\%`$ of its total gas and typically $`70\%`$ of its core mass (the cool gas) has been heated and lost to the cluster during a crossing (see Figures 7 and 8). These results, of course, can vary widely depending on the trajectory of the infalling subcluster and the state of both systems.

The main point of this examination of the cores is that the mass of cool gas in the central core grows predominantly from the accretion of discrete subclusters that contain pre-cooled gas and not from steady state cooling. We do not find any evidence for a “cooling flow” in our simulations, in accord with the recent simulations of Lewis et al. (2000) who find the flux of mass in adiabatic and radiative cooling simulations agree with one another in to a distance of 40 kpc from the cluster center. For our C1 and C2 clusters, the random flow of fluid in the cluster center (characterized by the average velocity dispersion for the fluid within the cooling radius) exceeds the mean radial velocity by a factor of approximately 25 (see also Figure 13). This is clearly inconsistent with the classical cooling flow scenario.

On average, C1 and C2 gain cool material at a rate of about 600 $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ from a redshift of 2 to the present but this is predominantly due to merger events. In Figures 14 and 15 we show the flux of cool material through spheres of radius 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 Mpc centered on the cluster center of mass for C1 and C2, respectively. If, for example, a blob of material crossed through the cluster without interacting at a constant velocity of 1,000 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ it would appear as a negative and then positive peak in these plots, separated in time by approximately 2 billion years. One might also expect that as cool cores rain in on the cluster they would appear in these plots as a set of three peaks as they successively cross from 1 to 0.5 to 0.1 Mpc. Figures 14 and 15 show that the situation is more complicated than this expectation. In Figure 14 for example, there is little flux of cool material through the surface at a 500 kpc while we can clearly see cores crossing at the other two radii. The situation for C2 is largely similar though we can see that this cluster has a more gentle evolution (note the different scales for Figures 14 and 15). From a redshift of approximately 0.6 to the present, C2 is left largely undisturbed and there is an indication that cool material is settling on the core given the small, approximately constant flux of material through the inner surface for the past 2 billion years.

As has been demonstrated several times, the evolution of these simulated cool core clusters is complex. Even at the present epoch, the clusters do not represent relaxed, steady state structures as can be seen from Figures 7 and 8 for instance. The full complexity of the merger history of the clusters is intrinsically tied to the formation of cool cores in our simulations. This stands in stark contrast to the classical cooling flow scenario where a spherically symmetric distribution of gas cools in isolation and, in particular, is not perturbed by accretion or major merger events with other cool cores.

## 8 Observational Analysis

If we analyze our simulated clusters from the point of view of an observer, they would be identified as a “cooling flow” cluster if they exhibit an X-ray excess over an isothermal sphere model and/or have lower temperatures at the center. No actual flow has ever been detected, nor could be detected with current X-ray spectrometers.

In the simplest application, one ascribes all the excess luminosity to a cooling flow according to the prescription (Fabian, 1994)

$$L_{\mathrm{cool}}=\frac{5}{2}\frac{\dot{M}}{\mu m}k_BT.$$
(2)
We have fit isothermal sphere models to our surface brightness profiles to determine the luminosity excess (surface brightness and best fit isothermal models are shown at selected epochs for C2 in Figure 16). Applying equation (2) to C2 (given the known temperature distribution within the cluster) results in the mass deposition rates shown in Figure 16. This method gives reasonable mass deposition rates (in comparison to observations) though as has been previously demonstrated, there is not a real flow present in our simulations.

The hierarchical merger scenario for cool cores provides a physical basis for the results of Loken et al. (1999). In their analysis they consider a nearly complete, volume-limited sample of nearby ($`z<0.1`$) Abell clusters. To a high degree of significance, Loken et al. find that massive cooling flow clusters ($`\dot{M}>100M_{}yr^1`$) have closer nearest neighbors and reside in more crowded environments than clusters without cooling flows. If cool cores in rich clusters are built primarily through merger events, massive cool cores will have to reside in dense environments for there to be a sufficient merger rate. As seen in our simulations, mergers can disrupt the X-ray signature of a cool core, though inevitably the core is renewed. Clusters with significant substructure may or may not show evidence for a cool core, depending on the details of the particular merger history but cool core clusters will be predisposed to reside in overly dense regions of the universe.

## 9 Comparison to Recent Cluster X-ray Observations

Recent, high resolution observations with Chandra and XMM have revealed new levels of detail in galaxy clusters. What was seen with previous instruments to be relaxed, smooth clusters now show evidence for a dynamic nature. From Figures 7 and 8 we see that our simulations also demonstrate a rich array of cluster substructure and remnant signatures of interactions in the projected temperature maps.

Many clusters have been found to contain “cool fronts” - clouds of cool gas embedded in the hot ICM. Examples include Abell 2142 (Markevitch et al., 2000), Abell 3667 (Vikhlinin et al., 2001b), RXJ1720+2638 (Mazzotta et al., 2001), Abell 85 (Kempner et al., 2002), the Centaurus cluster (Sanders & Fabian, 2002), MS 1455.0+2232 (Mazzotta et al., 2002), Abell 754, and Abell 2163 (Markevitch et al., 2001) which all show evidence of a contact discontinuity between an irregular distribution of cool gas and the ICM. An example of a cool front in a cluster is shown in the upper left panel of Figure 17 where we reproduce data for Abell 2142 (Markevitch et al., 2000). The temperature maps from figures 7 and 8 provide evidence for a natural explanation for the clouds observed in cool front clusters in terms of hydrodynamical effects from cluster collisions.

A striking example of the complex structure of cool gas was recently discovered by Fabian et al. (2001) in Abell 1795. We show the adaptively smoothed Chandra image of the core of Abell 1795, a well known cool core cluster, in the upper right panel of Figure 17. The image is approximately 80 kpc across. From our simulations, we find that similar filamentary structures can be formed from the relative motion of a condensed core of cool material through a hot medium.

In our hierarchical merger model, cluster mergers bring cool material into the accreting cluster. An infalling core was recently reported from Chandra observations of 1E0657-56 (Markevitch et al., 2002) which is shown in the bottom left panel of Figure 17. They term the infalling system a “bullet subcluster”, the bullet being a core of cool gas (between two and three times cooler than the cluster average) traversing the primary cluster with a prominent bow shock plowing through the cluster medium reminiscent of interactions seen frequently in our simulations.

At higher redshifts, cluster interactions become more frequent. Our cluster C2 is relatively quiescent from a redshift of a half to the present - the bulk of its accretion occurring further in the past. A relatively distant cluster is shown in the bottom right panel of Figure 17. At a redshift of $`z=0.407`$, CL 0939+4713 (which was observed with XMM by De Filippis et. al 2001) shows significant substructure. In the image there are several peaks in the central X-ray distribution (though the peaks labeled P1 and P2 represent a foreground source and a background quasar and do not indicate substructure). Their 1 arcminute bar corresponds to approximately 300 kpc for our chosen cosmological parameters.

## 10 Conclusions

From the simulation results presented here, we see that the formation and evolution of cool cores in rich galaxy clusters is a highly dynamic process, even to the present epoch. The cluster appearance is shaped by hydrodynamical interactions between condensed cores of cool gas and the hot intracluster medium. Because of these complex interactions, the central cool cores depart significantly from spherical symmetry and do not correspond to the picture evoked by the steady state cooling flow model.

We find that accreted cool cores can survive a transit through the cluster and, more importantly, can donate pre-cooled gas to the accretor. Thus, as rich clusters are assembled through the hierarchical merger scenario of the cold dark matter model, cool cores are built simultaneously from the baryonic fluid component. We note that our simulations have only treated the case of maximal cooling in the sense that heat transport by conduction and energy input are neglected. Our accreted subclusters thus have a steeper density profile than is expected for real clusters and this in turn overestimates the stability of merger subunits in our simulations. In future work we will investigate the impact of star formation feedback and thermal conduction on our current simulation results. We have also only presented results from the most massive clusters in our simulation archive. In future work we will present a detailed analysis of cluster-cluster and cluster-subcluster interactions seen in our complete sample of simulated galaxy clusters evolved in the limit of radiative cooling only.

In both radiative cooling clusters presented in the current work, we see no evidence for a cooling flow despite the fact that we have sufficient numerical resolution to marginally resolve a vigorous cooling flow if one were present. We instead find that cooling cores gain cool gas through discrete accretion events and that the cluster’s intrinsic velocity field would overwhelm the expected field implied by a cooling flow model. We emphasize that the cool cores in our simulations are dynamic systems, tightly coupled to events in the surrounding intracluster medium.

The model of hierarchical assembly of cool cores naturally accounts for the rich array of structure reported in recent X-ray observations in terms of merger processes. Likewise, the model accounts for the prevalence of both cluster substructure (evidence of merger activity) and cool cores in clusters of galaxies. It also provides a physical basis for the result that massive cool cores are found preferentially in dense supercluster environments (Loken et al., 1999).

## 11 Acknowledgments

PMM wishes to thank Romeel Davé for helpful comments on the manuscript. The simulations presented in this paper were carried out on the Origin2000 system at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign with computer allocation grant AST010014N.