text:
# Near–infrared constraints on the driving mechanisms for spiral structure.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, near–infrared photometry has changed our view of spiral galaxies, revealing different arm structures from optical imaging (e.g. Block & Wainscoat 1991; Block et al. 1994; Thornley 1996). Specifically, the near–infrared gives a much truer view of the underlying mass distribution, and shows that Grand Design spiral structure is more common than optical studies would suggest (Thornley 1996). Apart from the clearer view of the strength and extent of arms, the near–infrared also frequently reveals central bar structures which were invisible in the optical, and again gives a more quantitative view of the dynamical importance of bars (Seigar & James 1998b; Eskridge et al. 2000; Seigar 2002). Motivated by this, we feel that it is timely to revisit the suggestion of Kormendy & Norman (1979) that spiral structure can be explained without the need for density wave theories, posing the much more stringent test set by near–infrared data.

Several explanations have been proposed for the existence of Grand–Design spiral structure in disc galaxies. The most widespread and commonly accepted explanation is the idea of a quasi–stationary density wave (Lin & Shu 1964, 1966) and further developments such as the modal theory of spiral structure (Bertin et al. 1989a, b). However, a proposal made over twenty years ago by Kormendy & Norman (1979), but often overlooked, suggested that if Grand–Design spiral structure in disc galaxies does not extend past the radius at which the rotation curve turns over, then the arms can indeed be material arms and they will not wind up under solid–body rotation, thus overcoming the winding problem. Kormendy & Norman (1979) also proposed that if any galaxies did exhibit Grand–Design spiral structure outside this radius, then they must do so under the influence of a central bar–like potential, or under the tidal influence of a nearby neighbouring galaxy. Indeed out of the 54 galaxies observed by Kormendy & Norman (1979), they found only 2 galaxies which could not be explained by their hypothesis.

Observational support for this view has been provided by Elmegreen & Elmegreen (1987) who observed that, generally, grand–design spiral galaxies are found in richer environments than flocculent spirals (i.e. grand–design spiral structures are more likely to have undergone a tidal interaction with another galaxy in their history).

While this postulation does not necessarily rule out density wave theories (e.g. Lin & Shu 1964, 1966; Bertin et al. 1989a, b), it introduces an alternative mechanism for exciting spiral modes, i.e. either bar or tidally driven modes. Indeed the original hypothesis of a quasi-stationary density wave (Lin & Shu 1964) proposed that a density wave is the result of a natural instability of a cold, self–gravitating, stellar disc. However, modal theories (Bertin et al. 1989a, b; Bertin 1991, 1993, 1996; Bertin & Lin 1996) of spiral structure do not rule out the possibility of bar or tidally driven modes.

The ideas of tidally driven spiral structure in disc galaxies, have been studied in simulations as early as those of Toomre & Toomre (1972) who performed an N–body simulation of M51 and its interacting galaxy. More recent N–body simulations of this system include those of Salo & Laurikainen (2000a, b). While the spiral structure in M51 probably pre–existed the encounter with its companion (Zaritsky, Rix & Rieke 1993), M51 shows a very strong spiral structure, which may have been enhanced by this interaction. Evidence was presented by Elmegreen, Elmegreen & Seiden (1989) which showed that the arm–interarm contrast in M51 is significantly larger than in two other galaxies (M81 and M100) which do not possess companions. This suggest that the large arm–interarm contrast in M51 may be a result of its interaction with NGC 5195.

Sundelius et al. (1987) used the code of Miller (1976a, b, 1978) to produce a model of tidal spiral arms in two–component galaxies. Their model consisted of a self–gravitating disc of 60,000 particles and this disc was stabilised by a “halo” component. The disc consisted of two components, the cold component, representing the stars in spiral arms (e.g. OB stars, gas clouds etc) and the hot component, representing old stars. The different components have different initial velocity dispersions. The disc was perturbed by a point mass passing by in a plane parabolic orbit. This leads to the formation of a 2–armed spiral pattern in the cold component of the disc as a result of tidal triggering by the companion. The pattern survives for 6 rotations, until the velocity dispersion of the cold component is about half that of the hot component. The pitch angles of the arms are seen to evolve from an Sc–like appearence to an Sa–like appearance. Donner & Thomasson (1994) used N–body simulations to study non–linear evolution of tidally–induced spiral patterns in galaxies. They found that the patterns live with a nearly constant amplitude for about 5 to 6 rotation periods, and are then regenerated after disappearing momentarily.

It is therefore expected that galaxies that have undergone an interaction with another galaxy, may have enhanced spiral structure, and their spiral arms will appear stronger than those galaxies without nearby neighbours (although this may only be a transient phenomena). Indeed, in an earlier paper (Seigar & James 1998b) we showed evidence to suggest that this might be the case. Out of 45 galaxies observed in the near–infrared, 12 had near neighbours. Of these galaxies 4 out of 7 galaxies with arm strength (defined as equivalent angle, EA, see Seigar & James 1998a and section 3.1 for a definition of EA) greater than 35 had near neighbours. This showed that there is some indication here of a relation between arm strength and tidal interactions, although the difference is not statistically significant. However, this result was strengthened by the fact that galaxies with near neighbours had an enhanced $`m=2`$ mode, this being the dominant mode in 7 out of the 12 galaxies with near neighbours.

Bar driving of spiral structure was modelled as early as Sanders & Huntley (1976). They constructed a uniform gas disc with no self–gravity. Initially, the gas was in circular oribits. After the introduction of a potential due to a rigidly rotating bar, the gas settled into a steady state exhibiting a strong trailing spiral pattern. In this simulation there was no need for a density wave. However, there are at least two problems with bar driving of spiral structure. Firstly, bar driving seems unable to produce tightly wound spiral patterns. Also, the spiral pattern is seen in the old disc stars as well as young stars and gas, yet the Sanders & Huntley (1976) simulation predict a spiral pattern for the gas only. For example, the model of Sanders (1977) could not produce a spiral pattern for a simulated disc of test particles. More recently the N–body simulations of Sellwood & Sparke (1988) and Sanders & Tubbs (1980) have shown that bar forcing should not extend far outside the region where the bar is strong.

In our earlier paper (Seigar & James 1998b) we investigated the relationship between bar strength and arm strength. We showed that there was no evidence of a correlation between these two quantities. If spiral structure was driven by a bar potential, one might expect these two quantities to be well correlated. As a result, we concluded that bar driving was not an important factor in the formation of spiral structure in disc galaxies.

In this paper we introduce a sample of galaxies observed in the near–infrared, with a view to testing the ideas of Kormendy & Norman (1979). These galaxies all have measured rotation curves. In section 2 we introduce the sample; in section 3 we summarize the results of a test the hypothesis made by Kormendy & Norman (1979). We treat their hypothesis as having three distinct parts, and test them accordingly:

* a comparison of the radius of extent of spiral structure with the turnover radius in the rotation curve.
* a test of whether spiral structure is induced by tidal interactions with neighbouring galaxies.
* a test of bar driven spiral structure.

Finally in section 4 we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 Observations

We have observed 17 galaxies on the UK Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) in 2 runs between 1st – 4th August 2001 and 11th – 14th March 2002 in the K band (2.2 $`\mu `$m) using the UKIRT Fast Track Imager (UFTI). UFTI is a 1–2.5 $`\mu `$m camera consisting of 1024$`\times `$1024 pixels of 0.09 arcsec each. Thus its field of view is $``$90 arcsec. The galaxies were therefore selected such that they could fit on the UFTI field. The galaxies were selected from the Mathewson et al. (1992) sample. These galaxies all have measured H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves (unlike the sample of Seigar & James 1998a, for which no rotation curve data was available, because the galaxies were too face–on). They were selected such that their declination, $`\delta >20^{}`$, and the ratio of their major–to–minor axes, $`a/b<3.0`$, so that the galaxies are not too edge on and spiral structure can still be traced. The galaxies were not selected on the appearance of their spiral arm structure.

In the first run from 1st–4th August 2001, galaxies were observed down to the K=21.5 magnitude isophote with $`S/N=3`$ per arcsec2. In the latter run, from 12th–14th March 2002, galaxis were observed down to the K=22.1 magnitude isophote with $`S/N`$=3 per arcsec2.

The justification for using the near–infrared K band is two–fold. Firstly, the K band is relatively free from dust extinction when compared to optical wavebands. Also, the K band traces the old stellar population, and thus the dominant mass distribution in galaxy discs. This is important when studying the underlying structure in disc galaxies.

## 3 Results

It should first be noted that the K band image of each galaxy reveals a regular spiral arm structure, formally known as Grand Design. This was not part of the selection process, and therefore shows that, although galaxies can appear flocculent in the optical, a much more regular underlying spiral pattern appears in the infrared, in agreement with Block et al. (1994) and Thornley (1996). The structure, although very regular, does sometimes show smaller arms branching off from the main 2–armed structure, and sometimes a regular 3–armed pattern is revealed. In some cases a 2–armed pattern is revealed, but the arms are relatively short. For this reason, we introduce a scheme for classifying the regularity of spiral arms in the infrared (to be compared with the arm class of Elmgreen & Elmegreen 1982). We term this classification scheme, the dust–penetrated arm class. Three classes are used. Class 1 refers to regular, long arms. Class 2 refers to regular, but short arms. Class 3 refers to regular arms that have a few fragments bifurcating along their length. In the case of class 3, the pattern still appears much more regular than in the optical, and galaxies referred to as grand–design based upon their optical appearance, also usually have many more fragments and bifurcations than those seen in the infrared images presented in this paper. The dust–penetrated arm class is shown in Table 1 along with comments for some of the galaxies. A digitized sky survey inspection of these galaxies has revealed that 6 show optically flocculent structure. These galaxies all show Grand Design structure in the near–infrared.

We have compared the extent of the spiral structure as revealed in near–infrared K band imaging with the rotation curves of these galaxies, in order to determine if the spiral structure extends past the radius of solid–body rotation. In all 17 galaxies, the spiral structure does extend into the differentially rotating part of the disc. This is shown in Table 1 as the fraction of the radius to which grand–design spiral structure extends divided by the radius of turnover in the rotation curve, $`r_{gd}/r_{to}`$. In all cases this is significantly greater than 1. It should be noted that it is possible that in some cases the S/N may not be good enough to trace the entire spiral structure. In these cases, the ratio $`r_{gd}/r_{to}`$ is a lower limit.

As the ratio $`r_{gd}/r_{to}`$ is always greater than 1, we proceeded by testing for nearby neighbours. Kormendy & Norman (1979) defined a tidally significant neighbour as one within 3–5 galaxy diameters and 1 magnitude (V band) of the spiral galaxy in question. In order to remain consistent with our earlier work (Seigar & James 1998b) we have relaxed this arbitrary requirement to 6 diameters and 3 magnitudes in total brightness. We performed a search for near neighbours using the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) and redshifts from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED). We find that 4 of the galaxies have tidally significant neighbours using these criteria.

We also looked at the Hubble classification of these galaxies (e.g. de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991), in order to see how many of the galaxies have bars. From this information, 9 of the galaxies are classified as having bars and 2 are classified as having oval distortions. We have also investigated the K band images of the galaxies classified as non–barred in order to see if the near–infrared imaging reveals bars. The images of these 6 galaxies are shown in Figure 1. From these images it can be seen that there is strong evidence for a bar in only one of these galaxies. We now describe the images in detail:
ESO 576 –G12: The K band image of this galaxy shows some evidence for an asymmetric oval distortion.
ESO 602 –G25: This galaxy shows evidence for a definite oval distortion in its centre.
IC 1330: This galaxy shows a central bar with arms at its ends.
NGC 2722: The central 3 or 4 contours in this image suggest that there is some evidence that this galaxy has a weak oval distortion in its centre.
UGC 14: This galaxy has no evidence of a bar in its K band image.
UGC 210: This galaxy has some elliptical contours (red and green) which suggest that there is a weak oval distortion present.

The results of the near–neighbour and bar search are listed in Table 1.

Our results suggest that it is difficult to explain the presence of spiral structure in 5 out of 17 galaxies ($`29`$%) using the hypothesis of Kormendy & Norman (1979). This suggests that some other mechanism may be responsible for driving spiral structure. Indeed along with the original hypothesis of a quasi–stationary density wave (Lin & Shu 1964) it was proposed that a density wave is a natural instability of a cold, self–gravitating, stellar disc.

It should be noted that a difference between this study and the study of Kormendy & Norman (1979) is that here we make use of near–infrared images, whereas Kormendy & Norman (1979) made use of optical V band images. The near–infrared often reveals underlying Grand–Design spiral structure in galaxies that exhibit flocculent spiral structure in optical wavebands (Thornley 1996), and this is supported by the fact that the galaxies presented in this paper have regular spiral structure, even though they were not selected on the basis of their spiral pattern. In essence, the K band studies presented here are therefore touching on aspects of spiral structure beyond those originally addressed by Kormendy & Norman (1979).

In the next two sections, we investigate those galaxies with near neighbours and central bars in more detail, in order to see if either of these properties are responsible for the driving of spiral structure.

### 3.1 Further analysis of galaxies with near neighbours

We have measured the strength of arms in this sample of galaxies using the equivalent angle (EA) method introduced by Seigar & James (1998a). The EA is analogous to the quantity equivalent width, which is widely used in spectroscopy, and is specifically designed to be independent of noise and resolution effects. Equivalent angle (EA) is defined to be the angle subtended at the centre of a galaxy by a sector of the underlying disc and bulge that emits as much light as the arm/bar component, within the same radial limits (see Fig. 2 for a diagrammatic representation of EA). Thus an arm which emits as much light as the underlying disc between, say, 0.5 and 1.0 kpc radius would have an EA of 180 within these radial limits. The same definition is used for bar EA.

Figure 3 shows a histogram of the distribution of arm strengths (in terms of equivalent angle) in a combination of the samples introduced here and in Seigar & James (1998b), making a total of 62 galaxies. The galaxies with near neighbours are indicated in black in the histogram. It can be seen that 4 out of 9 galaxies ($`44`$%) with arm EA greater than 35 have near neighbours whereas only 16 out of 62 galaxies ($`26`$%) in the whole sample have companions. A similar and slightly stronger trend was found by Seigar & James (1998b), but neither result is formally statistically significant. However, this result suggests a relation between arm strength and tidal interactions.

This result is strengthened by Figure 4 which shows that the presence of near neighbours enhances the $`m=2`$ mode, with this being the dominant mode in 11 out of 16 galaxies ($`69`$%)with nearby neighbours, compared with only 15 out of 46 galaxies ($`33`$%) with no apparent neighbours. These statistics are an improvement on those reported in Seigar & James (1998b). Thus, it seems that nearby companion galaxies tend to enhance the strength of the $`m=2`$ spiral mode.

### 3.2 Further analysis of galaxies with bars

N–body simulations of disc galaxies as early as Hohl (1971) have shown that bar modes arise as a natural instability in a cold self–gravitating disc. The modal theory of spiral structure (Bertin et al. 1989a, b; Bertin & Lin 1996) describes bars as a class of self–excited spiral modes. In galaxies with small bars, the bar can be interpreted as being created by the mode excited in the outer parts of the disc, when the disc allows for propagation of waves close to the centre (Bertin & Lin 1996). However, for strong bars, the gas response to the bar can still be considered and the modal approach to spiral structure takes this into account (Bertin & Lin 1996). In this case the original simulations of Sanders & Huntley (1976) can be taken into account. In this section we look at the barred galaxies in this sample, in order to see if their spiral modes are bar–driven, and we test the third part of the Kormendy & Norman (1979) hypothesis.

Kormendy & Norman (1979) suggest that the idea of bar driven spiral modes (Sanders & Huntley 1976) may be responsible for 2–armed spiral structure extending past the radius of solid–body rotation. Even if this is the case, Sellwood & Sparke (1988) state that bar driving is only important for the most strongly barred spiral galaxies. In addition, it is thought that bar forcing should not extend far outside the region where the bar potential is strong.

We have tested models of bar–driven spiral structure by looking for a correlation between bar and arm strength. The result of this is shown in Figure 5, which shows a plot of arm strength in the inner part of the disc against bar strength. In this plot, we have included the 11 galaxies with bars or oval distortions from the sample introduced in this paper, and the 30 galaxies with bars and oval distortions from the sample introduced in Seigar & James (1998b). We have also split the sample up into those galaxies with strong bars and those galaxies with weak oval distortions, by displaying them with different symbols in the figure. It can be seen that there is no overall correlation, and also that there is no correlation for either strongly barred galaxies or galaxies with oval distortions. It would therefore appear that bars do not strongly affect the strength of spiral arms, even in the central regions of discs, and therefore, our conclusions from Seigar & James (1998b) have not changed.

From this, we can conclude that there is no evidence that bars are responsible for the driving of spiral modes in disc galaxies. This, is therefore, evidence therefore against the part of the hypothesis by Kormendy & Norman (1979), that bars can drive spiral structure.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

Our $`K`$–band observations of seventeen inclined spiral galaxies have revealed Grand–Design spiral structure in all objects, although six of them exhibit flocculent structure in the optical. Thus we have introduced the ‘dust–penetrated arm class’, which indicates the regularity of spiral structure in the near–infrared. We have used this sample to test the hypothesis of Kormendy & Norman (1979) and have found the following:

* The suggestion by Kormendy & Norman (1979) that spiral arms may not extend beyond the solid–body part of the rotation curve appears to be rarely, if ever, the case.
* Tidal interactions may play a role in some galaxies, but our data also suggests that many isolated galaxies show strong Grand–Design near–infrared arms.
* We have found no evidence for driving of spiral structure by bars, and support the conclusion of Sellwood & Sparke (1988) that only the strongest, relatively rare bars, are likely to have a significant role.

Our data have shown that the hypothesis of Kormendy & Norman (1979) does definitely not survive the stronger tests posed by near–infrared imaging, compared to optical imaging. In this paper we have shown that some specific mechanism is required to stabilise arm structures, e.g. density waves (Lin & Shu 1964, 1966) or modal theories (Bertin et al. 1989a, b).

## 5 acknowledgements

The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We thank the anonymours referee for comments which greatly improved the content of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Determination of the Higgs boson spin with a linear 𝐞⁺𝐞⁻ collider

## Introduction

Spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Standard Model leads to one remnant scalar particle, the Higgs boson . A light Higgs boson is expected to be produced at an $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider of a few hundred$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ via the Higgs-strahlung process, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}`$. However, if a particle produced in association with the Z is detected, the confirmation of its scalar nature will be essential to its identification with the Higgs boson. Here we study the production of a Standard Model Higgs boson with a mass $`m_\mathrm{H}=120\mathrm{GeV}`$ near the kinematic threshold and compare the cross section to predictions for bosons of spin 0, 1 and 2 produced in association with the Z .

## Experimental Conditions and Detector Simulation

The study is performed for a linear collider operated at a centre-of-mass energies of 215, 222 and 240$`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The simulated data statistics corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 20 fb-1 at each energy point. The detector used in the simulation follows the proposal presented in the TESLA Technical Design Report . The simulation of the detector is done using SIMDET .

## Signal and background processes

Events of the signal, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}`$, are generated using PYTHIA . Only Z decays into electrons and muons are considered. For the Higgs boson all decay modes are simulated as expected in the Standard Model. The values of the cross section in the Standard Model and the expected numbers of events corresponding to a luminosity of 20 fb-1 are given in Table 1 at centre-of-mass energies of 215, 222 and 240$`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The following background processes are considered: $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma \gamma )\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}(\gamma )`$, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{ZZ}`$. Initial state Bremsstrahlung is simulated by PYTHIA. Beamstrahlung is taken into account using the CIRCE program .

## Cross Section Measurement

The cross section determination is based on the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+2`$-$`\mathrm{jet}`$ final state, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is an electron or muon. The signature is two isolated energetic electrons or muons and two jets. The identification of electrons and muons and the formation of jets are performed as described in Reference . The selection efficiencies for the processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}`$ $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ 2-jet and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}`$ $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$2-jet are about 50%. Each event is subject of a kinematic fit imposing energy and momentum conservation . The distributions of the two jet invariant mass are shown in Figure 1 for centre-of-mass energies of 215, 222 and 240$`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The dijet mass spectra are fitted with the superposition of signal and background distributions. The signal is parametrised with a gaussian and the background is fixed to the Monte Carlo expectation.

## Results

The cross sections obtained for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+2`$-$`\mathrm{jet}`$ at centre-of-mass energies of 215, 222 and 240$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ are shown in Figure 2. The results of fits using the predictions from models with s=0, 1 and 2  with the normalisation as free parameter are also shown.

The s=0 case is clearly distinguished from the s=1 and 2 cases. The fit with the s=0 prediction has a good $`\chi ^2`$ probability and its normalisation factor equals to unity. The other fits have a $`\chi ^2`$ probability of less than 10-5. The study of the Higgs boson production just above the kinematic threshold shows that the measurement of the cross section at three centre-of-mass energy points using a luminosity of 20 fb-1 allows confirmation of the scalar nature of the Higgs boson. Bosons with other spins can be disfavoured111There are particular scenarios for s=1 and 2 , which show a threshold behaviour similar in shape to the s=0 one. This can be disentangled using angular information in addition..

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Authors thank Fondation Antorchas, Argentina, for support.


text:
# Fireballs with a Neutron Component

## 1. Introduction

Importance of neutrons in GRBs was realized recently (Derishev, Kocharovsky, & Kocharovsky 1999a,b; Bahcall & Mészáros 2000; Mészáros & Rees 2000; Fuller, Pruet, & Abazajian 2000; Pruet & Dalal 2002; Beloborodov 2003a,b). Their presence is inevitable in a standard fireball (sections 2 and 3) and they qualitatively change the explosion picture at radii of $`10^{16}10^{17}`$ cm (section 4).

## 2. Neutronization of the Central Engine

GRB central engines are very dense and hot (e.g. Mészáros 2002). The central matter (or matter surrounding the central black hole) is filled with hot $`e^\pm `$ pairs in thermodynamic equilibrium with blackbody radiation at a temperature $`kT=110`$ MeV. Its baryonic component is made of neutrons and protons (nuclei break up into free nucleons in the unshadowed region of the $`T\rho `$ plane shown in left panel of Fig. 1) and frequent $`e^\pm `$ captures on nucleons take place,

$$e^{}+pn+\nu ,e^++np+\overline{\nu }.$$
(1)
These reactions quickly convert protons to neutrons and back, and establish an equilibrium proton fraction $`Y_e=n_p/(n_n+n_p)`$ which is shown in Figure 1. Any plausible GRB engines belong to the $`T\rho `$ region where $`Y_e<0.5`$. So, the neutrons are not only present in the central engines — in fact, they dominate.

When the neutronized matter is ejected into a high-entropy fireball, it remains neutron-dominated because (1) expansion occurs too fast and $`Y_e`$ freezes out at its initial value below 0.5, or (2) the fireball partially absorbs the neutrino flux from the engine, which tends to keep $`Y_e<0.5`$ (see Beloborodov 2003a for details).

## 3. Ejected Neutrons Survive the Nucleosynthesis

As the fireball expands and cools, nucleons tend to recombine into $`\alpha `$-particles (like they do in the big bang). This process competes, however, with rapid expansion and can freeze out. For this reason, nucleosynthesis is suppressed in fireballs with a high photon-to-baryon ratio $`\varphi =n_\gamma /n_b`$ (or, equivalently, high entropy per baryon $`s/k=3.6\varphi `$). A minimum $`\varphi `$ in GRBs is $`10^5`$, which is just marginal for nucleosynthesis (detailed calculations of nucleosynthesis in GRBs have been done recently by Lemoine 2002; Pruet, Guiles, & Fuller 2002; Beloborodov 2003a). Even in the extreme case of complete nucleon recombination there are still leftover neutrons because of the neutron excess ($`Y_e<0.5`$). Their minimum mass fraction is $`X_n=12Y_e`$.

In addition, synthesized helium is likely destroyed during the subsequent evolution of the explosion. This happens if (1) there appears a substantial relative bulk velocity between the neutron and ion components (as a result of neutron decoupling during the acceleration stage of the fireball) or (2) internal shocks occur and heat the ions to a high temperature (Beloborodov 2003a).

Thus, a substantial neutron component appears inevitably in the standard fireball scenario. Neutrons develop a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=10^210^3`$ at the very beginning of the explosion when the fireball is accelerated by radiation pressure: they are collisionally coupled to the ions in the early dense fireball, and decouple close to the end of the acceleration stage. Then the neutrons coast and gradually decay with a mean lifetime $`\tau _\beta 900`$ s and a mean decay radius $`R_\beta =c\tau _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$,

$$R_\beta =0.8\times 10^{16}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{300}\right)\mathrm{cm}.$$
(2)
## 4. Neutron-Fed Blast Wave

Let us remind what happens in a relativistic explosion without neutrons. The ejected fireball with mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ and Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ sweeps up an ambient medium with density $`n_0=1100`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> and gradually dissipates its kinetic energy. The dissipation rate peaks at a characteristic “deceleration” radius $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}10^{16}`$ cm where half of the initial energy is dissipated. $`R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ corresponds to swept-up mass $`m_{\mathrm{dec}}=M_{\mathrm{ej}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}`$. Further dynamics is described by the self-similar blast wave model of Blandford & McKee (1976). How does this picture change in the presence of neutrons?

At radii under consideration, $`R>10^{15}`$ cm, the ejected fireball is a shell of thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$. In contrast to neutrons, the ion component of the fireball is aware of the external medium and its Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases. As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases below $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, the ions fall behind and separate from the neutrons. Thus the fireball splits into two relativistic shells which we name N (neutrons) and I (ions). The mass of the leading N-shell is decreasing because of the $`\beta `$-decay,

$$M_n(R)=M_n^0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R}{R_\beta }\right).$$
(3)
The N-shell energy, $`E_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_nM_nc^2`$, is huge compared to the ambient rest-mass $`mc^2`$ even at $`R>R_\beta `$. For example, at $`R=R_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ we find $`E_n/m_{\mathrm{dec}}c^2=X_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ej}}\mathrm{exp}(R_{\mathrm{dec}}/R_\beta )`$ where $`X_n=M_n^0/M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ is the initial neutron fraction of the fireball.

The neutron decay products $`p`$ and $`e^{}`$ share immediately their huge momentum with ambient particles due to two-stream instability and the N-shell leaves behind a mixed trail with a relativistic bulk velocity $`\beta <\beta _n`$ (Beloborodov 2003b)

$$\beta (R)=\frac{\beta _n}{1+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta )^1},\gamma (R)=\frac{1}{(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1}{(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1)^{1/2}},$$
(4)
where

$$\zeta (R)=\frac{\mathrm{d}M_n}{\mathrm{d}m}=\frac{M_n}{R_\beta }\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}R}\right)^1,$$
(5)
and $`m(R)`$ is ambient mass enclosed by radius $`R`$. There exists a characteristic radius $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ where the trail becomes nonrelativistic ($`\beta =0.5`$). It is defined by condition $`\zeta =\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^1`$, which requires about 10 e-folds of the decay (for a typical $`m_\beta m_{\mathrm{dec}}10^5M_n^0`$). Thus,

$$R_{\mathrm{trail}}10R_\beta =0.8\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{300}\right)\mathrm{cm}.$$
(6)
$`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ depends very weakly (logarithmically) on the ambient density and the initial neutron fraction of the fireball, $`X_n`$.

The decaying N-shell not only accelerates the medium as it passes through it. It also compresses the medium, loads with new particles, and heat to a high temperature. The rest-frame density and relativistic enthalpy of the trail are

$$n=n_0(1+\zeta )\left(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1\right)^{1/2},\mu =\frac{(\zeta ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\zeta +1)^{1/2}}{1+\zeta },$$
(7)
where $`n_0`$ is the medium density ahead of the N-shell. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^1<\zeta <\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ one finds $`\mu 1`$, i.e. the thermal energy of the trail far exceeds its rest-mass energy.

The ion fireball follows the neutron front and collects the trail. As a result, (1) the ion Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases and (2) a shock wave propagates in the trail material. The shock has a Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sh}}>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and it cannot catch up with the neutron front (unless $`n_0[R]`$ falls off steeper than $`R^3`$). Dynamics and dissipation in the shock are discussed in Beloborodov (2003b). We emphasize here important differences from a customary external shock: the neutron-trail shock propagates in a relativistically moving, dense, hot, and possibly magnetized medium behind the leading neutron front.

The neutron impact ceases at $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}10^{17}`$ cm, which can leave an imprint on the observed afterglow. For example, the shock dissipation can have a second bump (Beloborodov 2003b), and a spectral transition is also possible. The arrival time of radiation emitted at $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}`$ is approximately $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}/2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c`$ (counted from the arrival of first $`\gamma `$-rays). It may be as long as 30 days or as short as a few seconds, depending on the fireball Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R_{\mathrm{trail}})`$. Recent early observation of a GRB afterglow (GRB 021004) discovered an interesting re-brightening at $`10^3`$ s. Also, we do not exclude a possible relevance of neutrons to the 20 day bumps observed in a few GRBs, as the time coincides with $`R_{\mathrm{trail}}/c`$.

Neutron signatures should be absent if the fireball is dominated by a Poynting flux and has extremely low baryon loading. Then the neutron component decouples early, with a modest Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, and decays at small radii. The upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ due to decoupling is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n300(\dot{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }/10^{26})^{1/3}`$ where $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ \[g/s\] is the mass outflow rate per unit solid angle of the fireball (Beloborodov 2003a).

An additional piece of GRB physics is the interaction of the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray radiation with an ambient medium (see Beloborodov 2002 and refs. therein). It leads to a gap opening and crucially affects the early afterglow emitted at radii $`R<10^{16}(E_\gamma /10^{53})^{1/2}`$ cm, where $`E_\gamma `$ \[erg\] is the isotropic energy of the GRB. Here, we focused on larger radii where the neutron effects dominate.

## References

Bahcall, J. N., & Mészáros, P. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1362

Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 808

Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0210522

Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, ApJL, in press, astro-ph/0209228

Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130

Derishev, E. V., Kocharovsky, V.V., Kocharovsky, Vl. V. 1999a, A&A, 345, L51

Derishev, E. V., Kocharovsky, V.V., Kocharovsky, Vl. V. 1999b, ApJ, 521, 640

Fuller, G. M., Pruet, J., & Abazajian, K. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 2673

Lemoine, M. 2002, A&A, 390, L31

Mészáros, P. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 171

Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 541, L5

Pruet, J., & Dalal, N. 2002, ApJ, 573, 770

Pruet, J., Guiles, S., & Fuller, G. M. 2002, ApJ, 580, 368


text:
# Polytropic Stars in Three-Dimensional Spacetime

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal.


text:
# Untitled Document

A Polymer Expansion for the Quantum

Heisenberg Ferromagnet Wave Function

Paul Federbush

Department of Mathematics

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109

(pfed@umich.edu)

Abstract

A polymer expansion is given for the Quantum Heisenberg Ferromagnet wave function. Working on a finite lattice, one is dealing entirely with algebraic identities; there is no question of convergence. The conjecture to be pursued in further work is that effects of large polymers are small. This is relevant to the question of the utility of the expansion and its possible extension to the infinite volume. In themselves the constructions of the present paper are neat and elegant and have surprising simplicity.

This paper assumes the fundamentals of the Heisenberg model but is basically self-contained; it arises from the work in , , , but these references need not be referred to. We intend to continue the work in the present paper, to obtain bounds on polymer contributions enabling extension to the infinite lattice. We also have some hope of using this expansion in a proof of the phase transition.

We work with a finite rectangular lattice, $`V`$, in $`d`$-dimensions, $`𝒱`$ the set of its vertices. The Hamiltonian is taken as

$$H=\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j1\right)=\underset{ij}{}(I_{ij}1)$$
(1)
where $`I_{ij}`$ interchanges the spins at nearest neighbor sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. The Hilbert space $``$ is constructed from basis elements $`\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮`$, basis elements in $`11`$ correspondence with subsets $`𝒮`$ of $`𝒱`$, used for their labeling. In a spin-up spin-down representation

$$\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮=\begin{array}{c}\\ i𝒮\end{array}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)_i\begin{array}{c}\\ j𝒮\end{array}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)_j.$$
(2)
A vector $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ in $``$ may be expanded as

$$\stackrel{}{f}=\underset{𝒮}{}f(𝒮)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮.$$
(3)
For two sets $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮^{}`$ we write $`𝒮𝒮^{}`$ if $`𝒮^{}`$ is constructed from $`𝒮`$ by replacing some single element of $`𝒮`$ by one of its nearest neighbors. That is, $`𝒮𝒮^{}`$ if there is a set $``$ and elements of $`𝒱`$, $`i`$ and $`j`$, so that

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`i`$
$`𝒮^{}`$ $`=`$ $`j`$
where $`ij`$ and the unions in (4) are disjoint. If we write

$$\stackrel{}{f}(t)=e^{Ht}\stackrel{}{f}=\underset{𝒮}{}f(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮.$$
(5)
It is easy to see that the $`f(𝒮,t)`$ satisfy the differential equations

$$\frac{}{t}f(𝒮,t)=\underset{𝒮^{}𝒮}{}\left(f(𝒮^{},t)f(𝒮,t)\right).$$
(6)
This is the graph heat equation, corresponding to a graph with vertices the subsets of $`𝒱`$, and with an edge connecting vertices $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ if and only if $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$.

We now write $``$ as direct sum

$$=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}^n$$
(7)
where as indicated $`n`$ ranges from 0 to $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)`$. $`^n`$ is spanned by the basis elements $`\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮`$ where $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=n`$. $`^n`$ is the $`n`$ spin-wave sector of the Hilbert space $``$. The $`^n`$ are invariant subspaces of $`H`$. We write $`H^n`$ for $`H`$ restricted to $`^n`$.

We introduce operators $`T^{r,s}`$, where $`T^{r,s}`$ is a linear mapping from $`^r`$ to $`^s`$. They are defined as follows:

1. $`T^{r,r}`$ is the identity on $`^r`$
2. If $`s>r`$,

$$T^{r,s}=0$$
3. If $`s<r`$ let $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ be in $`^r`$

$$\stackrel{}{g}=\underset{𝒮}{}g(𝒮)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮$$
(8)
where $`g(𝒮)`$ is non-zero only if $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=r`$. Let

$$\stackrel{}{h}=T^{r,s}\stackrel{}{g}=\underset{𝒮}{}h(𝒮)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮.$$
(9)
Then $`h(𝒮)=0`$ unless $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=s`$, and

$$h(𝒮)=\underset{𝒮^{}𝒮}{}g(𝒮^{})\mathrm{if}\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=s.$$
(10)

We note that if $`r>s>k`$ then

$$T^{s,k}T^{r,s}=\frac{(rk)!}{(sk)!(rs)!}T^{r,k}$$
(11)
This is easy counting.

A nice result is that $`T^{r,s}`$ intertwines $`H^r`$ and $`H^s`$. That is

$$T^{r,s}H^r=H^sT^{r,s}$$
(12)
where both sides of (12) are viewed as mappings form $`^r`$ to $`^s`$. This is treated in Appendix A. The formalism is from Section II of . A similar more complex parallel theory is given in  for random walks on the permutation group, instead of subspaces of a lattice.

We start presenting the polymer expansion for $`\stackrel{}{f}(t)`$ of equation (5). We assume $`\stackrel{}{f}(t)`$ is normalized so that

$$\underset{𝒮}{}f(𝒮,t)=1.$$
(13)
We note that if at any time this equation holds, the heat equation, equation (6), preserves the identity. We do not consider the possibility that the sum on the left side of (13) be zero, so no such normalization is possible.

We let $`𝒫`$ be a partition of $`𝒱`$. We write $`𝒮_\alpha <𝒫`$ for a subset $`𝒮_\alpha `$ of the partition $`𝒫`$. One has

$`S_\alpha {\displaystyle S_\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{},\alpha \beta `$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha I^P}{}}𝒮_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`𝒱.`$ (15)
We will have

$$\stackrel{}{f}(t)=\underset{𝒫}{}\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒮_\alpha <𝒫\end{array}\stackrel{}{u}(𝒮_\alpha ,t)$$
(16)
where

$$\stackrel{}{u}(𝒮_\alpha ,t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _i(t)\\ 1\varphi _i(t)\end{array}\right)_i$$
(17)
if $`𝒮_\alpha =\{i\}`$.

If $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮_\alpha )=r>1`$

$$\stackrel{}{u}(𝒮_\alpha ,t)=u^r(𝒮_\alpha ,t)\begin{array}{c}\\ i𝒮_\alpha \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)_i$$
(18)
We also write

$$u(𝒮,t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi _i(t)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & 𝒮=\{i\}\hfill \\ u^r(𝒮,t)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & \mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=r>1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(19)
We write $`\stackrel{}{f}(t)`$ as a sum of its different spin-wave number components

$$\stackrel{}{f}(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}\stackrel{}{f}_n(t)$$
(20)
$$\stackrel{}{f}_n(t)^n$$
(21)
We set

$$\stackrel{}{c}_r(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}T^{n,r}\stackrel{}{f}_n(t)$$
(22)
and

$$\stackrel{}{c}_r(t)=\underset{𝒮}{}c^r(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮.$$
(23)
(Do notice that the $`c^r,s`$ satisfy the graph heat equation, (6).) Then we find that equation (16) is satisfied if the $`u(𝒮,t)`$ are chosen to satisfy:

$$c^r(𝒮,t)=u^r(𝒮,t)+\underset{𝒫}{}\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒮_\beta <𝒫\end{array}u(𝒮_\beta ,t)$$
(24)
Where here $`𝒫`$ is a $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫}`$ partition of $`𝒮`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=r`$. $`r`$ will range from 1 to $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)`$. Equations (16) and (24) are prototype cluster-expansion/polymer-expansion equations. But the form of equation (18) is perhaps surprising? Appendix B treats the consistency of the formalism; that there is a unique solution for the $`u^{}s`$ from (24), and they yield equation (16).

Appendix A. Intertwining Result

In virtue of equation (11) it is enough to show $`T^{r,r1}`$ intertwines. We choose to show equivalently that $`T^{r,r1}`$ carries a solution of the heat equation into a solution of the heat equation. Let $`f(𝒮,t)`$ satisfy the heat equation, and be zero unless $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=r`$. We define

$$g(s,t)=\underset{j}{}f(sj,t),\mathrm{\#}(s)=r1$$
$`(A.1)`$
We wish to show $`g`$ satisfies the heat equation. Writing the heat equation for $`f`$:

$$\frac{f}{t}(si,t)=\underset{𝒮^{}(si)}{}\left(f(𝒮^{},t)f(si,t)\right)$$
$`(A.2)`$
We sum the two sides of (A.2) over $`i`$.

$$\frac{}{t}g(s,t)=\underset{i}{}\underset{𝒮^{}(si)}{}\left(f(𝒮^{},t)f(si,t)\right)$$
$`(A.3)`$
The right side splits into two terms $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$

$$I_1=\underset{i}{}\underset{s^{}s}{}\left(f(s^{}i,t)f(si,t)\right)$$
$`(A.4)`$
and

$$I_2=\underset{i}{}\underset{ji}{}\left(f(sj,t)f(si,t)\right)$$
$`(A.5)`$
It is easy to see

$$I_1=\underset{s^{}s}{}\left(g(s^{},t)g(s,t)\right)$$
$`(A.6)`$
and just a little harder to see

$$I_2=0$$

and the result is proved.

Appendix B. In Partes Tres.

We divide the demonstration of consistency into three parts.

I) We first note that equation (24) has a unique solution for the $`u^r`$ (these are the unknowns). One solves inductively over $`r`$, the $`r`$th equation uniquely determining $`u^r`$.

II) Once the $`u`$’s are determined from equation (24), we substitute them in the right side of equation (16) which we call $`\stackrel{}{X}(t)`$, so equation (16) becomes

$$\stackrel{}{f}(t)=\stackrel{}{X}(t).$$
$`(B.1)`$
(Of course we do not know whether (B.1) is true, that is what we’re trying to show.) We decompose $`\stackrel{}{X}(t)`$

$$\stackrel{}{X}(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}\stackrel{}{X}_n(t)$$
$`(B.2)`$
$$\stackrel{}{X}_n(t)^n$$
$`(B.3)`$
and define

$$\stackrel{}{d}_r(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}T^{n,r}\stackrel{}{X}_n(t)$$
$`(B.4)`$
$$\stackrel{}{d}_r(t)=\underset{𝒮}{}d^r(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮.$$
$`(B.5)`$
The result we seek to now show is the following: If $`d^r(𝒮,t)=c^r(𝒮,t)`$ all $`𝒮,r`$ then $`\stackrel{}{f}(t)=\stackrel{}{X}(t)`$.

This we also show by induction over $`r`$, but in the opposite direction, from $`r=\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)`$ down to $`r=0`$. At the step $`r=r`$ we clearly get

$$\stackrel{}{f}_r(t)=\stackrel{}{X}_r(t).$$
$`(B.6)`$
(One only needs $`T^{r,r}=I`$, and $`T^{r,s}=0`$ if $`s>r`$.)

III) We are left with the task of showing

$$d^r(𝒮,t)=c^r(𝒮,t).$$
$`(B.7)`$
We first do a preliminary investigation.

Let

$$\stackrel{}{h}(t)=h(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮$$
$`(B.8)`$
$$=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\#}(𝒱)}{}}\stackrel{}{h}_n(t)$$
$`(B.9)`$
$$\stackrel{}{h}_n(t)^n$$
$`(B.10)`$
and define

$$\stackrel{}{g}_r(t)=\underset{n}{}T^{n,r}\stackrel{}{h}_n(t)$$
$`(B.11)`$
$$=\underset{𝒮}{}g^r(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮$$
$`(B.12)`$
We then find the following expression for $`g^r(𝒮,t)`$

$$g^r(𝒮,t)=\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝒮^{}\\ 𝒮^{}𝒮=\varphi \end{array}h(𝒮𝒮^{},t)$$
$`(B.13)`$
where $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮)=r`$.

Now when we compute $`d^r(𝒮,t)`$ using the expression (B.13) with $`X`$ replacing $`h`$ $`(X(t)=_𝒮X(𝒮,t)\stackrel{}{i}_𝒮)`$, the only terms in the expression for $`\stackrel{}{X}(t)`$ from (16) which will contribute are of the form

$$\left(\stackrel{}{u}^r(𝒮,t)+\underset{𝒫}{}\underset{𝒮_\beta <𝒫}{}\stackrel{}{u}(𝒮_\beta ,t)\right)\underset{i𝒮}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _i(t)\\ 1\varphi _i(t)\end{array}\right)_i$$
$`(B.14)`$
using the notation from equation (24). That is because the sum over $`𝒮^{}`$ in (B.13) may be written as an iterated sum, summing for each vertex not in $`𝒮`$, whether the vertex is in $`𝒮^{}`$ or not. This amounts to summing over spin-up and spin-down at that vertex. At vertex $`k`$ this sum applied to the term in the tensor product

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _k(t)\\ 1\varphi _k(t)\end{array}\right)_k$$

yields 1, and applied to

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 1\\ \hfill 1\end{array}\right)_k$$

yields 0. We get from the terms in $`\stackrel{}{X}(t)`$ in (B.14) that

$$d^r(𝒮,t)=c^r(𝒮,t)$$
$`(B.15)`$
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank the referees from the Letters in Mathematical Physics for encouraging me to write this paper in a more intelligible form.

References

* \] P. Federbush, “For the Quantum Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Some Conjectured Approximations”, math-ph/0101017.
* \] P. Federbush, “For the Quantum Heisenberg Ferromagnet, A Polymer Expansion and its High T Convergence”, math-ph/0108002.
* \] Robert T. Powers, “Heisenberg Model and a Random Walk on the Permutation Group”, Lett. in Math. Phys. 1, 125-130 (1976).


text:
# Photometric properties of theoretical spectral libraries for GAIA photometry

## 1. Introduction

The GAIA Galactic survey will observe more than 1 billion of stars in our Galaxy, and will obtain photometry in 11 medium-band and 5 large-band filters with the challenging goal to determine the fundamental stellar parameters ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, $`[Fe/H]`$) across a very wide range of stellar types. In order to test the capabilities of the photometric system and the performances of the classification algorithms, various stellar libraries of synthetic and/or empirical spectra are required. In this study, I compare the photometric properties of the most widely used grids of synthetic spectra (ATLAS, NMARCS, PHOENIX, BaSeL) for cool stars in view of their application to GAIA photometry.

## 2. Grids of synthetic stellar spectra

The coverage in stellar parameters for each of the grids of models used in this comparative study is given in Table 1. The BaSeL 2.2 hybrid spectral library was constructed from empirical ($`[Fe/H]=0`$) and semi-empirical ($`[Fe/H]0`$) color-temperature relations (see Lejeune et al. 1997, 1998, for details), while the new BaSeL 3.1 models are based on purely empirical calibrations, defined for the metallicity range $`2.0[Fe/H]0.0`$ from a large collection of globular cluster UBVRIJHKL photometric data (see Westera et al. 2002 for details). Hence, the BaSeL 3.1 calibrations provide the only existing set of empirical metallicity-dependent $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-UBVRIJHKL transformations for $`2.0[Fe/H]0.0`$ over a large temperature range, from 2000 K to 50000 K, and are used as reference in this study. Synthetic spectra from the ATLAS 9 atmosphere models have been computed by Castelli et al. (1997) with no overshooting parameter.

## 3. Comparisons in the two-color diagrams

In Fig. 1, model colors in the range $`2500K`$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`5500K`$, computed from the different grids of synthetic spectra given in Table 1, are compared in the (B-V)/(V-I) color-color diagram for the same value of the surface gravity ($`\mathrm{log}g=1`$) with $`[Fe/H]`$ $`=0.6,0.3`$ and $`0.0`$. From the figure, it is clear that large differences exist between the different grids, specially in the low temperature regime ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`<4000K`$). Above 4000 K, the NMARCS models provide the best overall agreement with the BaSeL 3.1 empirical calibrations, both in B-V and V-I, in particular for the solar metallicity. In contrast, the PHOENIX models appear too blue in B-V, while they are in good agreement with the BaSeL 3.1 V-I colors. The B-V model colors from the ATLAS 9 grid are systematically redder below 4500 K. Below 4000 K, very large differences of several tenth of magnitude exist between all the model colors.

Similar comparisons (Lejeune et al., in prep.) for the dwarf models show that large deviations between the models and the BaSeL 3.1 empirical calibrations also exist, and are maximum below 4000 K. For the M dwarfs, model colors computed from the PHOENIX models provide the best agreement with the BaSeL 3.1 empirical calibrations.

## 4. Temperature-color calibrations

We also compared the theoretical temperature-color calibrations, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-(U-B) and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-(B-V), predicted by each grid of models in the range $`3000K`$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`6000K`$, with the temperature scales adopted in BaSeL 3.1 and the empirical calibrations of Alonso et al (1998, 1999) derived from the IRFM method. Our results (Lejeune et al., in prep) show that, for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`>4000K`$, the theoretical scales for all the models agree well with the BaSeL 3.1 empirical relations for $`[Fe/H]`$ $`=0.0`$ and $`2.0`$. Surprisingly, below 4000 K the theoretical calibrations from ATLAS 9 model atmospheres are found in very good agreement with the empirical values. The $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-(B-V) relation from the NMARCS model colors for dwarfs deviates significantly (more than 0.5 mag at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=3000K`$) from the BaSeL 3.1 empirical calibrations, while the NextGen model calibrations are closer. For the giants, the NMARCS models provide in general a better match to the empirical relations than the NextGen models. Comparisons of the BaSeL 3.1 calibrations with the metallicity-dependent temperature-color empirical relations of Alonso et al. in the temperature range 7000 K – 4000 K show a good agreement (less than 0.05 mag) for the dwarf sequences, but a more significant discrepancy ($`>`$ 0.1 mag in average) for the giant sequence with $`[Fe/H]`$ $`=2.0`$.

## 5. Conclusions

UBVRI colors of the most widely used theoretical spectral libraries (ATLAS 9, PHOENIX, NMARCS, and BaSeL ) in the temperature range 7000 K – 3000 K have been compared with empirical calibrations available for $`2.0[Fe/H]+0.5`$. We found that the ATLAS 9 model colors from Castelli et al. (1997) agree well or very well with the empirical color-temperature relations at all metallicities and over the range of effective temperatures between 6000 K and 3500 K. The most significant deviations are found for the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-(U-B) relation at solar metallicity. Below 4000 K, important deviations are found for the UBV colors between both the PHOENIX NextGen and the NMARCS model predictions with respect to the BaSeL 3.1 empirical relations, although some uncertainties still exist in the empirical data at these low temperatures. In a general way, the deviations appear to be less important with the PHOENIX NextGen model colors for dwarfs, and with the NMARCS models for giants.

These differences have to be accounted for, or maybe reduced with some spectral corrections methods, in the selection of models in order to construct a spectral library well suitable to the definition of the GAIA photometric system.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” through the grant PRAXIS-XXI/BPD/22061/99), and by the project “PESO/P/PRO/15128/1999”.

## References

Alonso, A., Arribas, S., Martinez-Roger, C., 1996, A&A, 313, 873

Alonso, A., Arribas, S., Martinez-Roger, C.,1999, A&AS, 139, 335

Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., Plez, B., 1998, A&A, 333, 321

Castelli, F., Gratton, R. G., Kurucz, R. L., 1997, A&A, 318, 841

Hauschildt, P., et al., 1999a, ApJ, 512, 377

Hauschildt, P., et al., 1999b, ApJ, 525, 871

Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., Buser, R., 1997, A&AS 125, 229

Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., Buser, R., 1998, A&AS 130, 65

Westera, P., Lejeune, T., Buser, R., Cuisinier, F., 2002, A&A, 381, 524


text:
# High-Mass Microblazars Associated with Variable Gamma-Ray Sources?

## 1. Scenario

The third EGRET catalog (Hartmann et al. 1999) contained, when published, $``$170 gamma-ray sources that could not be clearly identified with potential counterparts at lower energies. These unidentified sources can be separated into two broad groups. The first one, located at low Galactic latitudes ($`\left|b\right|<10^{}`$), is well-correlated with the spiral arms and the Galactic plane. It is formed by bright population I sources (Romero 2001). The other group, at middle or high latitudes, is in turn composed by three different populations: an isotropic component, a group of weak and hard sources probably related to the Gould Belt, and a halo component of soft sources (Grenier 2001). The identification of these sources is one of the most important challenges of contemporary high energy astrophysics.

In this paper we outline a model that can explain many of the characteristics of some low-latitude gamma-ray sources on the basis of presumed microblazar activity in distant Galactic microquasars. A microblazar phase occurs when the jet of a microquasar (basically an X-ray binary with relativistic plasma ejections) points nearly toward the observer. We shall argue that the gravitational effects of the high-mass companion star can induce a precession of the relativistic beam in most of these systems. When the original viewing angle is not too large, the object can go through phases of extremely enhanced activity (the microblazar phase) resulting in a strong gamma-ray source in the observer’s frame. The gamma-ray emission is produced by inverse Compton (IC) interactions between relativistic leptons in the jet and seed photons from the star, the accretion disk, and the hot corona or ADAF region around the compact object.

## 2. Model

As we mentioned, microquasars are X-ray binary systems able to generate relativistic jets. These jets can be detected through their synchrotron emission at radio wavelengths. We can say that microquasars are Radio Emitting X-ray Binaries (REXBs). Microblazars are microquasars with jets forming a small angle with the line of sight. They should present a significant enhanced non-thermal flux due to Doppler boosting (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1999).

In what follows we shall consider high-mass microquasars. The jet, which is created close to the central accreting object, must traverse several external photon fields. Figure 1, left panel, sketches this situation, whereas the right panel shows an example of the typical spectra of these fields. First, we have a power-law X-ray isotropic field that can be modeled as a corona or an ADAF region, with a hard spectrum. The IC interactions are in this region under the Klein-Nishina regime for MeV-GeV electrons. Then, we have the field of photons coming from the cold accretion disk, represented by a black body emission with a peak at a few keVs. Interactions with this field occur under Thomson regime. Finally, we have a nearly isotropic field due to the stellar companion, typically a black body with a peak in the UV. IC interactions occur here also with Thomson cross section.

For the stellar photons, the resulting IC luminosity, is given by (Geor-ganopoulos et al. 2002):

$$\frac{dL}{dϵd\mathrm{\Omega }}D^{2+p}\frac{kV\sigma _TcU2^{p1}}{\pi ϵ_0\left(1+p\right)\left(3+p\right)}\left(\frac{ϵ}{ϵ_0}\right)^{\left(p1\right)/2},$$
(1)
where $`D=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )]^1`$ is the Doppler factor, $`\varphi `$, the viewing angle, $`ϵ`$, the final photon energy, $`\sigma _T`$, the Thomson cross section, $`U`$, the energy density of the photon field, $`k`$, the constant in the particle energy distribution given by $`N(E)E^p`$, and $`p`$, the spectral index.

Since the disk photons come from behind the jet, we have to add an extra factor $`(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^{(p+1)/2}`$ that reduces the effects of beaming (Dermer et al. 1992). The IC scattering of the coronal photons is under the Klein-Nishina regime and then a numerical integration is needed. The result will not be a strict power-law in such a case.

In Figure 2, left panel, we concentrate on the luminosities obtained from the IC of the seed photons from the companion star. It shows the results obtained from the calculation of the spectral energy distribution for a specific model with $`p=2`$, bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$, viewing angle $`\varphi =10^0`$, photon field of an O7 star (photon energy peaking at $``$ 10 eV), and a high energy cut-off of $`\gamma _{max}=10^{3.5}>>\gamma _{min}`$. The right panel of the same figure shows the result of the up-scattering from the three different seed components: the star, the disk, and the corona or ADAF. In this case, the model calculations are for a specific source, Cyg X-1, taking $`p=2.3`$, $`\varphi =30^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5`$ and $`\gamma _{max}=10^3`$ (see Romero et al. 2002 for a detailed treatment of this source). Radiation absorbed in the local photon fields by pair production is shown in dashed lines. Compton losses in the different regions will modify the injected electron spectrum, which will introduce breaks in each spectral energy distribution.

### 2.1. Variability

The companion star in a high-mass microquasar not only provides a photon field for inverse Compton interactions, but also a gravitational field that can exert a torque onto the accretion disk around the compact object. The effect of this torque, in a non-coplanar system, is to induce a Newtonian precession of the disk. If the jets are coupled to the disk, as it is usually thought, then the precession will be transmitted to them. A time-parameterization of the jet’s viewing angle is the needed, $`\varphi (t)`$ (Abraham & Romero 1999), which implies a time evolution of the boosting amplification factor of the gamma-ray emission: $`D^{2+p}=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi (t))]^{(2+p)}`$. The viewing angle, $`\varphi `$, and the opening angle of the cone define by the jet while precessing, $`\theta `$, can be seen in Figure 1 left panel. See Kaufman-Bernadó et al. (2002) for additional details.

The time dependence of the amplification factor is shown in two different examples in Figure 3. The peak of the amplification, when an otherwise undetectable source can fall within the sensitivity of gamma-ray instruments, corresponds to the microblazar phase. It can be seen that a huge range of amplifications, going from a factor 10 to a factor $`\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^3`$, can be obtained depending mainly on the average viewing angle in the precession, which is of 10 or 30 degrees in the cases depicted in Figure 3.

## 3. Final comments

It is clear from Figure 2 that in the case of a high-mass companion microblazar, the IC photons from the star dominates the observed emission. As we can see, energies in the range MeV-GeV can be reached for reasonable electron Lorentz factors of $`\gamma 10^3`$. Nevertheless, energies of a few MeV corresponding to soft-gamma emission or hard X-rays, can also be obtained with this model as it is shown here in the specific case of Cyg X-1 (see also Georganopoulos et al. 2002), or recently suggested by Zhang et al. (2002) for the new unidentified MeV source detected by COMPTEL. The calculated luminosities are easily in the expected range $`10^{35}`$-$`10^{36}`$ erg/seg required for EGRET sources in the Galactic plane. The resulting photon energy distribution, and the luminosity inferred by the observer, will strongly depend on the assumed spectrum for the relativistic electrons of the jet and on the viewing angle $`\varphi `$ which will determine the degree of ”microblazar” of the studied microquasar.

Most of the gamma-rays produced within the coronal region will be absorbed by pair creation. The annihilation of these pairs would produce a broad, blue-shifted feature in the MeV spectrum. Because of the precession of the jet, the Doppler factor will change periodically with time, and hence the position of the annihilation peak should oscillate in energy in the lab frame around a mean value. Already launched this year, INTEGRAL satellite may be able to detect such features. On the other hand, GLAST MeV-GeV satellite, due to 2005 or 2006, will enhance the statistics on unidentified Galactic sources making possible more accurate population studies that might shed additional light on the number and distribution of microquasars in the Galaxy.

#### Acknowledgments.

High-energy astrophysics with GER is supported by Funadación Antorchas, with additional contributions from CONICET (PIP 0430/98) and ANPCT (PICT No. 03-04881). This work benefited from the Argentinian-French ECOS-SUD cooperation agreement. MK-B and GER thank the kind hospitality of the Service d’Astrophysique, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay. MK-B is grateful to the organizing committee of SuperVOSS II for financial help to participate in the meeting.

## References

Abraham, Z., and Romero G.E. 1999, A&A 344, 61.

Dermer, C.D., Schleickheiser, R., and Mastichiadis, A. 1992, A&A 256, L27.

Georganopoulos, M., Aharonian, F.A., and Kirk, J.G. 2002, A&A, 388, L25.

Grenier, I.A. 2001, in The Nature of Unidentified Galactic Gamma-Ray Sources, eds. A. Carraminana, O. Reimer and D. Thompson (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht), 51.

Hartmann, R.C., Bertsch, D.L., Bloom, S.D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 79.

Kaufman-Bernadó, M.M., Romero, G.E., and Mirabel, I.F. 2002, A&A, 385, L10.

Mirabel, I.F., and Rodríguez, L.F. 1999, ARA&A 37, 409.

Romero, G.E. 2001, in The Nature of Unidentified Galactic Gamma-Ray Sources, eds. A. Carraminana, O. Reimer and D. Thompson (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht), 65.

Romero, G.E., Kaufman Bernadó, M.M., and Mirabel, I.F. 2002, A&A, 393, L61.

Zhang, S., Collmar, W., and Sch$`\ddot{o}`$nfelder 2002, A&A, 396, 923.