text:
# References and links

## 1 Introduction

With the continual refinement of laser arrays, and optical fibers, the role of coupled waveguide systems in integrated optics has magnified in the past few years. The fabrication of arrays which use parallel dielectrics as guiding structures has been demonstrated in millimeter-wave dielectric circuits. Furthermore, the coupling of waves in planar dielectric sheet waveguides provides a means of reflectionless signal transfer from one waveguide to another. For these systems, generally the constituent dielectric materials are presumed to have positive values of the electric permittivity, $`ϵ`$ and magnetic permeability, $`\mu `$. Recently, however there has been interest in researching materials which have the unusual property of both $`ϵ`$ and $`\mu `$ being negative, a concept first proposed by Veselago  long ago. These materials support electromagnetic wave propagation in which the phase velocity is antiparallel to the energy flow, or group velocity. Furthermore, if both $`ϵ`$, and $`\mu `$ are negative in a medium, the refractive index has the extraordinary property of also being negative, therefore such media are given the name negative index media (NIM), compared with the more familiar positive index media (PIM)-where both $`\mu `$ and $`ϵ`$ are positive. As discussed by Veselago , a multitude of other anomalous characteristics of NIM follow from Maxwell’s equations, including reversal of the Doppler shift, counter-directed Cherenkov radiation cone, and the refocusing of EM waves from a point source. It was shown  that a NIM slab can focus focus both near and far fields, attaining perfect resolution due to the amplification of the evanescent waves. Subsequently however, the original “perfect lens” model was modified  to overcome limitations of imperfect materials by introducing a multilayer stack. While the study of various NIM structures has intensified during the past few years, the number of theoretical works involving waveguides with NIM components is less common. The $`S`$ parameters and electromagnetic properties were investigated  numerically for a $`T`$ junction NIM waveguide configuration, and a simple plane two-layered waveguide was shown  to have a slow-wave factor that tends to infinity at small frequencies.

On the experimental side, the fabrication of devices constructed with NIM is less prolific, as there are no naturally occurring NIM in nature, and thus one must artificially engineer a composite system having the desired electromagnetic properties. One such medium was constructed  in which the effective permeability and effective permittivity were shown to be simultaneously less than zero over a finite frequency band. These structures that simulated a NIM were comprised of a periodic array of unit cells, where each cell contained two split metallic rings located on a dielectric panel along with one copper wire. The overall medium is considered homogeneous since the elements of each cell varied over length scales much smaller than the wavelengths used in the experiments. The experimental situation involving these unconventional materials is thus in the early stages of development, and there exists a broad range of potential applications, including optical and microwave devices.

It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the electromagnetic properties of a coupled planar dielectric waveguide system. In order to study the interaction between NIM and PIM configurations, our method will allow for a wide range of material parameters. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we introduce the geometry and method used to calculate the relevant quantities of interest. In Sec. 3, we calculate the dispersion relations, electromagnetic fields, and energy flow characteristics for differing waveguide structures. Finally in Sec. 4, we summarize our results.

## 2 Method

In this section we give a brief overview of the model used for our coupled waveguide system. The schematic of the planar dielectric waveguide is illustrated in Fig. 1. The structure consists of two waveguide channels embedded in a medium characterized by the free space parameters $`ϵ_0`$, and $`\mu _0`$. The upper waveguide layer of width $`2d_1`$ has permittivity $`ϵ_1`$ and permeability $`\mu _1`$, and the lower guide of width $`2d_2`$ has permittivity $`ϵ_2`$ and permeability $`\mu _2`$. The two channels are separated by a central film that is $`2d`$ in width and is divided in the plane at $`x=0`$. The $`z`$ axis of the coordinate system coincides with the axis of the guide.

We are interested in guided wave modes, which are electromagnetic waves that propagate along the waveguide with a given phase and group velocity, intensity distribution, and polarization. These modes are relevant since the corresponding fields satisfy the wave equation throughout the structure, and the appropriate boundary conditions. Furthermore, each mode is characterized by its frequency $`\omega `$ and its wave vector $`k_z`$. To proceed, we assume a sinusoidal time dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ for the fields. The dielectric media is linear and isotropic in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions. The translational invariance in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ direction allows, (for the case of TM modes) one to write the magnetic field $`𝐇`$ as, $`𝐇=\widehat{y}h(x)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_zz\omega t)]`$, where we have factored out the spatial variation of the field in the $`x`$ direction, and $`k_z`$ is the $`z`$ component of the wave vector. Employing Maxwell’s equations, one can immediately write down the reduced wave equation that must be solved in each of the layers:

$$\left[\frac{^2}{x^2}k_z^2+\mu _i(\omega )ϵ_i(\omega )\frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}\right]h(x)=0,i=0,1,2,$$
(1)
with an analogous expression for the $`𝐄`$ field. In what follows, we consider material parameters in the NIM regions to be dispersive, otherwise the energy density would be negative . We take the permittivity and permeability to have the form,

$$ϵ_i(\omega )=1\frac{\omega _e^2}{\omega ^2},\mu _i(\omega )=1\frac{\omega _m^2}{\omega ^2},$$
(2)
where $`\omega _e`$, and $`\omega _m`$ are the effective electrical and magnetic plasma frequencies , respectively. To simplify the model, we have neglected damping. Elementary solutions to Eq. (1) admit the following wave vectors,

$$k_i=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ_i(\omega )\mu _i(\omega )\omega ^2}{c^2}k_z^2}i=0,1,2,$$
(3)
where the wave vectors are labeled according to the respective values of the permeability and permittivity in each region depicted in Fig. 1. It is clear that the longitudinal wave vector $`k_z`$, common to all the layers, serves as a connection to constrain the transverse components.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 NIM Waveguides

We consider first the case where the permittivity and permeability are both simultaneously negative in each waveguide core, and each of the guiding layers has the same width $`d_1=d_2`$ (see Fig. 1). To derive the TM modes, we proceed to seek elementary solutions of Eq. (1) that do not radiate away from the system. Upon invoking the continuity of $`E_z`$ and $`H_y`$ at the interfaces, we arrive at the following eigenvalue equation or dispersion relation for the symmetric and antisymmetric modes:

$$\pm e^{2k_0d}\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_1)\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_12\psi )=0,$$
(4)
where we have introduced a phase angle $`\psi `$,

$$\psi \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{k_0ϵ_1}{k_1ϵ_0}\right).$$
(5)
We show in Fig. 2, the dispersion relation for the case where all the dielectric layers are made of NIM. We plot $`k_z`$ normalized by a design frequency $`\omega _0/c`$ versus the dimensionless frequency $`\omega /\omega _0`$. In the following, we take $`\omega _e=2.34\omega _0`$, and $`\omega _m=1.98\omega _0`$. All curves are bound by the light line, $`k_z=(\omega /c)\sqrt{ϵ_0\mu _0}`$, and the limiting line $`k_z=(\omega /c)\sqrt{ϵ_1(\omega )\mu _1(\omega )}`$. Thus, the “phase-space” available for guided wave modes is contained within the area spanned by these two lines, and increases rapidly upon decreasing $`\omega `$, due to material dispersion. The figure illustrates the dispersion diagram with a finite number of bands, which arise from the geometrical constraint placed upon the fields from the bounding surfaces. Since the fields outside the waveguide channels decay over the length scale $`k_0^1`$, regions of the dispersion curves near the light line correspond to a larger decay length, thus the fields reside mainly outside the guiding layer. The opposite is true for the $`\omega `$ and $`k_z`$ dispersion pair which reside in the vicinity of the line $`k_z=(\omega /c)\sqrt{ϵ_1(\omega )\mu _1(\omega )}`$. The effect of increasing the coupling (decreasing $`d`$) between the two waveguide cores has the trend of increasing the divide between the two modal bands with different symmetry. Although not visible in the plot, the zeroth order TM mode is cutoff in frequency, in contrast to the usual PIM case where there is no frequency cutoff. By way of comparison, we also show in Fig. 2, the dispersion curve for a single NIM waveguide. It is apparent that the symmetric and antisymmetric modes are centered about the single waveguide case. One of the most dramatic features of the dispersion relation is the bending back of the bands close to the light line. This is a behavior seen in general whenever a waveguide channel consisting of NIM is in proximity to a material with PIM characteristics. The inset of Fig. 2 shows a close up of the second modal branch. Some salient features to be noted are the change in slope of the dispersion curve, varying from positive to negative as one cycles through the points $`13`$ respectively. We thus find some peculiarities in the dispersion diagram that clearly deviate from the well understood coupled waveguide system with conventional dielectric material. As will be discussed below, there is an abrupt reversal of energy flow in the $`z`$-direction between the two different media, and this quite naturally is reflected in the allowed guided wave modes. In order to further investigate this anomalous behavior of the energy flow in the vicinity of a bend, it is necessary to calculate the Poynting vector, which requires the full electromagnetic fields.

Having obtained the set of $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ that are solutions to Eq. (4), the spatially varying electromagnetic fields can be straightforwardly calculated from Eq.(1). To demonstrate this, we write down the magnetic fields consistent with the dispersion relation in Eq.(4),

$`h(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\psi )}{\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_1\psi )}}e^{k_0(xL)},xL,`$ (6a)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}[k_1(xL)+\psi ]}{\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_1\psi )}},dxL,`$ (6b)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2k_1d_1\psi )}{\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_1\psi )\mathrm{cosh}(k_0d)}}\mathrm{cosh}(k_0x),|x|d,`$ (6c)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}[k_1(x+L)\psi ]}{\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_1\psi )}},dxL,`$ (6d)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\psi )}{\mathrm{cos}(k_1d_1\psi )}}e^{k_0(x+L)},xL,`$ (6e)
where $`L2d_1+d`$, and for brevity we show only the symmetric field, noting that the antisymmetric fields are calculated similarly.

The magnetic field distribution in Eq. (6) reflects the fact that the fields are oscillatory within the two waveguide cores, and exponentially decaying in the outer regions. For a given set of material parameters, Eqs. (6) supplemented with Eq. (4) completely determine (apart from an unimportant overall constant amplitude factor) the electromagnetic properties of the structure. We are ultimately interested in the time-averaged power flow density however, as given by the real part of the Poynting vector: $`𝐒=[c/8\pi ](𝐄\times 𝐇^{})`$. Upon calculating the electric field distribution from Eq. (6) by taking the appropriate derivatives via Maxwell’s equations, we find that the transverse component, $`S_x`$ is imaginary, and thus does not contribute to the time-average flux of energy. The $`z`$ component however does contribute, and is given by,

$$S_z(x;k_z,\omega )=\frac{c^2}{8\pi }\frac{k_z}{\omega ϵ_i(\omega )}[h(x)]^2,i=0,1,2.$$
(7)
In this instance, the direction of $`S_z`$ depends upon the sign of the permittivity of the medium, and is discontinuous across the boundaries. On the other hand, the longitudinal wave vector $`k_z`$ remains continuous across each layer, as required by translational invariance. To illustrate the spatial dependence of $`S_z`$, we show in Fig. 3, the time averaged Poynting vector throughout the waveguide system. Each of the three curves corresponds to an allowed $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ pair identified by the three points within the inset of Fig. 2. The most visible behavior is the rapid decline in $`S_z`$ in the regions characterized by material parameters $`ϵ_0`$ and $`\mu _0`$, while the two NIM waveguide channels show relatively little variance. The blue curve reveals that more total energy is flowing in the central and two outer layers, while the parameters corresponding to the green curve shows that the net negative $`S_z`$ in the waveguide regions is greater overall. This trend continues at other points, so that the sign of the slope of the dispersion relation correlates with that of the net energy flow. Since $`d\omega /dk_z`$ changes sign, there must be points in the dispersion curve that result in $`S_z`$ in the middle and outer layers exactly countering $`S_z`$ in the two waveguide channels. This is shown by the intermediate red curve in Fig. 4. For this special point on the dispersion curve, $`d\omega /dk_z=0`$ (see point 2, inset of Fig. 2), and the net $`S_z`$ is zero.

The interesting properties of the net energy flow in our coupled waveguide system can be investigated further by calculating the time average of the power flow $`P_z`$ across all the layers. In order to do this, we spatially integrate Eq.(7) over all of the spatial region encompassing the system. For the single layer case, $`P_z`$ can be simply expressed as

$$P_z(k_z,\omega )_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xS_z(x;k_z,\omega )=\frac{c^2}{8\pi }\frac{k_zd_1}{\omega }\left\{\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(k_1d_1)}{ϵ_0k_0d_1}+\frac{1}{ϵ_1}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_1)}{2k_1d_1}\right]\right\}.$$
(8)
Figure 4 shows the power across the whole system as a function of modal frequency. We see that the single layer result is always between the symmetric and antisymmetric cases. The positive $`P_z`$ curves correspond to the lower branch in the dispersion diagram, below the point where $`d\omega /dk_z=0`$ (see Fig. 2). Likewise, the negative $`P_z`$ curves correlate with those $`\omega `$, $`k_z`$ pairs above that point. Thus a clear relationship exists between the net power and the slope of the dispersion curves: $`P_z`$ is always negative for values of $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ that satisfy $`d\omega /dk_z<0`$, and is positive when $`d\omega /dk_z>0`$. For those values of $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ where $`P_z=0`$, we again find consistency with the dispersion curves, where at those same points $`d\omega /dk_z=0`$. This result follows from the exact cancellation of negatively directed energy flow in the waveguides with the positive contributions from the outer PIM layers.

### 3.2 NIM/PIM Waveguides

Next, we consider the case where the two waveguide channels possess opposite material characteristics, i.e., $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2`$, and $`\mu _1=\mu _2`$. After a lengthy calculation, the dispersion relation can be expressed as:

$$\sqrt{1e^{4k_0d}}\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_1)\pm \mathrm{sin}(2\psi )=0.$$
(9)
In Fig. 5 we present the relationship between $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ for the present asymmetric waveguide configuration. The two differently colored curves shown correlate to the choice of sign in Eq. (9). Since there is no longer any symmetry in the $`x`$ direction, the overall behavior of the dispersion curves is more complex than the previous case, where for a given frequency range, each waveguide had identical negative permittivity and permeability values. The figure illustrates the unusual change in sign of $`d\omega /dk_z`$ that occurs when traversing the two visible U-shaped branches.

To proceed with the calculation of the Poynting vector, we again calculate the electromagnetic fields within the five different layers. We find,

$`h(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}[2(k_1d_1+\psi )]}{\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_1)}}e^{k_0(x2d)},xL,`$ (10a)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{k_0(L+2d)}\mathrm{sin}(2k_1d_1)}{\mathrm{cos}(\psi )\mathrm{sin}[2(k_1d_1\psi )]}}\mathrm{cos}[k_1(xL)+\psi ],dxL,`$ (10b)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{k_0L}}{\mathrm{sin}(2\psi )}}\left\{e^{k_0(x+d)}\mathrm{sin}[2(k_1d_1+\psi )]e^{k_0(x+d)}\mathrm{sin}[2(k_1d_1)]\right\},|x|d,`$ (10c)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{k_0L}}{\mathrm{cos}(\psi )}}\mathrm{cos}[k_1(x+L)+\psi ],dxL,`$ (10d)
$`=e^{k_0x},xL.`$ (10e)
From the plot in Fig. 5, we select four points $`(k_z,\omega )`$ on the dispersion curves intersected by the $`\omega /\omega _0=1.24`$ line. Inserting these points into Eqs. (10) and then into (7) results in the

normalized spatially dependent energy flow that is shown in Fig. 6. The upper panel in Fig. 6(a) depicts a relatively flat red line, which is actually three curves merged together, along with a dominant energy distribution (black curve) for the parameter values $`\omega /\omega _0=1.24`$, and $`k_z/(\omega _0/c)=2.22`$. Thus a feature arises in which three out of the four wave vector values have negligible contributions to $`S_z`$ in this region. Proceeding to the lower panel (b), we exhibit $`S_z`$ for the same parameter values as in (a), except we consider now the NIM region. In addition to the energy flow reversing direction, all four $`k_z`$ and $`\omega `$ pairs are now visible and have a relatively complicated asymmetry when compared to the case when the waveguide structure is physically symmetric, as in Fig. 3, where the guiding layers are both NIM media. It is clear therefore, that there can be cases where the energy flow is dominant in either the NIM or PIM slab, or is shared between both slabs.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we have examined the geometrical and material dispersion properties of a coupled planar waveguide structure that contains negative index media. We calculated the TM guided wave modes and found a variety of unconventional results. For the case where both coupled waveguides have NIM characteristics and are embedded in PIM media, the dispersion relation revealed clear deviations from the well understood case involving positive material parameters. We found that due to the reversal of energy flow along the propagation direction, the dispersion curve reflected a striking behavior in curvature. This followed ultimately from the correlation between the net power in the system and the slope $`d\omega /dk_z`$. Furthermore, decreasing the relative distance between each wave channel has the effect of further splitting the symmetric and antisymmetric dispersion curves. Finally, we presented results for a more complicated asymmetric waveguide structure comprised of both NIM and PIM guiding layers. In this case, the Poynting vector and dispersion characteristics exhibited nontrivial behavior. In particular, we found that there are cases when the energy flow reverses direction when going from the NIM to PIM layer, and that the relative distribution of power varied dramatically between the two, depending on the particular guided wave mode under consideration.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant of high performance computing time from the DoD NAVO Major Shared Resource Center.


format: text

text:
# The Fundamental Properties of Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies in Clusters

## 1. Dwarf Ellipticals: a Key Player in Galaxy Evolution?

Dwarf elliptical galaxies (dEs) are low-mass, spheroidal-like, quiescent galaxies with $`M_B>18`$ (see Ferguson & Binggeli 1994 for a comprehensive review). In the last decade, there has been an increased interest in dEs driven by two main results.

Firstly, there seems to be an apparent dichotomy in some empirical correlations among global galaxy parameters of dEs and normal ellipticals. For elliptical galaxies, these empirical scaling-laws between size, luminosity, surface brightness, color, velocity dispersion, and line strength indices provided: (i) a characterization of the structural, kinematic, and stellar population properties of this galaxy class; (ii) constraints to theoretical models of galaxy formation and evolution of ellipticals; and (iii) distance indicators to map the local peculiar velocity field (Terlevich et al. 1981, Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Guzmán et al. 1993). Initial studies of Local Group galaxies showed that dEs exhibit different correlations (e.g., luminosity vs. surface brightness) suggesting different physical processes during formation and/or evolution (e.g., Wirth & Gallagher 1984; Kormendy 1985; Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992).

Secondly, recent theoretical models of galaxy formation and evolution have highlighted the potential importance of dEs in modern cosmology. For instance, in field galaxy studies, dEs have been proposed as the faded counterparts of the ubiquitous low-mass starbursting galaxies at redshifts $`z<1`$ whose number density greatly exceeds the non-evolution model predictions (the so-called “faint blue galaxies”, Babul & Rees 1992; Babul & Ferguson 1996). In cluster galaxies studies, dEs have been proposed to be the evolved counterparts of the numerous low-mass blue disk galaxies observed in clusters at $`z`$0.5 (e.g., the so-called “galaxy harassment” scenario; Moore, Lake & Katz 1998). In particular, the galaxy harassment model makes very specific predictions on the number density, kinematics, and stellar population properties of dEs located in the inner and outer areas of clusters which can be directly tested with observations.

Despite their potential cosmological importance, and the fact that they are the most numerous galaxy type in the local universe —at least in clusters—, dEs are among the most poorly studied due to their characteristic low surface brightness (22 $`<`$ SBe $`<`$ 26 B-mag/arcsec2). A summary of the current sample size of dEs for which various photometric and spectroscopic properties have been studied is given below:

* integrated photometry (e.g., colors and magnitudes): $`10^3`$ dEs mainly in Coma, Virgo, and Fornax clusters (e.g., Binggeli & Cameron 1991; Vader & Chaboyer 1994; Ulmer et al. 1996, Secker, Harris & Plummer 1997; Terlevich, Caldwell & Bower 2001).
* surface photometry (e.g., size, surface brightness, and luminosity profile): $`10^2`$ dEs mainly in the Virgo and Coma clusters (e.g., Binggeli & Cameron 1991; Ferguson 1992; Young & Currie 1998).
* line strength indices (e.g., H$`\beta `$, Mg2, and Fe): $`10^2`$ dEs in Coma, Virgo, Fornax and the Local Group (e.g., Brodie & Huchra 1991; Held & Mould 1994; Gorgas et al. 1997; Secker et al. 1998; Mobasher et al. 2002).
* internal kinematics (e.g., velocity dispersion, and rotation): $`10`$ dEs in Virgo and the Local Group (e.g., Bender & Nieto 1990; Peterson & Caldwell 1993; Pedraz et al. 2001; Simien & Prugniel 2002; Geha et al. 2002).

We are currently conducting en extensive study of $``$100 dEs located in the inner and outer regions of the Coma cluster using HST/WFPC2(ACS) and WIYN/HYDRA. This study aims to provide the first large, homogeneous data set of photometric and spectroscopic parameters of dEs outside the Local Group, including luminosity, size, surface brightness, velocity dispersion, mass-to-light ratio, optical and infrared colors, and line strength indices. Our goals are: (i) to investigate the relation between dEs and elliptical galaxies in clusters; and (ii) to test galaxy harassment model predictions on the structural, stellar population, and kinematic properties of cluster dEs, and their dependence on the environment.

## 2. The Data

### 2.1. Sample Selection

Coma cluster dE-candidates were chosen using U, B, and R images obtained with WIYN/MiniMo and INT/Wide Field Camera. The criteria used for the sample selection can be summarized as: (i) $`0.2<(UB)<0.6`$, and $`1.3<(BR)<1.5`$ in order to minimize contamination from background field disk galaxies at z$``$0.2; and (ii) $`17.5<B<20.5`$ to select galaxies with $`18<M_B<15`$, approximately at the distance of the Coma cluster. Figure 1 illustrates these criteria. A detailed description is provided in Matković & Guzmán (in prep).

The projected surface density of dE-candidates in the inner region (1 from the cluster center) is $``$700 per square degree. In the outer region (between 1 and 2.5 from the cluster centre) the projected surface density is $``$100 per square degree. These densities are ideal for large FOV multiobject spectrographs, such as WIYN/HYDRA. The selection criteria turned out to be remarkably reliable: about 90% of dE-candidates observed with HYDRA are spectroscopically confirmed to be cluster members.

### 2.2. WIYN/HYDRA Spectroscopy

Spectra of $``$50 dEs and $``$20 Es in the Coma cluster region were obtained using HYDRA at the WIYN telescope. The instrumental setup adopted for these observations provided a spectral resolution of FWHM = 130 km/s with a 3 arcsec fiber diameter. The spectral rest-frame wavelength ensured observations of strong absorption features such as H$`\delta `$, G-band, H$`\gamma `$, H$`\beta `$, Mg2, and Fe$`\lambda `$5350. The total integration time ranged from 1hr to 9hr, depending on the galaxy magnitude. Figure 2a shows a representative example of WYIN/HYDRA spectra. Velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$) measurements were measured using the Fourier quotient method as described by González (1994). The values measured for our dE and E samples range from 30 to 100 km/s. A full description of the spectroscopic measurements and the data reduction is provided in Matković & Guzmán (in prep).

### 2.3. HST Imaging

About 60 archival HST/WFPC2 F606W images of 20 different fields in the inner region of the Coma cluster were investigated. Eighteen Coma dE candidates in our sample were identified in these HST images. The images were reduced following the standard HST pipeline. The most difficult step in the data reduction is to ensure an accurate background subtraction since many dE galaxies are affected by the large, extended halos of more massive cluster galaxies. This was achieved using a wavelet decomposition method that optimally removes any large-scale structure in the background due to the contamination of nearby galaxy halos. Figure 2b shows a panel with 4 HST F606W images of dE galaxies in Coma. For a full account of the data reduction procedure see Graham & Guzmán (2002).

Photometry was performed using the IRAF task ELLIPSE and the resulting surface brightness profiles were fitted with a combination of a PSF-convolved Sérsic model and either a point source or a PSF-convolved central Gaussian (Graham & Guzmán 2002). This provided measurements of the half-light radius ($`R_e`$), the effective surface brightness ($`\mu _e`$), the Sérsic index ($`n`$), and the total galaxy magnitude. Nucleation was detected in all but two of our final 15 dE galaxy sample. Our error estimates include the effects of: shot-noise, placement on the chip, estimation of the galaxy orientation and center, and the associated influence of pixelation. In all cases when we had multiple light-profiles, which we did for most galaxies, the surface brightness profiles were consistent with each other down to a level of $`\mu _{\mathrm{F606W}}25`$ mag arcsec-2. Fitting models down to this surface brightness level we found the differences in the best-fitting Sérsic parameters obtained from different profiles of the same galaxy spanned $`\pm `$0.05 mag arcsec-2 in $`\mu _e`$, $`\pm `$5% in $`R_e`$, and $`\pm `$4% in $`n`$.

Figure 3 shows the surface brightness profiles for 9 Coma dEs in our sample.

## 3. Is there a “Dichotomy” in the Structural Properties of dE and E Galaxies?

The realization that dwarf ellipticals could be reasonably well described with an exponential function (i.e., $`n=1`$) and that bright ellipticals are better fit with de Vaucouleurs’ $`r^{1/4}`$-law (i.e., $`n=4`$) led to the notion that they are two distinct families of galaxies (Faber & Lin 1983; Binggeli, Sandage & Tarenghi 1984; Wirth & Gallagher 1984, but see Graham 2002). One of the most referenced papers to support this view is Kormendy (1985). Plotting central surface brightness ($`\mu _o`$) against luminosity, Kormendy showed two relations almost at right angles to each other: one for the faint dE galaxies and the other for the more luminous E galaxies. Similarly, diagrams using the surface brightness at the effective half-light radius ($`\mu _e`$) also show two somewhat perpendicular relations. These diagrams are shown in Figure 4 for a large sample of 247 dE and E galaxies. The symbols represent the following samples: dots correspond to Binggeli & Jerjen (1998) dE sample; triangles correspond to Stiavelli et al. (2001) dE sample; large stars represent our Coma dE galaxies; asterisks represent intermediate to bright E galaxies from Caon et al. (1993); and open and solid circles represent the so-called “power-law” and “core” E galaxies, respectively, from Faber et al. (1997). Panels (a) (cf. Wirth & Gallagher 1984) and (g) (cf. Kormendy 1985) illustrate the two most widely accepted results supporting the dichotomy between the structural properties of bright Es and dEs.

The structural dichotomy is also apparent when studying the fundamental plane (Djorgovski & Davies 1987). Figure 5a shows the edge-on projection of the fundamental plane for various samples of E and dE galaxies. Our sample of 14 Coma cluster dEs used in this preliminary study more than doubles the number of objects in previous samples used for fundamental plane studies of dEs in the literature. Clearly, dE galaxies lie off and above the relation defined by “normal” Es (cf. Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992).

In order to reasses critically the evidence for a physical discontinuity in the structural properties of E and dEs galaxies we note the following three important facts. Firstly, the observed difference in the fundamental plane, $`M_B\mu _e`$, and $`R_e\mu _e`$ diagrams are not independent results but simply three different ways to plot the same effect. For instance, the solid line plotted in Figure 5b is not a fit to the data but the same trend defined by dEs in Figure 4a transformed using the empirical framework of galaxy properties described by Guzmán, Lucey & Bower (1993).

Secondly, in contrast to the above, there is substantial evidence for a continuity, rather than a dichotomy, between the alleged E and dE classes of galaxies. Caldwell (1983; their Figure 6) showed that, fainter than $`M_B20.5`$, there is a continuous trend between the central surface brightnesses and absolute magnitudes of dE and E galaxies – more luminous galaxies have brighter central surface brightnesses (see also Caldwell 1987; Caldwell and Bothun 1987; Hilker et al. 1999). Caldwell (1983) also revealed a continuous and linear relationship exists between ($`UV`$) color and luminosity over the magnitude interval $`23<M_V<15`$ (see also Terlevich, Caldwell, & Bower 2001). Caldwell & Bothun (1987) further revealed a continuous luminosity–metallicity relation across the alleged dE and E classes (see also Terlevich et al. 1981). The relation between luminosity and velocity dispersion for E galaxies (Faber & Jackson 1976) has also been shown to extend linearly to include the dE galaxies (e.g., Bender, Burstein, & Faber 1992). None of these correlations with luminosity suggest evidence for a discontinuity at $`M_B18`$ which apparently denotes the transition between two distinct galaxy classes (E and dE).

Thirdly, in Graham & Guzmán (2002) we demonstrate that if the luminosity-profile shape ($`M_Bn`$) and the central surface brightness-profile shape correlations ($`\mu _0n`$) are universal, then the change in slope observed in the $`M_B\mu _e`$ relation (Figure 4a) for Es and dEs can be easily explained as a result of the continuous change in the profile shapes (i.e., $`n`$) from dEs to Es. This means that the observed change of slope in the $`M_B\mu _e`$ relation is a mere artifact resulting from the choice of parameters and does not have any physical implications for a different formation mechanism at play in E and dE galaxies. The key question is thus: are the $`M_Bn`$ —or the $`M_B\mu _0`$— and $`\mu _0n`$ relations really universal (i.e., the same for E and dE galaxies)?

The $`M_B\mu _0`$ and $`\mu _0n`$ diagrams for our sample of 247 galaxies shown in Figures 4c and 4f reveal a well-defined, universal correlation in both cases spanning over 10 magnitudes. However, bright Es with $`M_B<20.5`$ do deviate from the general trend defined by both dE and E galaxies in the $`M_B\mu _0`$ diagram111Note that the sample of E galaxies with $`M_B<20.5`$ from Faber et al. (1997) used in this work did not have Sérsic index measurements and thus could not be included in the $`\mu _0n`$ diagram.. All these bright E galaxies are classified as “core” ellipticals by Faber et al. (1997). The simplest physical interpretation of this behaviour is that both dE and E galaxies do follow the same universal correlations till the onset of core formation in the brightest elliptical galaxies. The observed cores in these luminous elliptical galaxies are thought to have arisen from the partial evacuation of the nuclear region by coalescing blackholes (e.g., Ebisuzaki, Makino, & Okumura 1991; Makino & Ebisuzaki 1996). Due to this, or whatever process(es) that have reduced these galaxies central surface brightness profiles, the high luminosity core ellipticals clearly depart from this relation. Thus bright Es with $`M_B<20.5`$ are the exception —not the rule— to the universality in the structural correlations of spheroidal systems and current models of bright elliptical galaxies built from the merging of fainter spheroidal components must not assume that the scaling laws defined by the bright ellipticals apply to the pre-merged components. A full account of the results of this study can be found in Graham & Guzmán (2002), Guzmán et al. (in prep.), and Matković & Guzmán (in prep.).

#### Acknowledgments.

R.G. would like to thank the organizing committee for such an excellent meeting to honor our friend Roberto, both from the point of view of the outstanding scientific results presented at the meeting and the superb atmosphere of camaraderie. As Roberto likes to say: “there is nothing like doing good science among friends”.

## References

Babul, A., & Ferguson, H.C., 1996, ApJ, 458, 100

Babul, A., & Rees, M., 1992, MNRAS, 255, 346

Bender, R., Burstein, D., & Faber, S.M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 462

Bender, R., & Nieto, J. L., 1990, A&A, 239, 97

Binggeli, B., & Cameron, L. M., 1991, A&A, 252, 27

Binggeli, B., & Jerjen, H. 1998, A&A, 333, 17

Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., & Tarenghi, M. 1984, AJ, 89, 64

Brodie, J. P., & Huchra, J. P., 1991, ApJ, 379, 157

Caldwell, N., 1983, AJ, 88, 804

Caldwell, N., 1987, AJ, 94, 1116

Caldwell, N., & Bothun, G. D., 1987, AJ, 94, 1126

Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., & D’Onofrio, M. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1013

Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M., 1987, ApJ, 313, 59

Ebisuzaki, T., Makino, J., & Okamura, S. K., 1991,

Faber, S. M., & Jackson, R. E., 1976, ApJ, 204,668

Faber, S. M., & Lin, D. N. C., 1983, ApJ, 266, 17

Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771

Ferguson, H. C., 1992, MNRAS, 255, 389

Ferguson, H. C., & Binggeli, B., 1994, A&A Review, 6, 67

Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., & van der Marel, R., 2002, astro-ph/0206153

González, J. 1994, Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz

Gorgas, J., Pedraz, S., Guzmán, R., Cardiel, N., & Gonzalez, J. J., 1997, ApJ, 481, 19

Graham, A.W. 2002, ApJ, 568, L13

Graham, A.W., & Guzmán, R. 2002, AJ, submitted

Guzmán, R., Lucey, J. R., & Bower, R.G. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 731

Guzmán, R. 1994, Ph. D. Thesis, Durham University

Held, E. V., & Mould, J. R., 1994, AJ, 107, 1307

Hilker, M., Kissler-Patig, M., Richtler, T., Infante, L., & Quintana, H. 1999, A&AS, 134, 59

Kormendy, J. 1985, ApJ, 295, 73

Makino, J., & Ebisuzaki, T., 1996, ApJ, 465, 527

Mobasher, B., et al. 2002, Cat, 21370279

Moore, B., Lake, G., & Katz, N., 1998, ApJ, 495, 139

Pedraz, S., Gorgas, J., Cardiel, N., Sanchez-Blazquez, P., & Guzmán, R. 2002, MNRAS, 332, L59

Peterson, R. C., & Caldwell, N., 1993, AJ, 105, 1411

Secker, J.,Harris, W. E., Cote, P., & Oke, J.B., 1998, in UCB proceedings, Photometry And Spectroscopy of Coma Dwarf Ellipticals, (Marseilles, France), 115

Secker, J., Harris, W. E., & Plummer, J. D., 1997, PASP, 109, 1377

Simien, F., & Prugniel, P., 2002, A&A, 384, 371

Stiavelli, M., Miller, B. W., Ferguson, H. C., Mack, J., Whitmore, B. C., & Lotz, J.M. 2001, AJ, 121, 1385

Terlevich, A. I., Caldwell, N., & Bower, R. G. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1547

Terlevich, A. I., Davies, R.L., Faber, S. M., & Burstein, D. 1981, 196, 381

Ulmer, M. P., Bernstein, G. M., Martin, D.R., Nichol, R. C., Pendelton, J. L., & Tyson, J. A., 1996, AAS, 189, 2903

Vader, J. P., & Chaboyer, B. 1994, AJ, 108, 1209

Wirth, A., & Gallagher, J.S., 1984, ApJ, 282, 85

Young, C.K., & Currie, M.J. 1998, A&AS, 127, 367

## Discussion

Kauffmann: Can you comment on the environmental dependence on the structural parameters?

Guzmán: The galaxy harassment model makes very specific predictions about the environmental effect on the structure of dE galaxies. For instance: (i) only the densest dEs will survive in the inner part of the cluster; (ii) an indirect correlation between density and metallicity (e.g., as a result of a mass-metallicity relation) will create a gradient in metallicity of dEs with clustercentric distance; (iii) since nucleated dEs will be more robust than those without a nucleus, the fraction of nucleated dEs will increase toward the cluster centre; (iv) nucleated dEs will show a higher central velocity dispersion than non-nucleated dEs.

Moss: Besides considering the proposed scenario of galaxy harassment for the origin of dwarf ellipticals have you considered mergers of HII galaxies as their possible origin?

Guzmán: This is a plausible alternative scenario. Indeed, an evolutionary connection between HII galaxies and dE galaxies has been proposed by several authors. However, to the best of my knowledge, such an evolutionary scenario lacks a well-constructed theoretical model whose predictions we can readily test with our dataset.

Zinnecker: Do you think all the progenitors to nucleated dwarf ellipticals survived to the present day, and if not, where are these dense nuclei now?

Guzmán: If they do not, this would be indeed a most interesting puzzle. The derived luminosities of the nuclei in our dE sample are of the order of $`10^6`$-$`10^7`$ $`L_{}^B`$. Perhaps, as you argue in your talk, they may become the massive W-Cen-like globular clusters in more massive galaxies.


text:
# Constraining the dark energy with galaxy clusters X-ray data

## I Introduction

Recent observations of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) have provided direct evidence that the universe may be accelerating perlmutter . These results, when combined with measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) anisotropies and dynamical estimates of the quantity of matter in the Universe, suggest a spatially flat universe composed of nearly $`1/3`$ of matter (baryonic + dark) and $`2/3`$ of an exotic component endowed with large negative pressure, the so-called “quintessence”. Nowadays, it has been promptly recognized that the question related to the nature of this dark energy is one of the most challenging problems of modern astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics.

The absence of a natural guidance from particle physics theory about the nature of this dark component gave origin to an intense debate and many theoretical speculations. In particular, a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) – the most natural candidate – is the simplest but not the unique possibility; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a time independent and spatially uniform dark component, which is described by a perfect fluid with $`p_v=\rho _v`$. Some other candidates appearing in the literature are: a decaying vacuum energy density, or a time varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term ozer , a time varying relic scalar field component (SFC) which is slowly rolling down its potencial ratra , the so-called “X-matter”, an extra component simply characterized by an equation of state $`p_\mathrm{x}=\omega \rho _\mathrm{x}`$ (XCDM) turner ; tchiba , the Chaplygin gas whose equation of state is given by $`p=A/\rho `$ where $`A`$ is a positive constant bert , models based on the framework of brane-induced gravity dvali , among others mcreation . For SFC and XCDM scenarios, the $`\omega `$ parameter may be a function of the redshift (see, for example, efs ) or still, as has been recently discussed, it may violate the null energy condition and assume values $`<1`$ leq1 .

In order to improve our understanding of the actual nature of the dark energy, an important task nowadays in cosmology is to find new methods or to revive old ones that could directly or indirectly quantify the amount of dark energy present in the Universe, as well as determine its equation of state. In this concern, the possibility of constraining cosmological parameters from X-ray luminosity of galaxy clusters constitutes an important and interesting tool. This method was originally proposed by Sasaki sasa  and Pen pen  with basis on measurements of the mean baryonic mass fraction in clusters as a function of redshift. A recent application of a new version of this test was performed by Allen et al. allen ; allen1  (see also ett ) who analyzed the X-ray observations in some relaxed lensing clusters observed with Chandra spanning the redshift range $`0.1<z<0.5`$. By inferring the corresponding gas mass fraction they placed observational limits on the total matter density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, as well as on the density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, associated to the vacuum energy density.

In the present paper, by following the methodology presented in allen1 , we discuss quantitatively how the observations of X-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters constrains the cosmic equation of state describing the dark energy component. In order to detect the possibility of bias in the parameter determination due to the imposition $`\omega 1`$ we have studied two different cases: the *usual* quintessence ($`1\omega <0`$) and the *extended* quintessence (also named “phantom” energy leq1 ), in which the $`\omega `$ parameter may assume values $`<1`$. In the former case, a good agreement between theory and observations is possible if $`0.3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.35`$ ($`68\%`$ c.l.) and $`\omega 0.55`$. These results are in line with recent analyzes from distant SNe Ia garn , SNe + CMB efs , gravitational lensing statistics class  and the existence of old high redshift objects (OHRO’s) alcaniz1 . For *extended* quintessence we obtain $`2.1\omega 0.6`$ ($`68\%`$ c.l.) with the matter density parameter ranging in the interval $`0.27\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.34`$ ($`68\%`$ c.l.).

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we present the basic field equations and the distance formulas relevant for our analysis. The corresponding constraints on the cosmological parameters $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ are investigated in Section III. We finish the paper by summarizing the main results in the conclusion Section.

## II Basic equations

For a spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic cosmologies driven by nonrelativistic matter and a separately conserved exotic fluid with equation of state, $`p_x=\omega \rho _x`$, the Friedman’s equation is given by:

$$(\frac{\dot{R}}{R})^2=H_o^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(\frac{R_o}{R})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m})(\frac{R_o}{R})^{3(1+\omega )}\right],$$
(1)
where an overdot denotes derivative with respect to time and $`H_o=100h\mathrm{Km}.\mathrm{s}^1.\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is the present value of the Hubble parameter.

In order to derive the constraints from X-ray gas mass fraction in the next Section we shall use the concept of angular diameter distance, $`D_A(z)`$. Such a quantity can be easily obtained in the following way: consider that photons are emitted by a source with coordinate $`r=r_1`$ at time $`t_1`$ and are received at time $`t_o`$ by an observer located at coordinate $`r=0`$. The emitted radiation will follow null geodesics so that the comoving distance of the source is defined by ($`c=1`$)

$$r_1=_{t_1}^{t_o}\frac{dt}{R(t)}=_{R(t)}^{R_o}\frac{dR}{\dot{R}(t)R(t)}.$$
(2)
By considering the above equations, it is straightforward to show that the comoving distance $`r_1(z)`$ can be written as

$$r_1(z)=\frac{1}{H_oR_o}_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^1\frac{dx}{x\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}x^1+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m})x^{(1+3\omega )}}},$$
(3)
where the subscript $`o`$ denotes present day quantities and $`x=\frac{R(t)}{R_o}=(1+z)^1`$ is a convenient integration variable. The angular diameter distance to a light source at $`r=r_1`$ and $`t=t_1`$ which is observed at $`r=0`$ and $`t=t_o`$ is defined as the ratio of the source diameter to its angular diameter, i.e.,

$$D_A=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\theta }=R(t_1)r_1=(1+z)^1R_or(z),$$
(4)
which provides, when combined with Eq. (3),

$$D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{DE}}=\frac{H_o^1}{(1+z)}_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^1\frac{dx}{x\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}x^1+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m})x^{(1+3\omega )}}}.$$
(5)
For the standard cold dark matter model (SCDM) we set $`\omega =0`$ in Eq. (3) and the angular diameter distance reduces to

$`D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{SCDM}}={\displaystyle \frac{2H_o^1}{(1+z)^{3/2}}}\left[(1+z)^{1/2}1\right].`$ (6)
## III Constraints from X-ray gas mass fraction

In our analysis we consider the Chandra data analysed in recent papers by Allen et al.allen ; allen1  and Schmidt et al.schim . The specific data set consists of six clusters distributed over a wide range of redshifts ($`0.1<z<0.5`$). The clusters studied are all regular, relatively relaxed systems for which independent confirmation of the matter density parameter results is available from gravitational lensing studies. As discussed in Ref. allen1 , the systematic uncertainties are $`10\%`$ (i.e. typically smaller than the statistical uncertainties). The X-ray gas mass fraction ($`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$) values were determined for a canonical radius $`r_{2500}`$, which is defined as the radius within which the mean mass density is 2500 times the critical density of the Universe at the redshift of the cluster. Two data sets were generated from these data. One in which the SCDM model with $`H_o=50\mathrm{K}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1.\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is used as the default cosmology and the other one in which the default cosmology is the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario with $`H_o=70\mathrm{K}\mathrm{m}.\mathrm{s}^1.\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$. In what follows we constrain the basic cosmological parameters using the SCDM scenario as the default cosmology.

By assuming that the baryonic mass fraction in galaxy clusters provides a fair sample of the distribution of baryons at large scale, the matter content of the universe can be expressed as white ; hogan :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{f_{\mathrm{gas}}(1+0.19h^{3/2})},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ stands for the baryonic mass density parameter. Since $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}D_\mathrm{A}^{3/2}`$ sasa , the model function is defined by

$`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z_\mathrm{i})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{\left(1+0.19h^{3/2}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}}\left[2h{\displaystyle \frac{D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{SCDM}}(z_\mathrm{i})}{D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{DE}}(z_\mathrm{i})}}\right]^{1.5},`$ (8)
where the term $`(2h)^{3/2}`$ represents the change in the Hubble parameter between the default cosmology and quintessence scenarios while the ratio $`D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{SCDM}}(z_\mathrm{i})/D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{DE}}(z_\mathrm{i})`$ accounts for deviations in the geometry of the universe from the SCDM model. Figure 1 shows the behavior of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}`$ as a function of the redshift for some selected values of $`\omega `$ having the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`h`$ fixed. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is fixed at $`0.3`$ as suggested by dynamical estimates on scales up to about $`2h^1`$ Mpc calb . For the sake of comparison, the current favored cosmological model, namely, a flat scenario with $`70\%`$ of the critical energy density dominated by a cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) is also shown.

In order to determine the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega `$ we use a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization for the range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega `$ spanning the interval  in steps of 0.02

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z_\mathrm{i})f_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{i}}\right]^2}{\sigma _{f_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{i}}}^2}}`$ (9)
where $`\sigma _{f_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{i}}}`$ are the symmetric root-mean-square errors for the SCDM data. The $`68.3\%`$ and $`95.4\%`$ confidence levels are defined by the conventional two-parameters $`\chi ^2`$ levels 2.30 and 6.17, respectively.

In Fig. 2, by fixing the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ (0.0205) and $`h`$ (0.72), we show contours of constant likelihood (95% and 68%) in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$-$`\omega `$ plane. Note that the allowed range for both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega `$ is reasonably large, showing the impossibility of placing restrictive limits on these quintessence scenarios from the considered X-ray gas mass fraction data. The best-fit model for these data occurs for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.33`$ and $`\omega =1.0`$ with $`\chi ^2=1.98`$. Such limits become slightly more restrictive if we assume some a priori knowledge of the value of the product $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$ omera  and of the value of the Hubble parameter $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ freedman . To illustrate these new results, in Fig. 3 we show the confidence regions in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$-$`\omega `$ plane by assuming such priors. In this case, the best-fit model occurs for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.32`$, $`\omega =1`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=1.95`$ with the 1-$`\sigma `$ limits on $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ given, respectively, by

$$\omega 0.555,$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.320_{0.014}^{+0.027}.$$

For the sake of completeness, we also verified that by fixing $`\omega =1`$ and extending the analysis for arbitrary geometries the results of allen1  are fully recovered.

So far we have assumed that the dark energy equation of state is constrained to be $`\omega 1`$. However, as has been observed recently a dark component with $`\omega <1`$ appears to provide a better fit to SNe Ia observations than do $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenarios ($`\omega =1`$) leq1 . In fact, although having some unusual properties, this “phantom” behavior is predicted by several scenarios as, for example, kinetically driven models chiba1  and some versions of brane world cosmologies sahni  (see also mcI  and references therein). In this concern, a natural question at this point is: how does this extension of the parameter space to $`\omega <1`$ modify the previous results? To answer this question in Fig. 4 we show the 68% and 95% confidence regions in the “extended” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\omega `$ plane by assuming the same a priori knowledge of the product $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and of the value of the Hubble parameter as done earlier. From this analysis, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.312_{0.034}^{+0.037}`$, $`\omega =1.29_{0.792}^{+0.686}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=1.77`$ both results at 1-$`\sigma `$ level. By assuming no a priori knowledge on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and $`h`$ we obtain $`\omega =1.28_{0.809}^{+0.682}`$ while the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ remains approximately the same. These limits should be compared with the ones obtained by Hannestad & Mörtsell hann  by combining CMB + Large Scale Structure (LSS) + SNe Ia data. At 95.4% c.l. they found $`2.68<\omega <0.78`$.

At this point we compare our results with other recent determinations of $`\omega `$ derived from independent methods. For example, for the usual quintessence (i.e., $`\omega 1`$), Garnavich et al. garn  used the SNe Ia data from the High-$`z`$ Supernova Search Team to find $`\omega <0.55`$ ($`95\%`$ c.l.) for flat models whatever the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ whereas for arbitrary geometry they obtained $`\omega <0.6`$ ($`95\%`$ c.l.). Such results agree with the constraints obtained from a wide variety of different phenomena, using the “concordance cosmic” method wang . In this case, the combined maximum likelihood analysis suggests $`\omega 0.6`$, which rules out an unknown component like topological defects (domain walls and string) for which $`\omega =\frac{n}{3}`$, being $`n`$ the dimension of the defect. Recently, Lima and Alcaniz jsa  investigated the angular size - redshift diagram ($`\theta (z)`$) in quintessence models by using the Gurvits’ published data set gurv . Their analysis sugests $`1\omega 0.5`$ whereas Corasaniti and Copeland cora  found, by using SNe Ia data and measurements of the position of the acoustic peaks in the CMB spectrum, $`1\omega 0.93`$ at $`2\sigma `$. More recently, Jain et al. jain  used image separation distribution function ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$) of lensed quasars to obtain $`0.8\omega 0.4`$, for the observed range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.20.4`$ while Chae et al. class  used gravitational lens (GL) statistics based on the final Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey (CLASS) data to find $`\omega <0.55_{0.11}^{+0.18}`$ (68% c.l.). Bean and Melchiorri bean  obtained $`\omega <0.85`$ from CMB + SNe Ia + LSS data, which provides no significant evidence for quintessential behaviour different from that of a cosmological constant. A similar conclusion was also obtained by Schuecker et al. schu  from an analysis involving the REFLEX X-ray cluster and SNe Ia data in which the condition $`\omega 1`$ was relaxed. A more extensive list of recent determinations of the quintessence parameter $`\omega `$ is presented in Table I.

## IV Conclusion

The determination of cosmological parameters is a central goal of modern cosmology. We live in a special moment where the emergence of a new “standard cosmology” driven by some form of dark energy seems to be inevitable. The uncomfortable situation for some comes from the fact that the emerging model is somewhat more complicated physically speaking, while for others it is exciting because although preserving some aspects of the basic scenario a new invisible actor which has not been predicted by particle physics is coming into play.

Using the reasonable *ansatz* of constant gas mass fraction at large scale, we placed new limits on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega `$ parameters for a flat dark energy model. The galaxy cluster data used corresponds to regular, relaxed systems whose $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(r)`$ profiles are essentially flat around $`r_{2500}`$, the mass results were confirmed from gravitational lensing studies and the residual systematic uncertainties in the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values are small allen1 . Naturally, the analysis presented here also reinforces the interest in searching for X-ray data both for less relaxed clusters, and perhaps more important, at higher redshifts. Hopefully, our constraints will be more stringent when further Chandra, XMM-Newton and more accurate gravitational lensing data for clusters become available near future. In this concern, we recall that X-ray data from galaxy clusters at high redshifts and the corresponding constraints for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ will play a key hole in the coming years because their relative abundance (and consequently the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ itself) may also independently be checked trough the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effectC2003 .

As we have seen, the X-ray data at present also favor eternal expansion as the fate of the Universe in accordance with SNe Ia dataperlmutter . Our estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\omega `$ are compatible with the results obtained from many independent methods (see Table I). We emphasize that a combination of these X-ray data with different methods is very welcome not only because of the gain in precision but also because most of cosmological tests are endowed with a high degree of degeneracy and may constrain rather well only specific combinations of cosmological parameters but not each parameter individually. The basic results combining different methods will appear in a forthcoming communication next .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Pronex/FINEP (No. 41.96.0908.00), FAPESP (00/06695-0) and CNPq (62.0053/01-1-PADCT III/Milenio).


text:
# 1 The Pb+Pb data of NA49. The peak is at 3.0 unit. The peak value is 405 𝐺𝑒𝑉.

Hydrodynamic Evolution of Spherical Fireball

In Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions

Hong Miao1, Zhongbiao Ma1, Chongshou Gao1,2

1Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

2Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China

## Abstract

Evolution process could be calculated from the relativistic hydrodynamic equation with certain estimated initial conditions about a single spherical fireball here. So one could estimate a kind of initial condition qualitatively with a possible energy density about $`ϵ_01.9`$ $`GeV/fm^3`$, based on this process to fit the experimental data at thermal freeze-out. The evolution from a cylindrical fireball will be discussed simply in a later chapter.
PACS number(s): 12.38.Mh 25.75.-q
Key words: QGP, plasma, hydrodynamic, evolution, fireball

1. Introduction

It has been suggested that in relativistic heavy ion collisions the QGP state would be formed, in which quarks and gluons are free to roam within the volume of the fireball created by the collision. Studying the hydrodynamic evolution of the fireball would be helpful to learn the QGP and the phase transition from QGP to hadron gas or whether it has happened. The evolution of a fireball with certain simple (energy density) distributions in central incident is computed to give some coarse estimations of the initial energy density and other information that may be the signatures of the QGP.

In our calculations, some conditions are presumed. (1) The evolution could be described as a quasi-static process, as well as the local thermal equilibrium is formed. Every small mass region could be described with the mean energy density, pressure and c.m. velocity. (2) Ideal gas is provided, therefore $`p=\frac{1}{3}ϵ`$. (3) The fireball given has a spherical shape and there are no revolving fluid movements in central incident, all movements of the relativistic fluid are radial. $`p,`$ $`ϵ`$ are also radial fields.

In fact, the original shape is not known exactly, especially there is a finite time during the collision proceed. The fireball under building also evolves at the same time. For Na49, it is about 1.5 $`fm/c`$. Therefore, spherical model is used here, for the facilities of computing and also due to our confidence that the difference could be accepted comparing to uncertainties by other causes in the calculations. Cylindrical expansion from a flat fireball will be discussed in Chapter 5.

With these conditions provided, one can use the relativistic hydrodynamic equation

$$\frac{T_{\mu \nu }}{x_\mu }=0,$$
(1)
where

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(ϵ+p)u_\mu u_\nu g_{\mu \nu }p,$$
(2)
to calculate it.

2. Hydrodynamic Evolution

In order to describe the global fireball properly and easily, variables in the form of spherical coordinate ($`r,\theta ,\phi `$) are used while still keeping the hydrodynamic equation in Minkowski from. Because the fluid velocity is always radical as been mentioned, one has (4-velocity) $`u_\theta =u_\phi =0`$, and

$`u_x`$ $`=`$ $`u_r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$
$`u_y`$ $`=`$ $`u_r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$
$`u_z`$ $`=`$ $`u_r\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$
Now Eq (1) can be transformed by this way

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mu \nu }}{x_\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{0\nu }}{t}}+\begin{array}{c}_3\\ \\ ^{i=1}\end{array}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i\nu }}{x_i}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{0\nu }}{t}}+\begin{array}{c}_3\\ \\ ^{i=1}\end{array}({\displaystyle \frac{T_{i\nu }}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{x_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i\nu }}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{x_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{i\nu }}{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{x_i}}).`$
Based on the relations above one gets that, when $`\nu =1,2,3`$, equations are same

$$(ϵ+p)\left[\frac{u_r^2}{r}+\frac{(u_ru_0)}{t}+2\frac{u_r^2}{r}\right]+u_r^2\frac{(ϵ+p)}{r}+u_ru_0\frac{(ϵ+p)}{t}+\frac{p}{r}=0,$$
(4)
when $`\nu =0`$,

$$(ϵ+p)\left[\frac{(u_ru_0)}{r}+\frac{u_0^2}{t}+2\frac{u_ru_0}{r}\right]+u_ru_0\frac{(ϵ+p)}{r}+u_0^2\frac{(ϵ+p)}{t}\frac{p}{t}=0.$$
(5)
For $`p=\frac{1}{3}ϵ`$, and

$$u_0^2u_r^2=1,$$
(6)
(4)(5) can be simplified as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left[u_r{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{2u_r^2+3}{2u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_r^2}{r}}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2u_r^21}{2u_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{r}}+u_r{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_ru_0}{r}}\right].`$ (7)
For $`v=v_r=u_r/u_0`$, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{x_\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`u_0^3{\displaystyle \frac{v}{x_\mu }},`$
$`u_r^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{1v^2}},`$ (8)
$`u_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1v^2}}=\gamma ^2,`$
and Eqs (7) turn to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3v^2}}\left[v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{r}}+(1v^2)^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}}){\displaystyle \frac{v^2(1v^2)}{r}}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{r}}+2v({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}})+3{\displaystyle \frac{v}{r}}\right].`$ (9)
They are non-linear partial differential equations which could describe the expansion process of a spherical fireball. From (9) one can find that the geometrical shape and velocity distribution are invariant to the scale of energy density, from the form ($`\mathrm{ln}ϵ`$). This is because the equation of states of ideal gas ($`p=\frac{1}{3}ϵ`$) is used. This makes some geometrical data independent of the initial energy density, but only depend on its relative distribution (i.e. the value of $`\sigma `$) in this model.

3. Calculations

Two-step Lax-Wendroff Method  is used here to compute the evolution. Gaussian distribution and mean distribution of energy density are tried as the initial conditions to run the programmes. Gaussian condition works much better than the other in the calculations.

In order to minimize the computational error and to raise the stability of the programme, a small variable $`ϵ_v`$ is added as a correction to the energy density to avoid it too close to zero

$$ϵ=ϵ_{phy}+ϵ_v.$$
(10)
This correction is so small that it has not a little influence on the final results, but it helps the programme to compute the evolution for a long time (6-10 $`fm/c`$) enough to freeze-out. It could be regarded as the energy density of the base state of physical vacuum.

The programme could output a series of data of energy density, fluid velocity and size. The Root Mean Square (RMS) Radius ($`R_{rms}`$) is

$$R_{rms}^2=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^5\pi }{E_s}[\frac{ϵ(0)}{40}+4ϵ(n)n^4],$$
(11)
where $`E_s`$ is the total rest energy

$$E_s=(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^3\pi [\frac{ϵ(0)}{6}+4ϵ(n)n^2],$$

and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is the stepsize about location. The relation to the effective radius (RMS on projection to one dimension) is

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}}R_{rms}.`$ (12)
It is interesting that $`(E_sR_{rms}^2)`$ looks conservative during the fireball expands, no matter which initial conditions it has. It should be a mirror of hydrodynamic equation (energy-momentum coservation). After setting some acceptable conditions on the borders, the programme could evolve about $`12fm/c`$ stably.

4. Experimental Analysis and Evolution Results

The data can be observed in the experiments are the overall time of expansion $`t`$, the transverse energy distribution via pseudorapidity $`dE_T/d\eta `$, the emission source size $`\sigma `$ and the transverse velocity $`v_T`$ when the the fireball freezes out. Initial inputs are central energy density $`ϵ_0`$ and the effective size of its distribution $`\sigma _0`$. Trying appropriate $`ϵ_0`$, $`\sigma _0`$ and a fixed $`t`$, can fit the other experimental data very well.

The volume of the cross section of central colliding region in c.m. frame can be estimated as

$$V_0=\frac{4\pi }{3}R_0^3\frac{A_1^2+A_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}}{\sqrt{A_1^2+A_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}+2A_1A_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\mathrm{cosh}Y_L}},$$
(13)
where $`Y_L`$ is the rapidity of incident nucleus in the laboratory frame.

The radius of this region $`r_c`$ is about 1.5 $`fm`$ for RHIC and 3.26 $`fm`$ for SPS 158 $`GeV`$ $`{}_{}{}^{208}Pb`$. According to a Gaussian distribution, this radius should be smaller than the RMS radius and larger than the effective radius, that is

$$\sigma _0r_cR_{rms}.$$

So from eq (13), for SPS one has

$$1.89fm\sigma _03.26fm.$$

Initial effective radius will be tried from this domain.

The overall time of expansion (to freeze-out) $`t`$ is observed about 8 $`fm/c`$ near mid rapidity, decreasing slightly to 6 $`fm/c`$ at high rapidity, with a Gaussian radius (mean square error) $`\sigma =R_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =`$3.5 $`fm/c`$ . We set it at $`t=7.5`$ $`fm/c`$ as the time when freeze out.

Transverse energy distribution calculated between 2$`\eta `$4 shows that there is a peak near $`\eta y_{c.m.}`$=2.9 and depended on the initial effective size $`\sigma _0`$, because pseudorapidity is used instead of rapidity. The larger the $`\sigma _0`$ is, the larger the central pseudorapidity is and the higher the peak is (, about $`dE_T/d\eta \sigma _0^{23}`$ in region ($`1.89fm\sigma _03.26fm`$)). At the same time, the initial energy density $`ϵ_0`$ contribute the peak value too (, $`dE_T/d\eta ϵ_0`$). But the location of the peak is still invariant to $`ϵ_0`$, due to our assumption of ideal gas. To fix the location and peak value could determine the initial parameters.

NA49 experiments showed that there is a peak around $`\eta =3.0`$, and the peak value is 405 $`GeV`$ per unit. (see Fig 1.) Bjorken formula gives $`ϵ_0=3.2`$ $`GeV/fm^3`$ to fix the peak value. Setting $`ϵ_0=3.2`$ $`GeV`$ and $`\sigma _0=3.13`$ $`fm`$ (both are near the upper limits) could also fit the peak value well, (see Fig 2,) but the peak location is $`\eta =3.133`$, a bit larger than expected and the peak width is only about 1 unit far smaller than the experiment. The value decrease quite rapidly far from the centre, while it is still larger than 300 $`GeV`$ in experiment when $`\eta =2`$ and 4.

Here c.m. velocities of every small regions are used instead of the particle velocities at freeze-out to compute the pseudorapidity and transverse energy. Because this method did not mention the fluid temperature and its components, one can not calculate the real momentum distribution in that small region and give the exact result. For this reason, the real curve should be more smooth and the peak should be a little lower. It means the real data are more far from the the experiment. Most of all, even if the smooth effect dominate the distribution, the total $`E_T`$ and the peak location will not change much. Counted in Fig 2, the total transverse energy between $`\eta =2.0`$ to 4.0, is only about 433 $`GeV`$, while in Fig 1, the total transverse energy is no less than 700 $`GeV`$. Even though set the effective size as 3.2 $`fm`$ to the limit, the total transverse energy is only about 464 $`GeV`$, while the peak value is 435.4 $`GeV`$ and its location comes up to 3.147 unit. Larger $`\sigma _0`$’s and initial energy densities than those are not suitable.

So one reasonable explanation is that the experimental data contain a huge background. This background is probably produced by the other small fireballs if multi-fireballs are emerged after the collision. The major signal from the central fireball forms the peak and the others make up a background. By cutting off the background about 290$`\pm `$20 $`GeV`$, the peak value decreases to about 115$`\pm `$20 $`GeV`$ and total the transverse energy turns to 123$`\pm `$40 $`GeV`$. Choosing a combination of $`\sigma _0`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ properly, could fit it very well.

| $`ϵ_0`$ $`(GeV/fm^3)`$ | $`1.60`$ | $`1.80`$ | $`2.00`$ | $`2.20`$ | $`2.40`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Peak value $`(GeV/unit)`$ | $`89.3`$ | $`100.1`$ | $`111.8`$ | $`122.6`$ | $`133.9`$ |
| Sum $`E_T`$ $`(GeV)`$ | $`104.0`$ | $`117.0`$ | $`130.0`$ | $`143.0`$ | $`156.0`$ |

Table 1 Possible $`ϵ_0`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.5`$ $`fm`$

| $`ϵ_0`$ $`(GeV/fm^3)`$ | $`1.40`$ | $`1.60`$ | $`1.80`$ | $`2.00`$ | $`2.20`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Peak value $`(GeV/unit)`$ | $`90.5`$ | $`103.1`$ | $`116.3`$ | $`129.0`$ | $`142.1`$ |
| Sum $`E_T`$ $`(GeV)`$ | $`103.9`$ | $`118.8`$ | $`133.6`$ | $`148.5`$ | $`163.3`$ |

Table 2 Possible $`ϵ_0`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.6`$ $`fm`$

Calculations show that from $`ϵ_0`$ near 2.7 $`GeV/fm^3`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.3`$ $`fm`$ ($`\sigma _{freezeout}=4.300`$ $`fm`$), $`ϵ_0`$ near 2.0 $`GeV/fm^3`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.5`$ $`fm`$ ($`\sigma _{freezeout}=4.350`$ $`fm`$) to $`ϵ_0`$ near 1.8 $`GeV/fm^3`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.6`$ $`fm`$ ($`\sigma _{freezeout}=4.375`$ $`fm`$) are all permissive. Considering that the peak location could not be too much larger or smaller than 3.0 and the transverse velocity should not be too high, $`\sigma _0`$ is defined to $`[2.30,2.60]`$.

The effective radius at freeze-out in experiment varies from 3.8 $`fm`$ by proton correlation to $`6.5\pm 0.5`$ $`fm`$ by pion correlation. This is quite dramatic and makes it pretty difficult to determine the initial size precisely. The effective radius got at freeze-out here varies from 4.15 $`fm`$ to 4.7 $`fm`$ according to the initial domain $`\sigma _0=1.93.2`$ $`fm`$ (, see Fig 4). This result is a little larger than the the data from proton correlations and smaller than the data from pion correlations. All could be acceptable, including our conclusion $`\sigma =4.34.4`$ $`fm`$ which is quite near to the data from proton correlations.

Transverse velocity $`v_T`$= 0.55 is reported. Again because the local thermal momentum distribution and the particle component can not be provided from the hydronynamic method, the c.m. velocity at the effective radius $`v_\sigma `$ at freeze-out is used to compare with the transverse velocity. From $`\sigma _0=2.3`$ $`fm`$ to 2.6 $`fm`$, $`v_\sigma `$ reduces from 0.645 to 0.613. We intend to select a relatively larger initial effective radius with a lower freeze-out velocity.

Energy density at freeze-out is estimated about 0.05 $`GeV/fm^3`$. Evolution results with parameters discussed above are about 0.051 to 0.065 $`GeV/fm^3`$, very approximate. Smaller and larger $`\sigma _0`$ will produce too tiny or huge result, although weone can tune the initial energy density to give a small correction.

From above, our selected estimation of the initial parameters is about $`1.9\pm 0.3`$ $`GeV/fm^3`$ at $`\sigma _0=2.55`$ $`fm`$. Detailed results are listed in Fig 5, 6, 7, 8. From Fig 5, one can see that central energy density reduces very slow (about 0.1 $`GeV/fm^3`$) in the first $`12`$ $`fm/c`$. State that the possibilities of initial energy from range 1.4 to 2.4 $`GeV/fm^3`$ with relevant effective size could not be removed completely either.

5. Cylindrical Fireball

In this chapter, a short discuss is done on the evolution of a flat cylindrical fireball. One more equation is added to the evolution equations (10) and one dimension of data in memory expand too. The hydrodynamic equation(s) could be written to these forms

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u_r^2}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_ru_z)}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_ru_0)}{t}}\right]+(u_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}}+u_ru_z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{z}}+u_ru_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_r^2}{r}}=0,`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(u_zu_r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_z^2}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_zu_0)}{t}}\right]+u_zu_r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}}+(u_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{z}}+u_zu_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_zu_r}{r}}=0,`$ (14)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0u_r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0u_z)}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2}{t}}\right]+u_0u_r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{r}}+u_0u_z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{z}}+(u_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_0u_r}{r}}=0.`$
Let $`v_r=u_r/u_0`$, $`v_z=u_z/u_0,`$ the partial time forms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{M}}\left[2v_rA_0+2VzB_0+(\alpha 2)C_0\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_z}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{M}}\left[2\alpha v_zv_rA_0+(2\alpha v_z^2+M)B_0+(\alpha V_z(\alpha 2)Mv_r)C_0\right],`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_r}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{M}}\left[2\alpha v_rv_zB_0+(2\alpha v_r^2+M)A_0+(\alpha V_r(\alpha 2)Mv_z)C_0\right],`$
where

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u_r^2}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_ru_z)}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_ru_0)}{t}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{u_r^2}{r}},`$
$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(u_zu_r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_z^2}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_zu_0)}{t}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{u_zu_r}{r}},`$
$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0u_r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(u_0u_z)}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2}{t}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{u_0u_r}{r}},`$
and

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`1v_r^2v_z^2,`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^22\alpha +4.`$
6. Summary

Hydrodynamic equation is used to compute a spherical fireball created by the relativistic heavy ion collisions. The evolution works very well. It can produce kinds of data to compare with those from experiments. While, although these equations do not have any free parameters, but due to the complex, unknown and severe uncertain initial conditions, only a qualitative process could be given. The estimate of initial data is only a kind of attempt.

The experimental data is likely to contain a huge background. It is reported that the initial energy density could be reduced to 0.91 $`GeV/fm^3`$, by cutting off the background. To use hydrodynamic method to deal with this problem here, the initial energy density is estimated about $`ϵ_01.9\pm 0.3`$ $`GeV/fm^3`$. Thinking that the results are more sensitive to the initial size than to the initial energy density, the real error range may be larger. The result is not so striking as the estimation of $`ϵ_0=3.2`$ $`GeV/fm^3`$ got before. The possibility of the QGP production in CERN SPS is still not clear.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Professor ZHUANG Pengfei for the helpful suggestions and discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (90103019), and the Doctoral Programme Foundation of Institution of Higher Education, the State Education Commission of China (2000000147).


text:
# Complexity and ordinary life, and some mathematics in both

## Differences between answers of “yes” and “no”

Imagine the following kind of question: “Does so-and-so have a pencil in his or her office?”

If someone finds a pencil in the office, then that provides a way in which an answer of “yes” can be clearly established. The pencil can simply be shown. An answer of “no” is quite different, and apparently more complicated. How can one establish an answer of “no”, without just going through all of the contents of the office?

This type of distinction is sometimes described technically through phrases like *effective witnesses* or *succinct certificates*. Roughly speaking, an effective witness or succinct certificate is something which would be used to establish an answer to a given question, which is reasonably small or manageable, and for which the verification of this as providing an answer would be fairly easy and definite.

This general idea can be given precise forms in suitable mathematical contexts, and in particular it has a basic role in theoretical computer science. (Compare with .)

In the example above, an actual pencil in the office would serve as an effective witness or succinct certificate for an answer of “yes”, to the question of whether there is a pencil in so-and-so’s office. For an answer of “no”, it is not clear what might make sense as an effective witness. There may not be one.

This is a very general issue, and one that comes up in many ways. Instead of a pencil, the question might be more interesting, concerning the possibility that so-and-so is in possession of items of value to sports fans, or nice jewelry, or whether so-and-so remembers about Wednesday evening. One might really want to be able to have a definite answer to the question, and that might not be so easy to come by. (So-and-so might thus be in a good position to be evasive.)

Even if there are effective witnesses for a given answer (“yes” or “no”), this is not the same as saying that it is easy to find an effective witness. In other words, a pencil or other object might serve as an effective witness for an answer of “yes” if one can find one, but that does not mean that it is easy to do so, or that one has a good method for doing so. One might be faced once more with the prospect of something like an exhaustive search, and that might not be appealing or feasible. (Again, this could be helpful for so-and-so.)

In an argument, this might come up in a slightly different (but equivalent) way, in which the roles of “yes” and “no” are reversed. One person might want to put forward a general statement, while another person might want to look in to its correctness. The statement could be something like “Members of the Oblidian Club are all sipifsts!” An effective witness for an answer of “no” could be a person in the Oblidian Club who is manifestly *not* a sipifst. It may not be easy to locate such an individual even if he or she exists, but at least the possibility is there. For an answer of “yes”, there might not be any simple effective witness like this at all.

These are phenomena which occur all the time, in arguments between people in particular. In theoretical computer science, there are mathematically-precise versions of these notions, and in fact there are famous unsolved problems pertaining to them. In technical terms, one of these is the problem that asks whether the “complexity class” NP is equal to the complementary class co-NP. The NP class involves questions for which effective witnesses for answers of “yes” always exists, while the co-NP class entails questions for which effective witnesses for “no” exist.

Even if effective witnesses exist, it might not be easy to find them, and the complexity class P consists of questions for which there is a method to figure out an answer of “yes” or “no” in a limited amount of time (namely, in “polynomial time”). It is a famous unsolved problem to know whether the class P might actually be the same as NP, even though P seems to be significantly more restrictive than NP.

See  for more about these classes and unsolved problems.

At any rate, versions of these issues come up a lot, and in various forms, in both ordinary activities, and in more technical or mathematical situations. We shall see a bit more of this later.

## Hamburgers and exponentiation

Some years ago, there was a restaurant (with special emphasis on hamburgers) which had a sign that said something like the following:

> We have $`256`$ different kinds of hamburgers.

This might seem to be a rather remarkable statement, but in fact we can look at it mathematically and see how it makes a lot of sense.

The first point is to understand something about what the number $`256`$ actually is. It is not just *any* number, but a very special one.

One might first notice that $`256`$ is an even number, meaning that it is divisible by $`2`$. One can see this quickly because its last digit is an even number. (One is told in school, at least in years gone by, that a number is even if its last digit is even. This is not hard to verify anyway.) Thus $`256`$ can be written as $`2`$ times something. One can check that that something is $`128`$:

$$256=2\times 128.$$

This is a bit curious, because $`128`$ is also an even number. In fact $`128`$ is $`2`$ times $`64`$, and so we get that

$$256=2\times 2\times 64.$$

Now again, $`64`$ is even. It is $`2`$ times $`32`$. And $`32`$ is even, $`32=2\times 16`$. And then $`16=2\times 8`$, $`8=2\times 4`$, and $`4=2\times 2`$.

In the end, we get that $`256`$ can be obtained by multiplying together a bunch of $`2`$’s, without needing any other numbers. Specifically, $`256`$ is the product of eight $`2`$’s, i.e.,

$$256=2\times 2\times 2\times 2\times 2\times 2\times 2\times 2.$$

This is sometimes written as

$$256=2^8.$$

In general, $`2^m`$ means the number that one gets by multiplying together $`m`$ $`2`$’s. This process is called *exponentiation*, and the number $`m`$ in $`2^m`$ is called the *exponent*.

This is analogous to the relationship between multiplication and addition. That is, $`m\times 2`$ is the same as *adding* together $`m`$ $`2`$’s. With $`2^m`$, one *multiplies* the $`2`$’s instead of adding them.

One of the interesting features of exponentiation is that it leads to pretty big numbers rather quickly. We shall see more of this soon. For the moment, let us continue with the question of the hamburgers. Now that we know that $`256`$ is the same as eight $`2`$’s multiplied together, what does that suggest about the restaurant having $`256`$ different kinds of hamburgers?

In fact, there is a rather simple answer to this. Consider the following $`8`$ choices that one might be offered, in having a hamburger at the restaurant:

1. Do you want pickles?
2. Do you want lettuce?
3. Do you want tomatoes?
4. Do you want onions?
5. Do you want cheese?
6. Do you want ketchup?
7. Do you want mustard?
8. Do you want mayonnaise?

Each of these choices represents $`2`$ possibilities, “yes” or “no”. With all $`8`$ choices, where one is free to give answers of “yes” or “no” for each one, independently of the rest, one obtains a total of $`256`$ possible types of hamburgers to have. This comes from the fact that $`256`$ is really the same as multiplying eight $`2`$’s together, where each of the eight $`2`$’s corresponds to the $`2`$ options for one of the questions above. (This is a standard observation, and it is not too hard to check.)

This is not to say that the restaurant maintains a supply of all $`256`$ different types of hamburgers at any given moment. Instead, the restaurant has a supply of each of the $`8`$ different ingredients mentioned in the questions above. They might add the ingredients in preparing the hamburger to be served, or they might have a place where a customer can get his or her own ingredients.

One might say that the restaurant has $`256`$ different kinds of hamburgers *implicitly*. This is as opposed to having them all *explicitly*, with $`256`$ actual hamburgers present, covering all $`256`$ possible different ways of answering the $`8`$ questions above.

## Hamburgers and exponentiation, part 2

Now let us imagine that there might be more than the $`8`$ choices mentioned above. There might be options for oregano, bean sprouts, or mushrooms, for instance, or a whole-wheat bun. There might also be an option for a vegetarian burger instead of a usual hamburger.

Suppose that there are $`20`$ yes-or-no choices for the burgers, rather than $`8`$. This means that there would be $`2^{20}`$ different kinds of burgers, i.e., a product of twenty $`2`$’s. This number is equal to

$$1,048,576$$

(i.e., a little more than a million).

What if there were $`30`$ such choices instead? This would mean that there would be $`2^{30}`$ different kinds of burgers. This number is equal to

$$1,073,741,824$$

(a little more than a billion).

Each time that one adds ten more choices, one should multiply the total number of burgers by $`2^{10}`$, which is $`1024`$ (a little more than a thousand). With $`40`$ choices one would get about a trillion different kinds of hamburgers, and with $`50`$ one would get about a quadrillion.

Relatively speaking, it would not be that hard to make a place where one really could have $`20`$, $`30`$, or more choices for what to have on the burger. It might be a little difficult to put in all $`30`$ types of ingredients on a single hamburger, but still, one can imagine things like this. (There are modest variants of this scenario which might be easier for making the hamburgers, and which still lead to large numbers of different types.)

With larger numbers of choices like this, the *implicitness* becomes more and more of an issue. One can imagine a place where a large number of options for the different hamburgers is possible, so that very many different kinds of hamburgers are possible, but this is very different from actually having all of those millions or billions of hamburgers right there. The range of all of these hamburgers would be represented *implicitly* in this way, if not *explicitly*.

To put this into perspective, how many seconds are there in a year? There are $`60`$ seconds in a minute, $`60`$ minutes in an hour, $`24`$ hours in a day, and $`365`$ days in a year. Thus the total number of seconds in a year is

$$60\times 60\times 24\times 365=31,536,000.$$

One might also think about issues of storage for the millions or billions of hamburgers. Having a facility in which one can make hamburgers with any of the various choices is much easier by comparison.

All of this makes sense much more generally. A modest number of independent choices or options can lead to huge numbers of total different outcomes, like different possible hamburgers, as above. This works just as well for other types of objects, in addition to hamburgers.

As another basic scenario, imagine having a bunch of places in some area, like towns and villages, and some roads connecting them. One can then have a lot of different paths that one could take, following roads between the different places. I.e., does one go here first and then there, or the other way around, and so on.

In general situations like this, the number of different paths that would be possible can grow exponentially, as in the case of hamburgers. Now it would grow exponentially as compared to the number of places and roads in the region, rather than the number of ingredients, like pickles, cheese, and mustard. With a modest number of places and roads, there can be an enormous number of different paths that one could take, just as before.

For this statement, we might agree to only count paths that do not go in circles anywhere. Otherwise, one might simply go around circles over and over again, which leads to numerous paths by itself. Without ever going around in circles in any given path, one can still have very many paths, with exponential size for the number of paths. If one includes paths that can go around in circles (for a while, say), then one gets even more.

In this scenario the idea of *implicitness* comes up too. One might depict the places and roads on a map or a diagram, and this implicitly gives a way to represent all of the paths on them. Any given path can be traced out on the map or diagram, for instance. An actual listing of all of the individual paths would be quite different. In general there could be too many of them to list in a reasonable or practical way.

## Big sets and effective witnesses

Once one has very big sets like this, as in the illustrations of hamburgers and paths, one has again issues like those from before, with effective witnesses, complexity, and so on.

A classical example of this occurs with the case of paths. Imagine that one has a list of places in the region, and that one asks the following type of question:

> Is there a path along these roads, which visits all of the locations on this list, but where the total distance travelled is at most $`230`$ miles?

For an answer of “yes”, there is a clear effective witness for this problem, namely a path with the given properties. In particular, for a given path, it is not too hard to check whether or not it has all of the required features.

However, this is not to say that it is easy to find such a path when it exists, or to determine whether such a path does exist (without necessarily exhibiting it). Also, it is not clear that there should be reasonable effective witnesses for an answer of “no”. In other words, how might one be convinced that such a path does not exist, without simply checking all of the individual paths of total length at most $`230`$ miles?

The problem of finding a yes-or-no answer to the question above is sometimes called “the travelling salesperson problem”. It has been much studied, and it is a famous example of a problem which is “complete” for the class NP that was mentioned earlier. See .

There are similar issues that one can see in the context of hamburgers. One could have a list of conditions that one would like a hamburger to satisfy (in terms of the different ingredients that are available, as before), and one might ask whether such a hamburger exists. For any given hamburger, it could be easy to decide whether that one enjoys the right properties, but this is very different from being able to say much about what happens among all hamburgers. In particular, it may not be clear how to find a hamburger with the given features, except for just searching through them directly. There may not be any good way to know when there is no such hamburger, without searching through them all. (When there is a suitable hamburger, one can stop searching as soon as one finds it, but when there is not, one may not know when to stop, without going to the end.)

This type of question about hamburgers is a version of the “satisfiability” problem, discussed in .

There are a lot of questions and phenomena along these lines. In technical versions, one can see this in , for instance. There are also plenty of forms of this which come up in ordinary life.

In some ways this is not really a big deal. I.e., it is just fair, and reasonable. On the other hand, it is basic and substantial, and can be quite tricky.