text:
# About EAS inverse approach

## 1 Introduction

High accuracy of modern EAS experiments in the primary energy region of $`10^{15}`$ eV \[1-4\] increased a number of publications on the solutions of the EAS inverse problem, which is reconstruction of primary nuclei energy spectra based on the detected EAS parameters at observation level \[5-9\]. However, discrepancies in results continue to grow. In most of the cases, it is a result of the hidden experimental systematic errors due to uncertainties in the response functions of detectors. The uncertainty of A-A interaction model at these energies also contributes to the discrepancies in primary nuclei energy spectra results. However, there are certain publications where the EAS inverse problem is solved based on erroneous presuppositions, which of course only increase the existing discrepancies of data.

## 2 EAS inverse problem

In general, the relation between energy spectra ($`\mathrm{}_A/E`$) of primary nuclei ($`A1,4,\mathrm{}56`$) and measured EAS electron and muon size spectra at observation level ($`\mathrm{\Delta }I/\mathrm{\Delta }N_{e,\mu }^{}`$) at a given zenith angle $`\theta `$ is determined by an integral equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{e,\mu }^{}}=\underset{A}{}\frac{\mathrm{}_A}{E}\frac{K(E,A,\theta )}{N_{e,\mu }^{}}𝑑E$$
(1)
The kernel function of equation (1) is determined as

$$\frac{K}{N_{e,\mu }^{}}\frac{W(E,A,\theta )}{N_{e,\mu }}\frac{dG}{dN_{e,\mu }^{}}𝑑N_{e,\mu }$$
(2)
where the EAS size spectra $`W/N_{e,\mu }`$ depend on observation level, $`A,E,\theta `$ parameters of primary nucleus and $`AA_{Air}`$ interaction model, $`dG(N,N^{})/dN^{}`$ is the error function of measurements.
Equation (1) is a typical ill-posed problem and has an infinite set of solutions for unknown primary energy spectra. However, the integral equation (1) turns to a Fredholm equation if a kind of a primary nucleus is defined directly in the experiment (as it successfully does in the balloon and satellite measurements  where energy spectra for different nuclei are obtained up to $`10^{15}`$ eV) or the detected EAS parameters (or combination of parameters) slightly depend on primary nuclei . In the last case one evaluate only the all-particle energy spectra $`_Ad\mathrm{}_A/dE`$ from equation (1).
As a result, the meaning of data presented in the  and further publications \[12-14\] where authors claim to have got the solution of equation (1) for 4 types of primary nuclei, is not clear.
Let’s prove that using the measured EAS electron and truncated muon size spectra at 3 zenith angular intervals, as its done in , the Eq. (1) can have a single solution only for primary flux which consists of not more than 2 kinds of nuclei.

Let the EAS size spectra at observation level KASCADE ($`t=1020`$ g/cm2 ) be described by log-Gaussian distributions with mean $`<N_{e,\mu }(E,A,\theta )>`$ and variance $`\sigma _{e,\mu }^2(E,A,\theta )`$. It is known that this assumption is well performed at atmosphere depth $`t>700`$ g/cm2, primary energies $`E>10^5`$ GeV and zenith angles $`\theta <35^0`$.
Let also the measurements and further evaluations of EAS electron and truncated muon sizes be carried out without errors ($`dG/dN^{}\delta (NN^{})`$) and integral Eq. (1) include only statistical uncertainties.
Then a set of Eq. (1) transforms into the following:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{e,\mu }}=\underset{A}{}\frac{\mathrm{}_A}{E}\frac{W(E,A,\theta )}{N_{e,\mu }}𝑑E$$
(3)
Let’s determine the parameters of distribution functions $`W/N_{e,\mu }`$ by the following known empirical expressions:

$$<N>a\left(\frac{E}{1GeV}\right)^bA^c\mathrm{cos}^d\theta $$
(4)
$$\sigma \alpha A^\delta \left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(E/1GeV)}{\mathrm{ln}10^6}\right)^\epsilon \mathrm{cos}^\rho \theta $$
(5)
where the values of corresponding approximation parameters ($`a,\mathrm{}d,\alpha ,\mathrm{}\rho `$) are presented in Tables 1,2 and obtained by CORSIKA6016(NKG) EAS simulation code  at QGSJET interaction model .

The accuracy of approximation (4) for average EAS electron size $`<N_e(E,A,\theta )>`$ is less than 10$`\%`$ at $`310^5<E<310^8`$ GeV, $`A1,\mathrm{}56`$, $`\theta <32^0`$ and observation level 1020 g/cm2. The corresponding accuracies of $`\sigma _{e,\mu }`$ and average EAS truncated muon size $`N_\mu `$ are less than 1-2$`\%`$.
Changing the variables of kernel functions of Eq. (3) from $`N_e`$ and $`N_\mu `$ to $`x_e`$ and $`x_\mu `$ respectively according to

$$x_{e,\mu }A^\delta \left(\frac{N_{e,\mu }}{<N_{e,\mu }>}1\right)+1$$
(6)
we obtain the following set of Fredholm integral equations

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{e,\mu }}=f_{e,\mu }(E,A)F_{e,\mu }(E,\theta )𝑑E$$
(7)
where

$$f_{e,\mu }(E,A)=\underset{A}{}\frac{\mathrm{}_A}{E}A^{\delta _{e,\mu }c_{e,\mu }}$$
(8)
and kernel functions

$$F_{e,\mu }(E,\theta )=\frac{W(E,\theta )}{x_{e,\mu }}\frac{1}{a_{e,\mu }E^{b_{e,\mu }}\mathrm{cos}^{d_{e,\mu }}\theta }$$
(9)
independent of kind of primary nuclei.
Examples of distribution functions $`W/x`$ for EAS electron and truncated muon size spectra are presented Fig. 1,2 respectively.

These data were obtained by CORSIKA code for primary proton ($`A1`$, empty symbols) and iron ($`A56`$, filled symbols) nuclei at energy $`E=3.210^6`$ GeV and zenith angle $`\theta <18^0`$. The lines in Fig. 1,2 correspond to log-Gaussian distributions which were counted based on known values of mean $`<x>=1`$ and variances $`\sigma _{e,\mu }^2(E,\theta )`$.
It is seen, that the distribution functions slightly depend on a kind of a primary nucleus, especially the right-hand sides of distributions. It is an important fact, because the contribution of the left-hand sides of distributions is negligible small at a priori steep primary energy spectra ($`\mathrm{}_A/EE^3`$).
Let the functions $`f_e^{(j,k)}(E_i)`$ and $`f_\mu ^{(j,k)}(E_i)`$ be the solutions of the set of Fredholm equations (7) at $`i=1,\mathrm{}m`$ values of primary energies $`E_i`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{}n`$ kinds of primary nuclei and k=1,2,3 zenith angles. Then the values of unknown energy spectra ($`\mathrm{}_{A_j}/E_i`$) at a given set of $`E_i`$ and different primary nuclei ($`A_jA_1,\mathrm{}A_n`$) are determined by the set of linear equations

$$<f_e^{(j)}(E_i)>_\theta =\underset{A=A_1}{\overset{A=A_n}{}}A^{\delta _ec_e}\frac{\mathrm{}_A}{E}|_{E=E_i}:i=1,\mathrm{}m$$
(10)
$$<f_\mu ^{(j)}(E_i)>_\theta =\underset{A=A_1}{\overset{A=A_n}{}}A^{\delta _\mu c_\mu }\frac{\mathrm{}_A}{E}|_{E=E_i}:i=1,\mathrm{}m$$
(11)
where $`<f_{e,\mu }^{(j)}(E_i)>_\theta =\frac{1}{3}_kf_{e,\mu }^{(j,k)}(E_i)`$
Evidently, the single solutions of linear equations (9,10) occur only at $`mn2m`$, where $`mn`$ is a number of unknown $`(\mathrm{}_{A_j}/E_i)`$ and $`2m`$ is a number of equations (10,11).

Therefore the condition of existence of solutions is $`n2`$ and the energy spectra  obtained based on KASCADE EAS electron and truncated muon size spectra for 4 ($`A1,4,16,56`$) primary nuclei no physical meaning. At the same time the all-particle spectrum obtained in  have to be approximately right due to the power index in Eq. (11) $`\delta _\mu c_\mu 1`$.
It should be noted that unreliability of solutions  is also shown in  based on correlation analysis between the observable electron and truncated muon size spectra and unknown energy spectra of primary nuclei.

## 3 Conclusion

Based on equation (1), the investigation of the EAS inverse problem, which is the reconstruction of energy spectra of primary nuclei by the observable EAS electron and muon size spectra at observation level makes sense only using *a priori* given functions for unknown primary energy spectra with given unknown spectral parameters (so called parameterization of equation (1)) as it is done in .


format: text

text:
# Rotation of Hot Horizontal Branch Stars in Galactic Globular Clusters.

## References

Behr, B.B., Cohen, J. G., McCarthy, J. K., & Djorgovski, S. G. 1999, ApJ, 517,L31

Behr, B.B.,Djorgovski, S. G., Cohen, J. G., McCarthy, J. K., C$`\widehat{o}`$t$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$, P., Piotto, G., & Zoccali, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 849

Behr, B.B., Cohen, J. G., & McCarthy, J. K. 2000b, ApJ, 531,L37

Grundahl, F., Catelan, M., Landsman, W. B., Stetson, P. B., & Andersen, M. I. 1999 ApJ , 524, 242

Recio-Blanco, A., Piotto, G., Aparicio, A. & Renzini, A. 2002, ApJL, 572, 71


text:
# The Epoch of Reionization in Models with Reduced Small Scale Power

## 1 Introduction

The first-year WMAP satellite data have yielded a remarkable confirmation of what is coming to be regarded as the ‘Standard Model’ of cosmology: a Hubble parameter $`H_070`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, matter and vacuum densities consistent with a flat geometry $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.3`$, and a nearly scale-invariant primordial power spectrum, $`n_s1`$, at least on large scales. There were some surprises, as we will discuss below, but in many ways the WMAP results highlight the marked success of standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM in reconciling diverse observations from the CMB, to galaxy clusters, supernovae, and gravitational lensing. This remarkable agreement with data on large scales, however, brings into sharper focus several nagging discrepancies on small-scales. Specifically, observed galaxy central densities appear to be significantly lower than the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model predicts (Flores & Primack 1994; Moore 1994; Alam et al. 2002; Swaters et al. 2003; McGaugh et al. 2003; van den Bosch et al. 2003) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM may also produce too much substructure compared with observed numbers of satellite galaxies in the Local Group (Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999). A natural way to relieve these problems, while maintaining the large-scale success of the model, is to reduce the power on small scales relative to large, either by introducing a ‘tilt’ in the primordial power spectrum ($`n_s<1`$), as expected in some variants of inflation (Alam et al. 2002; Zentner & Bullock 2002), or by resorting to Warm Dark Matter (WDM) (Avila-Reese et al. 2001; Bode et al. 2001; Alam et al. 2002). In these models, collapse happens later, when the Universe was less dense, and galaxy halos are naturally less centrally concentrated. Later collapse also alleviates the dwarf problem (Colín et al. 2000; Knebe et al. 2002; Bullock & Zentner 2002; Zentner & Bullock 2003), and the ‘angular momentum catastrophe’ — the ongoing problem with producing disk galaxies with sufficient specific angular momentum in hydrodynamic simulations within the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM framework (Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov 2001). Interestingly, one of the surprises of the WMAP analysis is that it favors (at $`2\sigma `$) a model in which the spectral index varies strongly as a function of wavenumber, $`\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k0.03`$ (Spergel et al. 2003), in precisely the manner needed to cure many of the problems on small-scales (Zentner & Bullock 2003).

The second (and perhaps major) surprise from the WMAP report was the detection of a large amplitude signal in the TE maps, indicating a large optical depth to Thomson scattering ($`\tau =0.17\pm 0.04`$). The straightforward interpretation of this result is that the Universe became reionized at $`z_{\mathrm{reion}}=17\pm 5`$ (Kogut et al. 2003), rather earlier than many had expected. Several workers have recently demonstrated that even within the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM framework, models of reionization require rather extreme assumptions in order to produce enough early star or quasar formation to reionize the Universe by $`z17`$ (Wyithe & Loeb 2003; Haiman & Holder 2003; Ciardi et al. 2003a; Sokasian et al. 2003; Cen 2003). Put in the context of the small-scale crises facing the standard model, and indeed, in view of the running-index model favored by the WMAP analysis, we are left with a paradox. The galactic-scale data favor low-power models precisely because they produce late structure formation, but the high optical-depth measurement seems instead to favor early collapse. In fact, the late reionization implied by low-power models would more easily accommodate the simplest interpretation of the Gunn-Peterson troughs observed in several SDSS quasars at $`z6`$ (Fan et al. 2001; Becker et al. 2001), and the high temperature of the IGM at $`z4`$ (Hui & Haiman 2003).

In this Letter we set out to *quantify* these concerns using a simple yet conservative model that is informed and motivated by numerical simulations. Our aim is to compute conservative upper limits on $`z_{\mathrm{reion}}`$ for several models that have small-scale power reduced to plausibly solve the galactic-scale difficulties, including the running spectral index model favored by WMAP. In what follows, we assume that reionization is due to stellar sources alone, as AGN are likely to be unimportant to reionization at high redshift unless there are exotic objects (such as ’mini-quasars’) that is completely disjoint from the known population (Schirber & Bullock 2003).

## 2 Models and Normalization

In order to focus on the ramifications of reducing the small-scale power, we will fix the cosmological parameters in all of our models to canonical values: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1.0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.02`$, and $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. Additional parameters of each of the models are described in Table 1. In all cases, we assume that the primordial power spectrum takes the form $`P(k)k^{n_s}`$, with a spectral index that can vary as function of scale as: $`n_s=n_s(k_0)+0.5\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k\mathrm{ln}(k/k_0)`$ (e.g. Kosowsky & Turner 1995; Hannestad et al. 2002). In the second column of Table 1, we list $`n_s`$, evaluated at $`k_0=k_{WMAP}0.05`$ Mpc-1 and in column 3, we give $`\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k`$. In order to make contact with previous work, our specific choice for normalizing standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (with $`n_s=1.0`$) is $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, where $`\sigma _8`$ (column 4) is the linear, rms fluctuation amplitude of the power spectrum within spheres of radius $`8\mathrm{h}^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, evaluated at $`z=0`$. This spectral index and normalization are very close to the best-fit parameters derived from the WMAP data alone, without combination with other data sets. In order to ensure consistency on large scales, we have chosen to fix the normalization of the rest of our models to match that of standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM at $`k=k_{WMAP}`$.

The first of our models with reduced small-scale fluctuations, “TILT”, has $`\sigma _8=0.75`$ and modest tilt, $`n_s=0.95`$, as expected in many simple models of inflation (see, e.g. Kinney 2003). The specific parameter choice is motivated by the work of Zentner & Bullock (2002; 2003) who concluded that this normalization/tilt is favored by galaxy rotation curve data, and may also alleviate the dwarf satellite problem without the need for differential feedback. Interestingly, this parameter choice is also nearly identical to the best-fit power-law model in the WMAP joint analysis with other CMB data, the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, and Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest data (Spergel et al. 2003). The next model, “RSI”, is motivated by the same joint WMAP analysis, but represents the case in which they have allowed a Running Spectral Index. Their best fit has $`n_s=0.93`$ and $`\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k=0.03`$. Our normalization for RSI, $`\sigma _8=0.81`$, is slightly below the quoted WMAP value (by $`3.5\%`$) because of the simple way we have elected to normalize on large scales, but this difference is small compared to the quoted uncertainty. This RSI case also does quite well in explaining the small-scale observations (Zentner & Bullock 2003).

Our final model is computed in the context of a WDM scenario, in which the primordial power spectrum is scale-invariant, but free-streaming damps fluctuations below a characteristic scale set by the WDM particle mass $`m_\mathrm{w}`$:

$$R_f=0.2(\mathrm{\Omega }_{WDM}\mathrm{h}^2)^{1/3}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{w}}{\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{4/3}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(1)
We calculate the WDM spectra assuming the same flat cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{w}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, and use the approximate WDM transfer function given by Bardeen et al. (1986):

$$P(k)=\mathrm{exp}[kR_f(kR_f)^2]P_{CDM}(k).$$
(2)
We choose $`m_\mathrm{w}=1.5`$ keV, or $`R_f0.027`$ Mpc, in order to suppress power below a mass scale of $`10^{10}M_{}`$. This choice of WDM mass (with $`n_s=1.0`$) significantly alleviates the usual small scale problems (Eke et al. 2001; Alam et al. 2002; Zentner & Bullock 2003), yet is not ruled out by Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest data (Narayanan et al. 2000) or by pre-WMAP constraints from reionization and early structure formation (Barkana et al. 2001). We neglect the finite particle velocity dispersion, as well as associated phase-space restrictions, which are expected to have negligible consequence for a 1.5 keV model (Alam et al. 2002; Zentner 2003).

## 3 Halo Collapse Rates

We show in Fig. 1 the fraction of the total mass in the Universe that is in collapsed halos in two different mass ranges, computed using the Press-Schechter formalism (Press & Schechter 1974). In the top panel, we show the fraction of mass in halos with mass greater than $`1.0\times 10^6\mathrm{h}^1M_{}`$, but with temperature less than $`10^4`$ K (conversions between mass and temperature are as in Somerville & Primack 1999). As discussed below, we expect gas in these halos (sometimes called “mini-halos”) to be able to cool only via H2, and based on the results of hydrodynamic simulations by Yoshida et al. (2003), they may potentially harbor massive Pop III stars. In the bottom panel, we show the mass fraction in halos with $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}>10^4`$ K, which should be able to cool via HI and form Pop II stars with a normal Salpeter-like IMF. We see that all models with reduced small scale power have dramatically decreased mass fractions relative to Standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM in halos of the scale expected to be eligible for star formation at high redshift. The TILT model shows the smallest decrease on all scales, while the WDM model shows the most dramatic decrease.

## 4 Star Formation and Ionizing Photons

A basic requirement for star formation is the presence of cold, dense gas. The two primary coolants in the early Universe, before the production of heavy elements, are molecular and atomic hydrogen. Atomic hydrogen is inefficient at temperatures below $`10^4`$ K, implying that molecular hydrogen was probably the main coolant in the first halos to collapse at $`z20`$–30, with temperatures of a few hundred Kelvin. Recent theoretical work suggests that the first stars to form in these primordial halos may have been extremely massive, $`100`$–600 $`M_{}`$, but that the efficiency was rather low, with less than $`1`$ percent of the available gas converted to stars or star clusters (Abel et al. 2000, 2002; Bromm et al. 2002).

The overall efficiency of early star formation is regulated in mini-halos by a complex interplay between the destruction of H2 by UV photons and its catalysis by X-rays (Machacek et al. 2001, 2003; Ricotti et al. 2001, 2002; Cen 2002), and in larger halos by photo-evaporation and supernova feedback (Ciardi et al. 2000; Somerville 2002; Benson et al. 2002). The efficiency of production and mixing of heavy elements also determines the epoch at which the IGM becomes sufficiently polluted with metals to allow cooling to lower temperatures and fragmentation, leading to a shift from the formation of solely supermassive stars to a more normal Salpeter-like IMF (Bromm et al. 2001a). For a more detailed discussion of this scenario, see the excellent review by Loeb & Barkana (2001), as well as recent papers by Cen (2002), Haiman & Holder (2003), and Wyithe & Loeb (2002, 2003).

We model the global star formation rate density (SFRD) by assuming that it is proportional to the rate at which gas collapses into halos in a given mass range:

$$\dot{\rho }_{}=e_{}\rho _b\frac{\mathrm{d}F_h}{\mathrm{dt}}(M>M_{\mathrm{crit}}),$$
(3)
where $`\frac{\mathrm{d}F_h}{\mathrm{dt}}(M>M_{\mathrm{crit}})`$ is the time derivative of the fraction of the total mass in collapsed halos with masses greater than $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, obtained from the halo mass function $`\frac{\mathrm{d}n_h}{\mathrm{d}M}(M,z)`$ given by the Press-Schechter model, and $`\rho _b`$ is the mean density of baryons. We adopt $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}=M(T_{\mathrm{vir}}=10^4\mathrm{K})`$ and $`e_{}^{\mathrm{II}}=0.1`$ for ‘Pop II’ halos, and $`e_{}^{\mathrm{III}}=0.002`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{crit}}^{\mathrm{III}}=1.0\times 10^6\mathrm{h}^1M_{}`$ for ‘Pop III’ halos. In Somerville & Livio (2003, SL03), we found that this simple prescription, with these parameter values, agrees well in the redshift range $`3z30`$ with more detailed semi-analytic models and hydrodynamic simulations of Pop II star formation including photoionization and supernova feedback (e.g. Somerville et al. 2001; Springel & Hernquist 2003), and also with the general analytic arguments outlined by Hernquist & Springel (2002). The global star formation rate predicted by this approach is also consistent with observational constraints at $`3z6`$ (SL03). Similarly, our Pop III SFRD is in good agreement with the detailed numerical hydrodynamic simulations of Pop III formation by Yoshida et al. (2003), as also shown explicitly in SL03. In both cases, the analytic recipe used here slightly *overestimates* the star formation rate relative to the more realistic simulations, thus leading to more optimistic results for early reionization. As we do not know when the transition from solely supermassive Pop III stars to Pop II star formation will occur, we conservatively shut off the Pop III mode at $`z<6`$ (when the IGM is known to be significantly polluted with metals). Earlier shut-off times will only lead to later reionization, making our conclusions even stronger.

For Pop II stars, we use the results of Leitherer et al. (1999) for the number of $`\lambda <912`$ Å photons produced by low metallicity stars with a “bottom-light” Salpeter IMF. At ages less than about 3 million years, these stars produce about $`dn_\gamma /dt=8.9\times 10^{46}`$ photons s$`{}_{}{}^{1}M_{}^{1}`$. For Pop III, we assume that each star produces $`1.6\times 10^{48}`$ photons s$`{}_{}{}^{1}M_{}^{1}`$ for a lifetime of 3 million years (Bromm et al. 2001b). We note that, in the spirit of optimism that we have adopted throughout, these values are at the high end of the estimates of ionizing photon production and lifetime for both populations.

The cumulative number of ionizing photons per hydrogen atom in the Universe is shown in Fig. 2, for each of the four models summarized in Table 1. The ionized fraction $`x_e`$ is expected to scale as this quantity times $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}f_{\mathrm{ion}}/C_{\mathrm{clump}}`$ (e.g., Spergel et al. 2003), where $`f_{\mathrm{ion}}`$ is the number of ionizations per UV photon, $`f_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is the fraction of ionizing photons that escape from the galaxy, and $`C_{\mathrm{clump}}`$ is the clumping factor, reflecting the clumpiness of the IGM. Many analytic and numerical studies have addressed the issue of the precise number of ionizing photons per atom needed to attain ‘overlap’, or reionization that is $`99`$ percent complete (Sokasian et al. 2003; Ciardi et al. 2003b; Razoumov et al. 2002; Haiman et al. 2001; Miralda-Escudé et al. 2000; Gnedin 2000; Madau et al. 1999). This number is a function of the local IGM density (thus, indirectly, of the redshift of reionization), and of the masses of the halos harboring the sources, as more massive sources are expected to be in denser environments with higher clumping factors. For reference, Sokasian et al. (2003) find (in the highest resolution numerical simulation of reionization by stellar sources to date) that a gross budget (i.e., before accounting for the escape fraction) of about 5–20 photons per H atom was required to achieve a volume-weighted ionization fraction of 99%. The clumping factors in numerical simulations are known to be potentially overestimated due to the limited numerical resolution (Haiman et al. 2001; Sokasian et al. 2003), and no numerical simulation to date has included the contribution from Pop III stars, which are likely to be less clustered. We therefore entertain the possibility that as few as $`2`$ ionizing photons per H atom may be able to do the job. The redshift at which a total of 2 or 10 ionizing photons per H atom have been produced in each of the models is shown in Fig. 2, and recorded in Table 1. We regard these values as bracketing a generous but plausible range for the expected redshift of overlap in these models.

One can quickly see that it is difficult to achieve reionization earlier than $`z10`$ in any of the models with reduced small scale power. In the RSI model favored by Spergel et al. (2003), the number of ionizing photons per hydrogen atom $`n_\gamma `$ reaches the most optimistic range for expected overlap ($`n_\gamma 2`$) at $`z8`$ — only slightly earlier than the redshift at which the WDM model reaches this range ($`z7`$). Values of $`n_\gamma 10`$–20, corresponding to more typically favored values of the photon escape fraction ($`f_{\mathrm{esc}}0.2`$), recombination rate, and clumping factor, are attained only at $`z5.8`$–4.8 in the models with reduced small scale power — thus these models (particularly WDM and RSI) may not even be able to reionize the Universe early enough for consistency with the SDSS quasar observations. As noted above, we have allowed massive Pop III star formation to continue until $`z=6`$, although we actually expect it to shut off much earlier. This would lead to even later reionization, as shown by the short-dashed lines in Fig. 2, which show the contribution from Pop II stars only.

### 4.1 Extreme Parameter Values

Certainly it may be argued that the IMF and formation efficiency of early generations of stars are highly uncertain. We now consider how much we would have to vary the free parameters in our simple model to obtain reionization by $`z17`$ in the RSI model favored by the analysis of WMAP combined with other data (Spergel et al. 2003). These results are summarized in Table 2. In model RSI.x1, we increase the efficiency of star formation in ‘Pop II’ halos to 100% (corresponding to all baryons forming stars the moment they are within a halo) and the assumed mass of Pop III stars to 600 $`M_{}`$, the maximum expected value suggested by Omukai & Palla (2003), though this is larger than the maximum value advocated by Abel et al. (2002). Reionization is then expected between $`z10.5`$–8. Only if we assume 100% star formation efficiency in Pop III halos as well (model RSI.x2) do we find that reionization could plausibly occur by $`z16`$–14, in reasonable agreement with the WMAP TE results.

Alternatively, we can leave the star formation efficiency parameters at their fiducial values and vary the number of ionizing photons produced by each population. For example, the IMF of early Pop II stars might be top-heavy, because of the higher temperatures and pressures and lower metallicities at early times (Larson 1998). Moreover, Tumlinson et al. (2003) find that zero-metallicity Pop II stars with a Salpeter IMF produce only about 50 % more hydrogen-ionizing photons than the low-metallicity Leitherer et al. (1999) models used here (see also Schaerer 2003). We find that increasing the number of ionizing photons per solar mass of Pop II stars by a factor of 2–10 can only shift reionization to at best $`z_{\mathrm{reion}}10`$ (models RSI.x3 and RSI.x4). Even with the extreme assumption that Pop II stars produce as many ionizing photons per unit mass as supermassive Pop III stars (about 20 times the fiducial value), we find it is unlikely that the Universe could be reionized earlier than $`z11`$ in the context of the WMAP RSI model.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have investigated early structure formation in the Standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and in three models with reduced small scale power, each of which alleviates conflicts with observations on sub-galactic scales at low redshift. All the models we considered are consistent with the WMAP data on large scales, and two of them (TILT and RSI) are favored by the combined analysis of WMAP and other CMB data with Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest and 2dFGRS data (Spergel et al. 2003). We model star formation using a simple recipe that has been calibrated against more detailed semi-analytic and numerical hydrodynamic simulations of Pop II and massive Pop III star formation (Somerville & Livio 2003; Springel & Hernquist 2003; Yoshida et al. 2003). Using these fiducial parameter values, and assuming that a gross production of between 2–10 ionizing photons per H atom is needed to attain overlap, we estimate that the Universe would become reionized between $`z13`$ and $`z9`$ with the Standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM power spectrum, in agreement with several other semi-analytic and numerical studies of reionization (Gnedin 2000; Razoumov et al. 2002; Haiman & Holder 2003; Ciardi et al. 2003a; Sokasian et al. 2003). Using the same approach, we find that *none* of the models with reduced small scale power can produce at least two ionizing photons per atom before $`z9.5`$, which is about 1.5 $`\sigma `$ lower than the epoch of reionization favored by Kogut et al. (2003) based on the WMAP TE measurement. More plausible values of $`n_\gamma 10`$ are not attained until $`z6`$ in the models with reduced power on small scales. The WDM and RSI models may have difficulty reionizing the Universe even by $`z6`$, as required by observations of high redshift quasars (Fan et al. 2001). Of the three models we considered, the model with a fixed tilt $`n_s=0.95`$ (TILT) is the best candidate for obtaining a compromise between the requirements of early structure formation and observed galaxy central densities and sub-structure at low redshift. The RSI model favored by Spergel et al. (2003) is only marginally better than WDM in terms of the reionization constraints. It is also worth noting that any attempts to push reionization to higher redshift by *increasing* the small scale power (e.g., by adopting a ‘red tilt’ $`n>1`$ as suggested by Cen 2003) would further exacerbate the problems on sub-galactic scales.

We find that varying the efficiency of star formation or the stellar IMF within a reasonable range of values cannot significantly change these conclusions. Only if the efficiency of star formation is pushed to an extreme upper limit (100$`\%`$ of baryons in halos with $`M>1\times 10^6\mathrm{h}^1M_{}`$ turn instantly into stars) can the RSI model plausibly reionize the Universe by $`z16`$–14. This result is in agreement with a similar analysis performed by Haiman & Holder (2003). If such extreme star formation were allowed to continue to lower redshift (even to $`z4`$), such a model would be in clear conflict with observations of galaxies and the IGM. Even stronger constraints will soon be obtained from direct observations of $`z>6`$ galaxies with HST and the planned JWST telescope.

We conclude that if we require that the Universe was reionized at least by $`z12`$, within $`1\sigma `$ of the WMAP result, then, in the context of the current framework, this paradox can be resolved only by adopting one or more of the following: (1) the efficiency of Pop III star formation is *much* higher than current theory suggests, (2) there is an additional population of ionizing sources (such as mini-quasars) at high redshift, (3) the power spectrum has some higher-order feature that produces an upturn in power at masses just below the scale of dwarf galaxies, or (4) we must retain the scale-invariant, $`n=1`$ standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM power spectrum, and somehow solve the small-scale problems in another way. While none of these solutions is particularly attractive, we tend to favor number (4) from the context of reionization, although this has its own difficulties. If reionization indeed occurred early, and the small-scale problems are as robust as they appear, then there are significant gaps in our theoretical understanding of first light *and* the structure of galaxies on kpc scales. The connection between the two certainly warrants more examination.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Lars Hernquist, Joel Primack, Naoki Yoshida, and Andrew Zentner for useful discussions. JSB would like to thank Rosemary Wyse for generous hospitality during his visit to Johns Hokins University, where a substantial fraction of this work was completed. JSB is provided for by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01146.01-A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555.


text:
# United Dipole Field

## I Introduction

The quest for a unified theory of Electromagnetism (E) Gravitational Relativity \[R\] and Quantum Mechanics (Q) is hampered by the abstractness of quantum concepts, compared to the other two. Feynman, in saying that there is no physical ‘machinery’ causing quantum effects feynmanIII  accepts Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum events born26 . This lack of physical reality had always bothered Einstein, who advocated that a successful unification entails “starting all over again” pais82 . Superstring unification theory schwarz87  does indeed start afresh, but is not yet a complete theory, and there is still room to search for different starting points.

The present paper grew out of research in diffraction theory tamari87 ; tamari03a , and no complete unification theory was attempted or is of course claimed from this elementary treatment. Nevertheless, it was found that certain physical features of the electromagnetic dipole field could have intriguing quantum probabilistic interpretations. And when it was discovered, through general relativistic analysis of the streamline curvature, that the dipole might also possess a gravitational field, the question arose whether the elements of a prototype unified field theory were now at hand.

The diffraction of a dipole-photon is examined in Section II as a more exact form of the Huygens-Fresnel principle. In Section III the equipotential surfaces $`\varphi `$, and the orthogonal streamlines $`S`$ of a dipole field are proposed as the coordinates of a $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ relativistic metric symmetric around the dipole axis and plane only, replacing the sphero-symmetric Schwarzschild metric for a particle: the severe curvature of the streamlines in the dipole origin is interpreted as an indication of an unexpectedly powerful gravitational field there. This field is characterized by a radial quasi-refractive index function $`N(R,\theta )`$ of the distortion of spacetime. In Section IV the dipole electric field is shown to coincide with the Gaussian probability function while the dipole’s frequency and amplitude attenuations follow those of a quantum wave packet. An E=Q=R equivalence principle is stated in Section V, and it is speculated in Section VI whether the dipole unified field model may be adapted to other particles than the photon, perhaps through the concept of virtual pairs of matter-antimatter, and whether the strong force could be attributed to a dipole gravitational field.

## II Electromagnetic Dipole Diffraction

Using intuitive hydrodynamical arguments, Tamari has proposed that an expanding photon field must have both a foreword linear and a radial component tamari90 , resembling the bow wave of a boat. Miller miller91  has shown that Maxwell’s equations can yield a more exact form of the Huygens-Fresnel principle for a point source, replacing it by a dipole with a given spatio-temporal relation of the phase and separation $`d`$ of positive and negative charges $`a`$, emitting a field with wavelength $`\lambda _0=2\pi /k`$, and with a potential field:

$$\varphi =\frac{ad}{4\pi R}\left[k\mathrm{sin}(kR)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )+\mathrm{cos}(kr)\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{R}\right]$$
(1)
Both the bow-wave and the spatio-temporal dipole models of the photon have a characteristic geometry of expanding nested near-circular equipotential surfaces joined at the origin. For the sake of simplifying the analysis here, an approximate dipole field is taken from the literature feynmanII  whereby, for a dipole of moment $`D=ad/4\pi `$ aligned with the $`z`$-axis and symmetrical about the origin, with a time harmonic phase term $`H`$, the potential is:

$$\varphi =\frac{DH\mathrm{cos}\theta }{R^2}$$
(2)
with orthogonal streamlines:

$$S=\frac{R}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }$$
(3)
as shown in Figure 1. These approximations also omit the magnetic and quadrupole components. While Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 are symmetrical about the $`xy`$ plane, both the bow-wave and the spatio-temporal dipole field of Eq. 1 vanish in the $`z`$ regions.

The curvature of the dipole streamlines $`S`$, along which the electromagnetic energy flows, is also a feature seen in Braunbek and Laukien’s braunbek52  analysis of Sommerfeld’s rigorous solution of diffraction around an infinite half-plane sommerfeld96 . In Tamari’s Streamline Diffraction Theory tamari87  the various curved diffracting streamlines inclined at angles $`\frac{\pi }{2}\theta +\frac{\pi }{2}`$ carry all the Fourier components of the field goodman68  in a fan-shaped flow pattern. Along the $`+z`$ axis the dipole streamline is straight and carries the electromagnetic field at a speed $`c`$, with equiphasals separated by the wavelength $`\lambda _0`$. But what of all the other curved $`S`$?

## III Relativistic Dipole Gravitation

By definition no energy flows between streamlines, and each curved $`S`$ can be considered a unique pathway carrying light. But according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity it is the presence of a gravitational field that causes a ray of light to bend einstein88 . Postponing for the present the question of what the source of the dipole’s gravitational field would be, the geometry of the streamlines themselves is considered. Since they carry light, $`S`$ must be geodesics of the field, i.e. following a minimum path through the dipole’s spacetime schutz85 . Figure 2 illustrates the intuitive basis for regarding the dipole field as a gravitational field. A new $`(\varphi ,S,Q,t)`$ coordinate system based on Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 and symmetric about the $`z`$-axis is therefore defined, whereby, for a time $`t=0`$, the distance element is:

$$ds^2=d\varphi ^2+dS^2+R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta dQ^2\frac{c^2dt^2}{N}=g_{\mu \nu }x_1^2x_2^2$$
(4)
$`ds^2=`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{4D^2H^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{R^6}}\right]dR^2`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}g_{11}`$
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4D^2H^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{R^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{4R\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^5\theta }}\right]dRd\theta `$ $`\mathrm{}g_{12},g_{21}`$
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4R^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^6\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{D^2H^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{R^2}}\right]d\theta ^2`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}g_{22}`$
$`+`$ $`\left[R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]dQ^2`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}g_{33}`$
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c^2R^3}{DH\sqrt{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}}}\right]dt^2`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}g_{44}`$
with all the other $`g_{\mu \nu }=0`$. The $`N`$ term is to be explained at length below. A full treatment using tensor algebra proving that the $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ obey Einstein’s equations for general relativity, and finding the curvature tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$ although essential, is beyond the scope of this paper. Fortunately, there is a mathematically simple and exact device, which helps conceive the curvature of spacetime in vivid physical terms.

In dynamics the curvature of the path of a particle is evidence of acceleration, and hence a change in local velocity. According to Einstein, “A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position” einstein61 , a rather problematic statement because of the constancy of c in his relativity theory. But as Eddington eddington90  explained, it is the “coordinate velocity” $`v`$ of light, which diminishes in the presence of a gravitational field, and hence a quasi-refractive index of spacetime $`N`$ can be defined where:

$$N=\frac{c}{v}$$
(6)
Since the local velocity defines $`N`$, it is a measure of both space contraction and time dilation, the more conventional relativistic terms. Eddington, Lodge, and others israel92  used this concept of a variable density of spacetime, a gradient-index field $`N`$, akin to that in geometrical optics bornwolf  to describe relativistic phenomena such as the properties of a black hole.

The use of $`N`$ transforms a relativistic coordinate system into a classical one: At first $`S`$ are considered “straight” geodesics in the vacuum surrounding the dipole. Alternately, the same $`S`$ can be considered the curved rays of light in a glass-like medium with a gradient index of refraction function $`N(R,\theta )`$. While the two treatments in no way change the physical realities of the field, a variable speed of light $`v`$ can now be unambiguously defined, and a geodesic can therefore be considered the solution to the eikonal equation of geometrical optics bornwolf :

$$N^2=(\varphi )^2$$
(7)
In the absence of masses or charges, $`N=1`$, but in gravitational fields light ‘slows down’ and $`N>1`$, reaching infinity at the edge of a black hole. In dynamics, the curvature $`k`$ of the path of a moving particle is related to its acceleration $`A=(dv/dt)𝒕+kv^2𝒏`$, where $`𝒕`$ and $`𝒏`$ are unit vectors tangent and normal to the path respectively wylie83 . In the present case, $`A`$ becomes the gravitational acceleration, with its well-known relativistic dependence on the curvature of space, as illustrated in Figure 2. The streamline curvature $`k`$ is derived from the standard equation for line curvature, and from Eq. 3:

$$k=\frac{R^2+2\left(\frac{dR}{d\theta }\right)^2R\left(\frac{d^2R}{d\theta ^2}\right)}{\left(\left(\frac{dR}{d\theta }\right)^2+R^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}=\frac{3\left(1+\frac{2}{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }\right)}{R\left(1+\frac{4}{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta }\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$
(8)
Or, from a geometrical optical relation for a ray in a gradient index field, $`|k|=𝒏\mathrm{log}N`$ bornwolf3 . In Figure 3, rays curve towards regions of increasing $`N`$, which can be found directly from Eq. 7 and Eq. 2:

$$N_d=\frac{DH\sqrt{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}}{R^3}$$
(9)
The path of any geodesic can now be traced through radial $`d\theta `$ segments of the $`N`$ field with ease and precision by using Snell’s law of refraction

$$N_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _1=N_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2$$
(10)
as shown in Fig 3. In making these calculations Eq. 9 cannot be applied as it is because successive $`N_1`$, and $`N_2`$ segments share the same $`R`$ but different angles. Therefore, from Eq. 2 and Eq. 9, and putting $`H=\varphi =D=1`$ since they cancel out in Eq. 10:

$$N_d=\frac{\sqrt{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +1}}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{\frac{3}{2}}}$$
(11)
(normalized value for N calculations)

Since a dipole’s gravity causes the surrounding space to curve, bending its own streamlines, then any other particle or ray will similarly experience the same gravitational field. Based on this intuitive but unproven assumption, Eq. 10 and Eq. 11 were used to trace the path of various rays $`V`$ initiated at given points $`P(R,\theta )`$ and angles of incidence $`I`$ within the $`N`$ field. The path of the streamlines $`S`$ of Eq. 3, passing through a point $`P`$ was confirmed if fine angular increments $`<0.1\mathrm{deg}`$ were used to calculate the refracted rays.

But what of the Schwarzschild schutz2  metric:

$$ds^2=\frac{dR^2}{F}+R^2d\theta ^2Fc^2dt^2$$
(12)
with $`F=(12GM/c^2R)`$, where $`G`$ is the constant of universal gravitation? Here, instead of a dipole at the origin, there is a mass $`M`$ and space-time is distorted only radially. Putting $`ds=0`$, the condition for a geodesic, and $`d\theta =0`$ since the field is spherically symmetric, an expression for the local ‘velocity’ $`v=dR/dt`$ is obtained. And using Eq. 6, this give a quasi-refractive index function $`N_sR`$ for this metric eddington90 :

$$N_s=\frac{1}{F}$$
(13)
indicating the ‘density’ of space-time due to a single point mass at the origin, the expression for a point charge being similar. Substituting Eq. 13 back into Eq. 12, this result can be generalized for all metrics: Space contracts by a factor of $`\sqrt{N}`$ along streamlines (due to the change in potential) and time dilates by $`\sqrt{N^1}`$. But in the dipole case $`N`$ was derived from the $`(\theta ,S)`$ coordinates, and does not need to be included back in, which justifies Eq. 4.

The asymmetry of the dipole metric, compared to Schwarzschild’s is due to the presence of two opposite charges at the origin. Another difference is that $`N_s=\mathrm{}`$ at the origin, but $`N_d`$ has no singularities anywhere. Very near the charges, the dipole potential, and hence the $`N_d`$ value gets quite complicated, and no longer follows that of Eq. 2. In general, the local $`N`$ value at a point $`P`$ is obtained by the the vector addition of the all electric fields at $`P`$ caused by surrounding dipoles in different positions and orientations.

## IV The Dipole Quantum Field

Some of the dipole field’s physical features will now be interpreted from a quantum mechanical point of view. But as Hawking has remarked, “\[in quantum mechanics\] the unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves.” hawking88  And Schrödinger always had reservations on the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. scott67  Adopting these views is necessary here to justify the following physical interpretations:

### IV.1 The particle-wave duality

The dipole moment $`D`$ is a quantum quantity since it depends on the distance between the charges and their quantified strength, and therein lies the ‘particle’ aspect of the field under consideration. The ‘wave’ aspect of the field is simply the time-harmonic classical dipole field itself. This in no way disputes the results of quantum mechanics, only the ‘causes’. For example, an intensity distribution can be said to be the probabilistic accumulation of many whole particle photons. Here the photon will be described as a single continuous classical wave with local intensity fluctuations, which then cause random particle events during absorption or emission, and occurring within the sensor.

### IV.2 The uncertainty principle

Heisenberg himself cited diffraction heisenberg49  as one illustration of his uncertainty relations. But it will be argued here that uncertainty relations exist precisely because waves diffract. As in Figure 4, at the origin, the dipole field is basically concentrated in one point, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0`$, but the streamline directions carrying the field’s momentum $`p`$ point in an infinite number of directions, hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=\mathrm{}`$. Very far from the origin, the streamlines are basically parallel to the $`+z`$ axis and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=0`$, but the wavefront has spread very widely and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{}`$. At intermediate points $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ can be mathematically related in several ways. For example, along any single streamline, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ amounts to the curvature the streamline (when the streamline is straight, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=0`$), while $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the distance element along the streamline. The physical basis of Planck’s constant $`h`$ in the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }ph`$ is elusive, but must be sought in the relation between charge quanta and the geometry of the dipole field at the origin.

### IV.3 The probability function

It is well known that $`\varphi =E`$, the electric field strength, the vectorial version of $`N`$. Using an alternative derivation feynmanI  for the dipole’s electric field intensity parallel to the $`z`$axis, again with $`D=H=1`$:

$$E_z=\frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{R^3}$$
(14)
Putting $`3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =1`$ gives a cut-off angle $`T_w=54.73\mathrm{deg}`$ beyond which $`E_z=0`$ and there is no foreword momentum, as shown in Figure 1, where:

$$C=B\mathrm{tan}T_w=1.4139B$$
(15)
In Figure 5, the $`E_z`$ values (normalized by an amplitude factor of $`2.363B^2`$) of the dipole field along $`z=B`$, was compared to the Gaussian probability distribution, related to the quantum probability function brandt85 .

$$P(x)=\frac{1}{j\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{x^2}{2j^2}}$$
(16)
Where $`j=C/3=0.4713B`$, (the standard deviation, a third of the significant width before the curve dwindles asymptotically to zero), was chosen so that the Gaussian fits over $`E_z(x)`$. Figure 5 shows that there are only minor differences between $`P(x)`$ and $`E_z(x)`$ for $`|x|<|C|`$. For $`|x|>|C|`$, $`E_z`$ becomes negative, and more significantly, no energy reaches a screen at $`B`$, since all the streamlines curve down before reaching it. What are the quantum implications of such a field, particularly the cut-off angle $`C`$? The probability amplitude can be directly related to the curvature of $`S`$: Increasing the curvature increases the angle of incidence of $`S`$ on $`B`$, and hence the smaller the $`E_z`$ vector.

### IV.4 The Wave Packet

In the case of a time-harmonic dipole, using Eq. 2 and Eq. 9, and the fact that the wavelength is $`\lambda _0`$ along the $`+z`$ axis, it was found that along the line $`z=B`$:

$$E_{z(t=0)}=\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi B}{\lambda _0(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)\frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1}{R^3}$$
(17)
so that the equipotentials occur at ever-decreasing distances. In quantum mechanics, the photon field is found to comprise a wave packet, with a spectral function $`f(k)`$ specifying the infinitely diminishing wavelengths and amplitudes fitting within a Gaussian envelope brandt85 . It is seen in Figure 5 how $`E_{z(t=0)}`$ resembles such a function in all details, as to amplitude and wavelength diminuation: as the wave packet expands, the equiphasals intersect $`B`$ and $`S`$ at ever shorter intervals, as in Fig. 1: there is a blue-shift in the field until the wavelength $`I(R,\theta )`$, and hence $`v`$, becomes zero on the $`x`$ axis.

## V E=R=Q Principle

According to the analysis above, an electromagnetic-relativistic-quantum-mechanical equivalence principle can now be generalized as follows: “in the field surrounding a system of electromagnetic charges, the gravitational field is equivalent to the curvature of the diffracting streamlines, while the local quantum mechanical state is equivalent to the gradient of the potential.”

This of course has only been examined in the single case cited above, the first-order dipole approximation of Eq. 2. But other configurations produce curved streamlines, such as two point emitters of like charge, diffraction through an aperture in an opaque screen, diffraction from any continuous distribution of sources, and others.

## VI Conclusion

The electromagnetic dipole field has been examined from relativistic and quantum mechanical points of view, with preliminary evidence that it makes up a unified field in which an E=Q=R equivalence principle can be asserted: The three fields here appear to emerge, one from the other, in a satisfying and elegant way, and without the need for any new dimensions. Can Dirac’s oppositely charged virtual pairs of particles (matter-antimatter) gamov66  be considered a kind of dipole, with electromagnetic, gravitational and quantum fields such as those discussed above? Is the atomic strong force the result of some kind of short-range gravitational field such as the one modelled above? These are some of the questions that emerge from the present study.

###### Acknowledgements.

Dr. D. A. B. Miller’s clarification of his dipole formulation, and stimulating discussions with Miss Mona Tamari related to the unified dipole field are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# A Stringent Limit on the Accretion Luminosity of the Possible Central Black Hole in the Globular Cluster M15

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of X-ray sources in Galactic globular clusters nearly 30 years ago (Giacconi et al. 1974; Canizares & Neighbours 1975; Clark, Markert, & Li 1975) prompted speculation that central massive ($`1001000`$ $`M_{}`$) black holes (BHs) may exist in these systems (Bahcall & Ostriker 1975; Silk & Arons 1975). In this respect, M15, one of the densest globular clusters detected in X-rays, historically has been scrutinized most thoroughly (see review by van der Marel 2001). Often regarded as a prototypical core-collapsed globular cluster (Djorgovski & King 1986), M15 has a projected stellar density profile that rises steeply toward the center (Guhathakurta et al. 1996; Sosin & King 1997), seemingly in excellent agreement with models for the distribution of stars around a massive collapsed object (Peebles 1972; Bahcall & Wolf 1976). Unfortunately, core collapse of the cluster, induced by two-body relaxation, can produce density profiles that closely mimic those generated by the influence of a BH (Grabhorn et al. 1992), and thus the photometric evidence for a BH remained ambiguous. Kinematic data can provide a much more definitive probe of the central mass distribution. However, despite numerous efforts (e.g., Peterson, Seitzer, & Cudworth 1989; Dubath & Meylan 1994; Gebhardt et al. 1994, 1997; Dull et al. 1997; Drukier et al. 1998), the ground-based spectroscopic studies of M15 have met with only limited success. This is largely due to the tremendous difficulty of measuring radial velocities for individual stars in the crowded cluster core, even under conditions of exceptional seeing. As summarized in the latest study by Gebhardt et al. (2000), the central kinematics of M15 are consistent with the presence of a 2500 $`M_{}`$ dark object, but the data can be equally well fitted with a mild, not unreasonable, increase in the mass-to-light ratio toward the center.

A major breakthrough was recently achieved in the search for the elusive central BH in M15. Using a series of longslit spectra taken with the Hubble Space Telescope, van der Marel et al. (2002) and Gerssen et al. (2002, 2003) significantly increased the sample of radial velocities measured within the cluster core, thereby permitting a more robust analysis of the central kinematics. The data indicate the presence of a central dark mass, although its nature is still unclear. Models with a BH mass of $``$2000 $`M_{}`$ provide a marginally better fit to the data than those without one, but not at a statistically significant level of confidence (Gerssen et al. 2002, 2003). The dynamical simulations of Baumgardt et al. (2003) show that a central concentration of non-luminous, massive stellar remnants can account for the data equally well. This explanation, however, is uncertain because it depends on the assumption that all the neutron stars are retained in the cluster (Baumgardt et al. 2003; Gerssen et al. 2002, 2003). Thus, a massive BH cannot be ruled out in M15. In a parallel study, Gebhardt, Rich, & Ho (2002) announced the detection of a 2$`\times `$104 $`M_{}`$ BH in G1, a luminous globular cluster in the galaxy M31. This finding lends additional confidence to the BH interpretation for the case of M15.

The possible existence of central massive BHs in star clusters opens up many new avenues of investigation. Particularly interesting is the prospect of probing accretion physics in the “active nucleus” of the cluster, by direct analogy with the study of active galactic nuclei in external galaxies. Nearby stellar clusters potentially offer a completely fresh vantage point for studying nuclear activity. In contrast to extragalactic nuclei, Galactic clusters are well resolved into individual stars, and their structure and dynamics are much better understood.

This paper reports sensitive, high-resolution Chandra observations of the central region of M15. The nucleus is not detected in X-rays, down to an exceedingly stringent limit of $`2.2\times 10^9`$ of the Eddington luminosity of a 2000 $`M_{}`$ BH. We combine this measurement with estimates of the central gas density to constrain the radiative efficiency of the accretion flow.

## 2 Observations and Results

Our analysis is based on archival data (PI: J. E. Grindlay) acquired with Chandra (Weisskopf, O’Dell, & van Speybroeck 1996) using the High Resolution Camera (HRC-I; Murray et al. 1997). HRC-I has a field of view of 30$`\times `$30 and a pixel scale of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$13, which well samples the point-spread function (PSF) of the telescope (FWHM $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4). There are a total of three observations, performed on 2001 July 13, August 3, and

August 22. The effective exposure times are 9.1, 8.8, and 10.8 ks, respectively. We analyzed the data sets separately, and then combined.

Figure 1 shows the central 7$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8$`\times `$10′′ of the HRC-I image. As recently demonstrated by White & Angelini (2001) using a Chandra/ACIS image, the X-ray source 4U 2127+119 in fact consists of two sources separated by 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7: AC 211, a low-mass X-ray binary (LMXB) with a previously known bright optical counterpart, and M15 X-2, another LMXB that is coincident with a faint, blue star ($`U19`$ mag). The Chandra positions of the two bright sources were compared with previous measurements \[radio position of AC211 from Kulkarni et al. (1990); X-ray position of M15 X-2 from White and Angelini (2001)\] and found to be offset by $``$0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$2. We shifted the images by this amount to align the X-ray and radio positions of AC211.

The position of the cluster center (Gerssen et al. 2002), $`\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}^h29^m58.^s335`$, $`\delta `$ = 12100$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$89 (J2000), shows no significant counts in excess of the extended wings of the PSF from AC 211. This is illustrated quantitatively in Figure 2, which gives a one-dimensional projection of the surface brightness along the cluster center and AC211. The profile, derived by summing over a width of 6 pixels (0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$78), is used to model the shape of the PSF of AC211 and to calculate an upper limit on the nuclear flux. The choice of the width affects the following results only slightly. For both the first and second observations, the profile of AC211 is well fitted with a model consisting of a Gaussian and a Lorentzian, representing the core and the extended wings of the PSF, respectively. We note that this model is not an accurate representation of the PSF for data with very good photon statistics. Indeed, in the third observation AC211 is about four times brighter than in the first and second observations, and systematic errors in the PSF model dominate over photon statistics. In order to use our simple PSF model, we concentrate only on the first two observations.

We calculated an upper limit on the count rate from the nucleus by adding a Gaussian, whose width was fixed to the value determined from AC211, to model the emission from the cluster center. Since the core of the PSF is well described by a Gaussian, a single Gaussian provides a reasonable description of the PSF shape for the very faint central source. We employed a maximum likelihood method in the fits because of the small number of counts in the tail of the profile. The errors on

the counts were estimated using the approximation of Gehrels (1986).

Since M15 X-2 is roughly equidistant from the cluster center and the opposite side of AC211 (right-hand side in Fig. 2), the tail of its PSF should contribute roughly equally to both positions, provided that the PSF does not vary strongly with azimuth. We examined the azimuthal angle dependence of the PSF by using an observation of 3C 273. We find that any variation is at most $`\pm `$10% (including statistical error) at 2′′ from the PSF peak, approximately the distance between AC211 and the cluster center.

We repeated these measurements for the first, second, and the combined profile of the two observations. The Gaussian component for the cluster center was not required statistically in any of the fits. The 90% confidence upper limit (one parameter of interest) on the count rates are 0.0059, 0.0043, and 0.0033 counts s-1, respectively. To convert the limit on the count rate to an X-ray flux, we assumed (1) that the spectrum between 0.2 and 10 keV can be described by a power law with a photon index of 2.3, a spectral model that fits well the quiescent nucleus of the Galaxy (Baganoff et al. 2001) and M32 (Ho, Terashima, & Ulvestad 2003), (2) that the line-of-sight absorbing column $`N_\mathrm{H}=5.8\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, calculated from $`E(BV)=0.10`$ mag (Harris 1996) and the relation $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ = 5.8$`\times `$1021 $`E(BV)`$ cm-2 (Savage & Mathis 1979), and (3) the latest effective area for the combination of the high-resolution mirror assembly and the HRC (version 2.1). These assumptions give $`F_\mathrm{x}<4.4\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 for the combined observations, or $`L_\mathrm{x}<5.6\times 10^{32}`$ erg s-1 assuming a distance of 10.4 kpc (Harris 1996).

## 3 Implications

The nucleus of M15, if presumed to host a $`2000`$ $`M_{}`$ BH, is extremely inactive. The upper limit on the X-ray luminosity derived from the Chandra observations corresponds to an Eddington ratio of $`L_\mathrm{x}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ $`<`$ 2.2$`\times `$10-9, where $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.26}\times 10^{38}\left(M/M_{}\right)`$ erg s-1. Judging from the broad-band spectral energy distributions of galactic nuclei over a wide range of activity levels (Elvis et al. 1994; Ho 1999), the bolometric correction for the X-ray band is $`720`$. Hence, $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ $`<`$ $`(24)\times 10^8`$.

Why is the nuclear BH of M15 so quiescent? One possibility is that the cluster is completely devoid of gas. Although post-main sequence stars continuously inject mass into the intracluster medium through mass loss, a variety of mechanisms can effectively remove it (e.g., Frank & Gisler 1976; Spergel 1991; Smith 1999). Indeed, nearly all efforts to detect gas, be it neutral or ionized, in globular clusters have resulted in null detections (see Knapp et al. 1996, and references therein). While low, however, the gas content is not zero, and it would be of interest to estimate how much accretion luminosity one might expect to see. Dispersion measures derived from radio observations of pulsars provide the most sensitive probe of the line-of-sight integrated column density of free electrons in globular clusters. From an analysis of the population of millisecond pulsars in 47 Tucanae and M15, Freire et al. (2001) find an electron density of $`n_e0.1`$ and 0.2 cm-3, respectively. We expect the plasma, which has been photoionized by the ultraviolet radiation field from post-asymptotic giant branch stars, to have a temperature $`T_e10^4`$ K. To first order, this temperature is consistent with the value derived assuming that the gas is in virial equilibrium with the stars. For a central stellar velocity dispersion of $`\sigma =14`$ km s-1 (Gerssen et al. 2002), $`T=\mu m_p\sigma ^2/k3\times 10^4`$ K, where $`\mu `$ is the mean atomic weight, $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, and $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant.

Let us assume that low-angular momentum gas in the vicinity of the BH accretes spherically, as described by Bondi (1952). The gravitational potential of the BH dominates the dynamics of the gas within the accretion radius, $`R_\mathrm{a}GM/c_\mathrm{s}^2`$, where $`c_\mathrm{s}0.1T^{1/2}`$ km s-1 is the sound speed of the gas. For $`T_e=10^4`$ K and $`M`$ = 2000 $`M_{}`$, $`c_\mathrm{s}10`$ km s-1 and $`R_\mathrm{a}0.1`$ pc ($``$2′′ at the distance of M15). From the continuity equation, the Bondi accretion rate $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi R_\mathrm{a}^2\rho _\mathrm{a}c_\mathrm{s}`$, where $`\rho _\mathrm{a}`$ is the gas density at $`R_\mathrm{a}`$. Expressed in terms of parameters appropriate for M15,

$$\dot{M}_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.8}\times 10^9\left(\frac{M}{2000M_{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{n}{0.2\mathrm{cm}^3}\right)\left(\frac{10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}{c_\mathrm{s}}\right)^3M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$

If this emission is produced by an optically thick, geometrically thin disk (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973), the accretion luminosity is $`L_{\mathrm{acc}}=\eta \dot{M}c^23\times 10^{37}\left(\eta /0.1\right)`$ erg s-1, where we have assumed a canonical radiative efficiency of $`\eta =0.1`$ and $`\dot{M}=\dot{M}_\mathrm{B}`$. This high value of the accretion luminosity clearly contradicts the observational upper limit of $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}(411)\times 10^{33}`$ erg s-1 (the range corresponds to an X-ray bolometric correction of 7–20), a factor of $`30008000`$ lower. Unless the plasma density has been overestimated by 3–4 orders of magnitude, we are forced to conclude that either $`\eta 0.1`$ or $`\dot{M}\dot{M}_\mathrm{B}`$. Both, in fact, may hold naturally in globular clusters, given their low gas content.

Optically thin advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAFs; for a general overview, see Narayan, Mahadevan, & Quataert 1998), which are radiatively inefficient, are thought to develop when accretion rates drop below a critical threshold of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{crit}}\alpha ^2\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}0.1\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, where the Eddington accretion rate is defined by $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\left(\eta /0.1\right)\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}c^2`$ and the Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) viscosity parameter is taken to be $`\alpha 0.3`$ (Narayan et al. 1998). From the above estimate of the Bondi accretion rate, $`\dot{M}_\mathrm{B}10^4\dot{M}_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, and so an ADAF, or some variant thereof (see Quataert 2001 for a review of the recent modifications of the basic ADAF model that incorporate the effects of outflows and convection), very likely exists in M15. We believe this accounts for the extraordinary quiescence of its nucleus, should it truly host a central massive BH. Similar arguments have been advanced to explain the dimness of supermassive ($`10^610^9`$ $`M_{}`$) BHs in the nuclei of nearby giant elliptical (e.g., Fabian & Rees 1995; Mahadevan 1997) and spiral (Ho 2003) galaxies.

While accretion flows in globular clusters are expected to be radiatively inefficient, how low can $`\eta `$ be? Is $`\eta `$ $`<`$ $`10^4`$ possible? This issue is not yet well understood theoretically, as it depends on the currently uncertain physics of particle heating and acceleration (Quataert 2001). One can allow higher values of $`\eta `$ by reducing $`\dot{M}`$ below the Bondi rate. Recent Chandra studies of elliptical galaxies find that their cores often accrete significantly below the Bondi rate (e.g., Loewenstein et al. 2001; Ho et al. 2003). The accretion rate is thought to be curtailed by dynamical processes inherent to radiatively inefficient flows, which have the propensity to develop outflows (Blandford & Begelman 1999) and convection (Narayan, Igumenshchev, & Abramowicz 2000; Quataert & Gruzinov 2000; Igumenshchev & Narayan 2002).

Following Grindlay et al. (2001), we can turn the problem around and use the X-ray null detection to place an upper limit on the mass of the central BH. Assuming again that the BH accretes at the full Bondi rate and that $`\eta =10^4`$, the upper limit on the bolometric luminosity translates into an upper limit of $`6001000`$ $`M_{}`$ for the central BH.

## 4 Summary

We use a sensitive, high-resolution Chandra image to place a stringent upper limit on the accretion luminosity of the nucleus of the globular cluster M15, which plausibly hosts a massive ($``$2000 $`M_{}`$) BH. The bolometric luminosity of the nucleus is less than $`(24)\times 10^8`$ of the Eddington luminosity of the BH. If the central BH accretes via a standard optically thick, geometrically thin disk at the Bondi rate, which we calculate from the electron density of the intracluster ionized plasma derived from pulsar dispersion measures, the nucleus should be $`34`$ orders of magnitude more luminous than observed. Unless the accretion rate has been severely overestimated, this fundamental inconsistency leads to the conclusion that the accretion process in M15 must be extremely radiatively inefficient, as theoretically predicted in the context of advection-dominated accretion flows or related models. The constraint on the radiative efficiency is not yet precise, however, because of the uncertain influence of outflows or convection on the accretion rate. Of course, the lack of an X-ray nucleus in M15 in itself can be taken as evidence that it does not contain a massive BH. This interpretation remains viable until the nature of its central dark mass concentration can be established with greater certainty.

We acknowledge the contribution of J. E. Grindlay, the PI of the original Chandra observations on which our analysis is based. The research of L. C. H. is supported by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and by NASA grants from the Space Telescope Science Institute (operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555). T. O. and Y. T. are supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We thank an anonymous referee for providing constructive comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Probing the Spatial Distribution of Extrasolar Planets with Gravitational Microlensing

## 1 Introduction

A Galactic microlensing event occurs when a compact massive object (lens) approaches very close to the observer’s line of sight toward a background star (source). Due to lensing, the source star image is split into two with different fluxes from that of the unlensed source. The locations and magnifications of the individual images are

$$𝜽_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(𝒖\pm \sqrt{u^2+4}\frac{𝒖}{u}\right)\theta _\mathrm{E},$$
(1)
and

$$A_\pm =\frac{u^2+1}{2u\sqrt{u^2+4}}\pm \frac{1}{2},$$
(2)
where $`𝒖`$ is the projected lens-source separation vector normalized by the Einstein ring radius $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. The Einstein ring represents the effective lensing region around the lens within which the combined source star flux is magnified greater than $`3/\sqrt{5}1.34`$. For a typical Galactic bulge event with a lens and a source located at $`D_{ol}=6`$ kpc and $`D_{os}=8\mathrm{kpc}`$, respectively, the Einstein ring has a radius of

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}0.32\mathrm{mas}\left(\frac{m}{0.3M_{}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is the lens mass. The angular size of $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ corresponds to the physical distance at the lens location of

$$r_\mathrm{E}=D_{ol}\theta _\mathrm{E}2\mathrm{AU}\left(\frac{m}{0.3M_{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(4)
For Galactic events, the separation between the two images is $`\left|𝜽_+𝜽_{}\right|=\sqrt{u^2+4}\theta _\mathrm{E}2\theta _\mathrm{E}0.6\mathrm{mas}`$, which is too small for the images to be resolved. However, the flux of the combined image varies with time due to the relative motion of the observer, lens, and source, and thus lensing events can be identified from the variation of source star fluxes. The light curve of a lensing event is represented by

$$A=A_++A_{}=\frac{u^2+2}{u(u^2+4)^{1/2}}.$$
(5)
Light variation caused by lensing can be distinguished from other types of variations due to the smooth, symmetric, and non-repeating characteristics of the lensing light curves. The duration of a lensing event is characterized by the Einstein time scale $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, which represents the time required for the source to transit $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. For a typical lens-source proper motion of $`\mu _{rel}25\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{kpc}^1`$, the Einstein time scale has a value of

$$t_\mathrm{E}=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{\mu _{rel}}20\mathrm{days}\left(\frac{m}{0.3M_{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
If an event is caused by a lens having a planetary-mass companion and the position of the companion happens to be near the path of one of the two images created by the primary lens, the planet will perturb the light from the nearby image, causing deviation in the lensing light curve of the primary (Mao & Paczyński, 1991; Gould & Loeb, 1992). For a planet with a mass ratio $`q`$ to the central star, the deviation lasts for a duration of $`t_{\mathrm{E},p}\sqrt{q}t_\mathrm{E}`$, which corresponds to $`1`$ day for a Jupiter-mass planet. Due to the short duration, it is difficult to detect the planet-induced perturbations from the current survey-type experiments, which have typical monitoring frequencies of 1–2/night. To increase the monitoring frequency, current experiments are employing early warning systems (Alcock et al., 1996; Afonso et al., 2001; Bond et al., 2001; Udalski et al., 1994) to issue alerts of ongoing events detected in the early stage of lensing magnification and follow-up observation programs (Alcock et al., 1997; Rhie et al., 1999; Albrow et al., 1998) to intensively monitor the alerted events. Once the deviation is detected and analyzed, one can determine the mass ratio and the projected separation (normalized by $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$) between the planet and central star, $`d`$ (Gaudi & gould, 1997).

One important drawback of the current microlensing planet search strategy is that one can detect only planets located within a narrow region of separations from central stars. This is because the images produced by the central star are located close to the Einstein ring during the event, and thus only planets located near the ring can effectively perturb the images (see more details in § 2). As a result, even if a large sample of planets are detected and their separations are determined, no meaningful result can be drawn about the spatial distribution of planets around central stars.

A Second channel for the discovery of planets via microlensing is provided by planets in wider orbits. When the orbit of a planet is wide, two types of events are expected. One is “repeating” events in which the source trajectory passes close to both the planet and primary star and the other is “isolated” events in which the trajectory passes close to the planet only. Planets via the channel of repeating events can be detected by the current-type follow-up observations \[See the extensive works of Di Stefano & Scalzo (1999a,1999b) on this channel of planet detections\]. Detecting planets via the channel of isolated events, on the other hand, is difficult by the current experiments because these events occur without any warning and last for very short period of time. However, if the monitoring frequency is dramatically increased, it will be possible to detect a large sample of wide-orbit planets through this channel. Recently, such a high-frequency survey experiment (GEST) was proposed to NASA by Bennett & Rhie (2002). The GEST mission is designed to continuously monitor $`10^8`$ Galactic bulge main-sequence stars with a frequency of several times per hour by using a 1–2 m aperture space telescope. Another population of planets that can be detected by the high-frequency lensing survey is free-floating planets.

In this paper, we investigate the lensing properties of events caused by wide-orbit planets that will be detected by future high-frequency lensing experiments. Unlike the negligible effect of the wide-orbit planet on the lensing behavior of the primary, the effect of the primary on the lensing behavior of the planet may be important even at very large separations due to the large primary/planet mass ratio. If this is so, the signature of the central stars might be noticed for a significant fraction of events, enabling one to distinguish them from events caused by free-floating planets.

The paper is composed as follows. In § 2, we discuss the basics of planetary microlensing that are required to describe the lensing behavior of events caused by wide-orbit planets. In § 3, we investigate the properties of wide-orbit planetary lensing in detail. In § 4, we estimate the probability of distinguishing events produced by wide-orbit planets from those caused by free-floating planets. In § 5, we summarize the results and discuss the implications of the results.

## 2 Basics of Planetary Lensing

The lensing behavior of a system having a planetary-mass companion is described by the formalism of binary lensing with a very low mass-ratio companion. If a source star located at $`\zeta =\xi +i\eta `$ in complex notations is lensed by two point-mass lenses with the individual locations of $`z_{L,1}=x_{L,1}+iy_{L,1}`$ and $`z_{L,2}=x_{L,2}+iy_{L,2}`$ and the mass fractions of $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, respectively, the locations of the resulting images $`z=x+iy`$ are obtained by solving the lens equation, which is represented by

$$\zeta =z+\frac{m_1}{\overline{z}_{L,1}\overline{z}}+\frac{m_2}{\overline{z}_{L,2}\overline{z}},$$
(7)
where $`\overline{z}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`z`$ and all lengths are normalized by the Einstein ring radius corresponding to the total mass of the binary (combined Einstein ring radius $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$). Since the lens equation describes a mapping from the lens plane to the source plane, finding image positions ($`x,y`$) for a given source position ($`\xi ,\eta `$) requires inverting the lens equation. Although the lens equation for a binary lens system cannot be algebraically inverted due to its nonlinearity, it can be expressed as a fifth-order polynomial in $`z`$ and the image positions can be obtained by numerically solving the polynomial (Witt, 1990). Since the lensing process conserves the source star surface brightness, the magnification of each image equals to the area ratio between the image and the unlensed source and mathematically it is obtained by computing the Jacobian of the mapping equation evaluated at the image position;

$$A_i=\left|\left(1\frac{\zeta }{\overline{z}}\frac{\overline{\zeta }}{\overline{z}}\right)^1\right|.$$
(8)
Then, the total magnification is given by the sum of the magnifications of the individual images, i.e. $`A=_iA_i`$.

Due to the very small mass ratio of the planet to the primary, the planetary lensing behavior is well described by that of a single lens event for most of the event duration. However, noticeable deviations can occur if the planet is located close to one of the images produced by the primary lens. The region around the image-perturbing planet’s location in the lens plane corresponds to the region around caustics in the source plane. Therefore, for the source-plane point of view, noticeable deviations occur when the source approaches the region around caustics. The caustics are the main new features of binary lensing and refer to the set of source positions at which the magnification of a point source becomes infinity. For the case of a wide-orbit planet, the caustic is located along the primary-planet axis and its location on the axis is approximated by

$$x_cx_p\frac{1}{x_p},$$
(9)
where $`x_p`$ is the position of the planet (in units of $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$) with respect to the primary which is located at the origin (Griest & Safizadeh, 1998). Then, caustics are located within the Einstein ring when the planetary separation is in the range of $`0.6<x_p<1.6`$, which is so called the ‘lensing zone’ (Gould & Loeb, 1992; Wambsganss, 1997). In addition, the size of the caustic, and thus the probability of detecting planet-induced deviations, is maximized when the planet is in the lensing zone. Under the current planet-search strategy of monitoring events caused by stellar-mass lenses, therefore, only planets within the lensing zone can be effectively detected.

## 3 Lensing by Wide-orbit Planet

As the separation between the planet and central star increases, the caustic shrinks rapidly. If the separation is significantly larger than the Einstein ring radius, both lens components behave as if they are two independent single lenses. Due to the deflection of light produced by the presence of the companion, however, the position of each lens is effectively shifted towards the companion (Di Stefano & Mao, 1996). The effective positions of the individual lenses are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_{L,i}=x_{L,i}\frac{m_j/m_i}{\mathrm{}/\theta _{\mathrm{E},i}}\mathrm{sign}(x_{L,i}x_{L,j}),$$
(10)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},i}`$ represents the Einstein ring radius of each lens, the subscripts ‘$`i`$’ and ‘$`j`$’ are used to denote one lens component and its companion, respectively, and the term $`\mathrm{sign}(x_{L,i}x_{L,j})`$ implies that the shift is towards the direction of the companion. Then, the amount of the positional shift of the central star due to the planet is $`\delta _{}=|\stackrel{~}{x}_{}x_{}|q/d`$, which is negligible due to the combination of small $`q`$ and large $`d`$. On the other hand, the amount of the shift of the planet’s position due to its central star, $`\delta _p=|\stackrel{~}{x}_px_p|1/d`$, is not negligible because it does not depend on $`q`$. Note that the effective position of the wide-orbit planet is

$$\stackrel{~}{x}_px_p\frac{1}{d}=x_p\frac{1}{x_p},$$
(11)
implying that it corresponds to the position of the caustic \[cf. eq. (9)\]. Since significant deviations can occur only if the source trajectory passes close to caustics, although most part of the light curve of the event caused by a wide-orbit planet is approximated by that of a single-lens event produced by the planet at its effective position, its central part can be distorted due to the effect of the central star.

Another thing to be taken into consideration in describing the lensing behavior of events caused by wide-orbit planets is the effect of extended source size. The finite-source effect for these events is important because the Einstein ring radius of the planet, $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},p}=\sqrt{q}\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, is very small, and thus the lensed star can no longer be approximated by a point source (Bennett & Rhie, 1996). For events caused a Jupiter-mass planet, for example, the radii of source stars correspond to $`\rho _{}3.3\%`$, 10%, and 43% of $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},p}`$ for events involved with main-sequence ($`R_{}1R_{}`$), turn-off ($`R_{}3R_{}`$), and clump giant ($`R_{}13R_{}`$) source stars, respectively. The lensing magnification affected by the finite-source effect is given by the intensity-weighted magnification averaged over the source flux, i.e.

$$A_{fs}=\frac{I(𝜻^{})A(𝜻+𝜻^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}}{I(𝜻^{})𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}},$$
(12)
where $`𝜻`$ is the vector notation of the center of the source, $`𝜻^{}`$ is the displacement vector of a point on the source star surface with respect to the source star’s center, and the notation $`\mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ represents the surface integral over the source star surface. Under the assumption that the source has a uniform surface brightness profile, the computation of the magnification can be reduced from a two-dimensional to a one-dimensional integral by using Green’s theorem (Gould & Gaucherel, 1997; Dominik, 1998).

To investigate the lensing properties of events caused by wide-orbit planets in more detail, we construct maps of fractional magnification excesses. The magnification excess is defined by

$$ϵ=\frac{\left|AA_0\right|}{A_0},$$
(13)
where $`A`$ is the exact magnification of the wide-orbit planet and $`A_0`$ is the magnification of the single lens approximation, i.e. that of a free-floating planet. The map provides an overview of the anomaly patterns, not testing all light curves resulting from a large number of source trajectories.

In Figure 1, we present the constructed excess maps of three example lens systems having planets with different separations from the central star of $`d=5`$, 7, and 9, respectively. For the lens, we assume the Einstein ring radius is $`r_\mathrm{E}2`$ AU by adopting that of a typical Galactic bulge event, and thus the separations correspond to the physical distances of $`\mathrm{}10`$ AU, 14 AU, and 18 AU, respectively. The mass ratio of the tested planet to that of the primary is $`q=0.003`$, which corresponds to that of a Jupiter-mass planet around a low-mass main-sequence star with a mass of $`0.3M_{}`$. Since the most common stars to be monitored by the GEST mission will be main-sequence stars, the maps are constructed assuming that the source star has a radius of $`R_{}=1R_{}`$. Each map is centered at the effective position of the planet (marked by ‘+’) and the true position of the planet is marked by a filled dot. All lengths are normalized by $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},p}`$. From the maps, one finds that, as expected, the effective planet position matches very well the center of the caustic induced by the central star. One also finds that the size of significant deviation regions (compared to the size of the Einstein ring of the planet) is not negligible even for planets located at large separations. In Figure 2, we present several example light curves of events resulting from the source trajectories marked in Fig. 1.

To see the variation of anomaly pattern depending on the planet’s mass ratio, we also construct maps of planets with different mass ratios and present them in Figure 3. For these maps, the planet-primary separation is fixed as $`d=7`$ ($`\mathrm{}=14`$ AU). The tested planets have mass ratios of $`q=0.003`$, 0.001, and 0.0001, which correspond to a Jupiter-, Saturn-, and $`10M_{}`$-mass planet around a $`0.3M_{}`$ star, respectively. The dot on the upper right corner of each left panel represents source size relative to the Einstein ring of the planet. We note that since all lengths are scaled by $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},p}`$, which is proportional to $`\sqrt{q}`$, the source size appears to be different although the actual size is the same. From the maps, we find that finite-source effect does not seriously affect the anomaly patterns of events caused by giant planets with $`q>10^3`$. For planets in this mass regime, the maps have similar patterns because both the size of the caustic and the planet’s Einstein ring radius have the same dependency on the mass ratio, i.e. $`\sqrt{q}`$, and thus they decrease by the same scale as $`q`$ decreases. This can be seen from the similarity between the maps of Jupiter- and Saturn-mass planets. As the mass ratio further decreases, however, the finite-source effect becomes important. We find that for the case of planets with $`q<10^4`$, the source size becomes bigger than the size of the caustic even for main-sequence source stars and the signatures of the central star is seriously washed out by the finite-source effect.

## 4 Detection Probability

By using the excess map, we then estimate the probability of distinguishing events caused by wide-orbit planets from those produced by free-floating planets. For this estimation, we assume that events with $`AA_{th}`$ are continuously111Since the lensing experiment planned by the GEST mission will be carried out in space, events will be monitored continuously. monitored with a frequency of 3 times per hours. Here $`A_{th}`$ is the threshold magnification, which is required for event identification. For each planet separation, we produce 900 light curves resulting from source trajectories with orientations relative to the planet-primary axis and impact parameters to the planet, which are randomly selected in the range of $`0\alpha 2\pi `$ and $`0u_pu_{th}`$, respectively. Here the quantity $`u_p`$ represents the impact parameters of the source trajectory to the planet normalized by $`\theta _{\mathrm{E},p}`$ and $`u_{th}`$ is the impact parameter corresponding to $`A_{th}`$. With the excess map, the light curves are produced by the one-dimensional cut through the map. Since the map is constructed by considering the finite-source effect, the light curves produced in this way automatically incorporate the effect. To be identified as a bound planet, it is assumed that the light curve should have at least one data point with deviations greater than a threshold value of $`ϵ_{th}=5\%`$. We note that the photometric precision of the GEST mission will be $`<1\%`$ even for main-sequence source stars, and thus the adopted detection threshold is very conservative choice. With this detection criteria, the probability is determined as the ratio of the number of events with noticeable deviations out of the total number of tested events.

In Figure 3, we present the resulting probabilities as a function of planetary separation for planets with different mass ratios, which are distinguished by different line colors. The sets of curves with different line types are the probabilities for different threshold magnifications. When the threshold is fixed, the probability becomes smaller as $`q`$ decreases due to the combination of shorter duration of perturbations and larger effect of extended sources. For a given planet, the probability increases as the threshold magnification increases. This is because the deviation region is confined to the central region around the effective planet position and thus the chances to detect deviations are greater for higher magnification events. From the figure, we find that the signatures of central stars can be detected with significant probabilities ($`>60\%`$) for planets with separations $`\mathrm{}<10`$ AU, which roughly corresponds to the distance of the Saturn from the Sun. Although the probability drops rapidly for planets with $`q<10^4`$, the probability is still substantial for giant planets with separations up to $`20`$ AU, corresponding to the separation between the Uranus and the Sun.

## 5 Summary and Conclusion

Under the current microlensing planet search strategy of monitoring events caused by stellar-mass lenses, only planets located within a narrow region of separations from central stars can be effectively detected. However, with the dramatic increase of the monitoring frequency, two additional populations of free-floating and wide-orbit planets can be detected. We investigated the lensing properties of events caused by wide-orbit planets and found that a significant fraction of these events could be distinguished from those caused by free-floating planets. We determined that even with moderate detection criteria the probability to detect signatures of central stars for events caused by wide-orbit planets would be $`>80\%`$ for giant planets with separations $`<10`$ AU and the probability is still substantial for planets with separations up to $`20`$ AU. Detecting a large sample of these events will be important because they can provide useful information about the spatial distribution of extrasolar planets, which cannot be obtained by the sample to be acquired under the current microlensing planet search strategy or from other planet search methods such as the radial velocity and transit methods. In addition, proper estimation of the probability of distinguishing events caused by the two populations of planets will be important for the correct determination of the frequency of free-floating planets, whose microlensing sample will be contaminated by wide-orbits planets.

We would like to thank J. H. An for kindly providing his code designed for efficient computation of lensing magnifications of events affected by finite-source effect. This work was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea Science & Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Program (SRC) program.