text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Physics of an unstable D-brane or a system of D$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$ is manifested through the existence of tachyonic mode. The dynamics of decay of such unstable branes is described by tachyon condensation in the effective theory . An efficient language to describe the decay and creation of unstable D$`p`$-brane is to study S(pacelike)-brane . Specific examples are the rolling tachyon  and its family carrying electromagnetic fields . Since they are time-dependent but spatially homogeneous classical configurations in open string theory, they are mainly used for application to various cosmological issues including inflation, dark matter, and reheating . Actual decay process, however, should involve spatial inhomogeneity  and most of the approaches attempted dynamical formation of topological kink which is a candidate of D-brane of codimension one . An obstacle to generate such topological kink is so-called caustics that kink solution meets unavoidable singularity at a finite time irrespective of initial conditions, e.g., an ordinary kink, a periodic sinusoidal array.

If we want to understand the whole dynamical decay process of an unstable D$`p`$-brane, a relevant question at the moment is to understand viable form of states after the tachyon is condensed. They cannot be perturbative excitations like tachyons or electromagnetic waves  since all the perturbative degrees of freedom living on the unstable D$`p`$-brane cannot survive any more once the D$`p`$-brane decays away. In the context of open string theory, they should include D$`(p1)`$-branes, fundamental strings (F1’s), and their hybrids with various codimensions  and small fluctuations on them .

In case of D$`(p1)`$-brane, it is described by the topological kink  in the effective theory of tachyon field . Recent observation on this kind of kink  is noteworthy. Static topological kink in the Born-Infeld type tachyon action with a runaway potential is singular but has finite energy and tension. The world-volume theory of massless modes on this kink is again the Born-Infeld type action without any higher derivative corrections. Inclusion of fermions to this world-volume action leads to restoration of supersymmetry and $`\kappa `$-symmetry so that the obtained kink is identified by a BPS D$`(p1)`$-brane.

In this paper we will address an indispensable question related with the aforementioned kink : Can we obtain a static kink solution without singularity, which reproduces properly its singular limit? In the pure tachyonic theory of Born-Infeld type effective action with a runaway potential, the unique static regular solution is periodic array of tachyon kink-anitkinks. In the limit of vanishing pressure, it goes to that of singular topological tachyon kink-antikinks. Once Born-Infeld electromagnetism is turned on, the spectrum of regular solutions becomes rich. In addition to periodic array, there exist single topological tachyon kinks, tachyon half-kink connecting stable and unstable vacua, and tachyon bounces specified by the values of electromagnetic fields and pressure orthogonal to the soliton direction. Without or with electric field less than critical value orthogonal to the kink direction, tension of a topological kink or single unit of the periodic array has expected value, $`T_1=\sqrt{2}\pi T_2`$ for superstring theory. When the electric field orthogonal to the kink direction is larger than the critical value or its transverse component is turned on, there is an additional multiplicative factor given as a function of the electric field. In the presence of the longitudinal component of the electric field, F1 charge density has a confined component and its functional form is exactly the same as those of energy density and transverse component of pressure. Proper singular limit is always taken since the energy density of them is given by a $`\delta `$-function or sum of $`\delta `$-functions in the singular limit of those objects. Particularly, for the regular topological tachyon kink with critical value of electromagnetic fields, all the nice analytic properties claimed in approximate form only for the singular tachyon kink  are saturated without any approximation. The obtained periodic array of kink-anitkinks and topological tachyon kink can be interpreted as candidates of array of D1$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$1 (D1F1-$`\overline{\mathrm{D}}`$1F1) and D1-brane (D1F1), however interpretation of half-kink and tachyon bounces are not clear, yet. Direct string computation is also lacked at the present stage.

We have now many static regular solutions. Although some of them may presumably be unstable, it is still worthwhile to study the precise nature of these configurations. Another intriguing question is on the small fluctuations on stable objects, i.e., the study of the worldvolume action of zero modes and possible existence of supersymmetry. Our approach is based on effective field theory so the obtained results should be understood in terms of string (field) theory . Finally it would be quite interesting to investigate the role of our solutions in understanding dynamical process of D-brane decays. More realistic picture in this direction should also contain closed string degrees, e.g, gravitational field and tower of massive closed string modes .

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we consider Born-Infeld type action of a tachyon with $`1/\mathrm{cosh}(T/T_0)`$ potential and show that a periodic array of kink-antikinks is the unique static regular solution. In section 3, we turn on electric field orthogonal to the kink and find a regular topological kink in addition to a periodic array. The tension of the kink of codimension one is computed. In section 4, general form of electromagnetic fields are added to unstable D2-brane case. The obtained configurations constitute D1F1 in the form of a periodic array, kinks, half-kink, and bounces. Confinement of string charge density along the kink is achieved. We conclude with a summary of the obtained results in section 5.

## 2 Array of Tachyon Kink

In this section we consider static solutions  in pure tachyon model described by the following Born-Infeld type effective action

$`S=T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}xV(T)\sqrt{det(\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T)}},`$ (2.1)
where $`T_p`$ is the tension of the D$`p`$-brane. Here we use a runaway tachyon potential

$$V(T)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(T/T_0)},$$
(2.2)
which is derived from open string theory  and was originally introduced in Ref. . In the context of string field theory, form of the action and the potential is different from our choice , which is also allowed due to scheme dependence. $`T_0`$ in the tachyon potential has 2 for the bosonic string and $`\sqrt{2}`$ for the non-BPS D-brane in the superstring.

To obtain static extended objects of codimension one, we assume that the tachyon field depends only on $`x=x_1`$ coordinate such as $`T=T(x)`$. Then, the system is governed by the only nontrivial $`x`$-component of energy-momentum conservation

$$T_{11}^{}(_1T_{11})=0,$$
(2.3)
where nonvanishing components are

$`T_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{1+T^2}}}<0,`$ (2.4)
$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`T_pV(T)\sqrt{1+T^2}\eta _{ab},(\mathrm{diag}(\eta _{ab})=(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1),a,b=0,2,3,\mathrm{},p).`$ (2.5)
Since Eq. (2.3) forces constant negative pressure $`p_1=T_{11}`$ along $`x`$-direction, we can summarize our system as

$$\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}T^2\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{T_pV(T)}{T_{11}}\right]^2.$$
(2.6)
Suppose that we identify Eq. (2.6) as conservation of mechanical energy $``$ of a hypothetical Newtonian particle in one-dimensional motion. Then this hypothetical particle has mechanical energy $`=1/2`$, unit mass $`m=1`$, position $`T`$ at time $`x`$, and is influenced by conservative force from potential $`U(T)=(T_pV/T_{11})^2/2`$. Therefore possible motions are classified by the value of $`T_{11}/T_p`$ which changes shape (particularly minimum value) of the potential $`U(T)`$: (i) When $`T_{11}/T_p>1`$, no motion is allowed (see solid curve of $`U(T)`$ in Fig. 1). (ii) When $`T_{11}/T_p=1`$, the hypothetical particle stops at $`T=0`$ eternally (see dashed curve of $`U(T)`$ in Fig. 1). (iii) When $`T_{11}/T_p<1`$, it oscillates between $`T_+=T_0\mathrm{arccosh}(T_p/T_{11})`$ and $`T_{}=T_0\mathrm{arccosh}(T_p/T_{11})`$ (see dotted curve of $`U(T)`$ in Fig. 1). (iv) In the limit of $`T_{11}/T_p0^+`$ with keeping all other quantities, $`T_\pm `$ approaches positive or negative infinity, respectively.

The obtained configurations are interpreted as follows:

(ii) When the negative pressure $`T_{11}`$ reaches a critical value $`T_p`$, tachyon configuration has a constant value $`T=0`$ at the unstable vacuum (see dashed line in Fig. 2).

(iii) When the negative pressure $`T_{11}`$ is smaller than the critical value $`T_p`$, spatial inhomogeneity is turned on along the $`x`$-direction in a form of a kink, which is expressed by

$`x=\pm {\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{\sqrt{(\frac{T_p}{T_{11}})^2\mathrm{sech}^2(T/T_0)1}}},`$ (2.7)
which gives

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{\left(\frac{T_p}{T_{11}}\right)^21}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{x}{T_0}\right)\right].$$
(2.8)
The corresponding energy density is given by

$`\rho T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`T_pV(T)\sqrt{1+T^2}`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_p^2/T_{11}}{1+\left[(\frac{T_p}{T_{11}})^21\right]\mathrm{sin}^2(x/T_0)}}.`$
The solution shows oscillating behavior between $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$ with period $`2\pi T_0`$ which is independent of $`T_{11}`$ (see dotted curves in Fig. 2 and 3). Though it may be presumably unstable under a small perturbation, it is still remarkable that static nonsingular inhomogeneous solution does exist in the pure tachyon theory.

One may attempt to identify this solution as an array of kinks and antikinks. Then by integrating the energy density over a half period of the solution, we find the energy of a kink,

$$T_{p1}_{\frac{\pi }{2}T_0}^{\frac{\pi }{2}T_0}𝑑xT_{00}=\pi T_0T_p,$$
(2.10)
which can be obtained either by using the expression (2.9) directly or by replacing $`T^{}`$ in $`\rho `$ with the help of Eq. (2.6),

$$T_{p1}=\frac{T_p^2}{T_{11}}_T_{}^{T_+}𝑑T\frac{V^2}{\sqrt{(T_pV/T_{11})^21}}.$$
(2.11)
Note that Eq. (2.10) is independent of the values of $`T_\pm `$ with the form of the potential $`V(T)=1/\mathrm{cosh}(T/T_0)`$. In fact, it is nothing but the tension of the BPS kink identified as $`D(p1)`$-brane . Therefore this solution may be interpreted as representing an array of $`D(p1)\overline{D}(p1)`$’s.

(iv) In the limit of vanishing pressure $`T_{11}/T_p0^+`$, the period of the static tachyon configuration remains to be the same constant $`2\pi T_0`$ but profile of $`T(x)`$ in Eq. (2.8) changes abruptly at kink or antikink sites. Accordingly, the energy density $`\rho (x)`$ and all other pressure components orthogonal to $`x`$-direction are more sharply localized. They have a peak value at site of the kink, $`T_{00}(0)=T_{22}(0)=T_{33}(0)=\mathrm{}=T_{pp}(0)=T_p/T_{11}`$, and decreases to zero exponentially (see dashed, dotted, dotted-dashed lines in Fig. 3 which correspond to the cases (ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively). Eventually, the solution forms an array of step functions

$$T(x)T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\frac{T_p}{T_0T_{11}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{x}{T_0}\right)\right]$$
(2.12)
with an infinite gap

$$T_+T_{}\underset{T_{11}/T_p0}{lim}2T_0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_p}{T_0T_{11}}\right)\mathrm{}.$$
(2.13)
The energy density (2.9) then becomes

$$\rho (x)\pi T_0T_p\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta (xn\pi T_0).$$
(2.14)
In this limit, the kinks become topological , and develops a singularity of step function with infinite gap at each site of kink or antikink. Note also that the formula of the tension (2.11) can be approximated as

$$T_{p1}T_p_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑TV(T),$$
(2.15)
which coincides with that obtained in Ref.  for a single tachyon kink with singularity.

In this section we showed that the only static regular configuration is a periodic array configuration of kink-antikinks. In its singular limit, each kink (or antikink) becomes topological, of which energy density is given by a $`\delta `$-function, however its tension $`T_{p1}`$ remains to be a constant. In the previous approaches , time dependent kink configurations have been taken into account mostly by using initial configurations like ordinary kink or a periodic sinusoidal array for both implication to cosmological perturbation or obtaining rolling tachyons with inhomogeneity. Those solutions seem to be suffered by encountering of unavoidable singularity at a finite time so-called caustics. Probably it is intriguing to study the instability of aforementioned array configuration (2.8) under a small perturbation during time evolution where $`T_{11}`$ is an adjustable parameter for preparation of an initial configuration.

## 3 Regular Kink with Electric Field

In this section, we demonstrate that there exists a static, regular, tachyon kink solution when the electric field is larger than or equal to the critical value.

As the simplest case, here we will only examine the case of unstable D2-brane of which Born-Infeld type action of a tachyon $`T`$ and an Abelian gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is

$`S=T_2{\displaystyle d^3xV(T)\sqrt{det(\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T+F_{\mu \nu })}},`$ (3.1)
where $`T_2`$ is tension confined on the D2-brane. The generalization to higher dimensions should be straightforward.

Let us introduce a few notations $`\overline{\eta }_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu T_\nu T`$, $`\overline{\eta }det(\overline{\eta }_{\mu \nu })`$, and $`\overline{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }`$. Define $`X_{\mu \nu }\overline{\eta }_{\mu \nu }+\overline{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`Xdet(X_{\mu \nu })`$. From the definition, $`X`$ is simplified to

$$X=\overline{\eta }\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\overline{F}_{\mu \nu }\overline{F}^{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(3.2)
where the transformation rule of a contravariant barred field strength tensor $`\overline{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$\overline{F}^{\mu \nu }=\overline{\eta }^{\mu \alpha }\overline{\eta }^{\nu \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },\overline{\eta }^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^\mu T^\nu T}{1+_\rho T^\rho T}.$$
(3.3)
Equations of motion derived from the action (3.1) are

$`_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}C_\mathrm{S}^{\mu \nu }_\nu T\right)+\sqrt{X}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.4)
$`_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}C_\mathrm{A}^{\mu \nu }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.5)
Here $`C_\mathrm{S}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`C_\mathrm{A}^{\mu \nu }`$ are symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the cofactor, respectively

$$C^{\mu \nu }=\overline{\eta }(\overline{\eta }^{\mu \nu }\overline{F}^\mu \overline{F}^\nu +\overline{F}^{\mu \nu })=C_\mathrm{S}^{\mu \nu }+C_\mathrm{A}^{\mu \nu },$$
(3.6)
where barred dual field strength tensor of 1-form $`\overline{F}^\mu `$ is

$$\overline{F}^\mu =\frac{\overline{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \rho }}{2}\overline{F}_{\nu \rho }(\overline{ϵ}^{\mu \nu \rho }=\frac{ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }}{\sqrt{\overline{\eta }}},ϵ^{012}=1).$$
(3.7)
Energy-momentum tensor is

$`T_{\mu \nu }=T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{X}}}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(C_{\mu \rho }(_\nu T^\rho T+F_\nu ^\rho )+C_{\nu \rho }(_\mu T^\rho T+F_\mu ^\rho )\right)\right],`$ (3.8)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \alpha }\eta _{\nu \beta }C^{\alpha \beta }`$.

Suppose all fields are static. Since our final goal is to obtain a straight kink configuration, we assume that the tachyon field depends only on the $`x`$-direction $`T=T(x)`$. In this section, for simplicity, we will also consider only the case $`𝐄=E(𝐱)\widehat{𝐱}`$ and $`B=0`$. General case will be considered in the next section. Then Bianchi identity $`^\mu F_\mu ^{}=0`$ which is nothing but three-dimensional analogue of Faraday’s law

$$\frac{B}{t}=ϵ_{0ij}_iE_j,(E_i=F_{i0},B=ϵ_{0ij}F_{ij}/2)$$
(3.9)
implies $`E=E(x)`$. The equations for the gauge field (3.5) result in constancy of conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=0,$$
(3.10)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`X`$ (3.2) are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{E}}`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}0,`$ (3.11)
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`1E^2+T^20.`$ (3.12)
Conservation of the energy-momentum tensor $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ reduces to constant pressure along $`x`$-direction, $`T_{11}^{}=(\mathrm{\Pi }/E)^{}=0`$, so that the electric field $`E`$ itself is a constant. It means that the solutions are classified by two independent parameters, $`(\mathrm{\Pi },E)`$ or equivalently $`(T_{11},E)`$. In the context of string theory, the existence of the constant background electric field $`E`$ and its conjugate momentum density $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is interpreted as that of a string fluid consisting of straight F1’s along $`x`$-axis . Here we assume positive $`E`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and $`T_{11}`$ for convenience without loss of generality. Therefore, from Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12), we obtain a first-order differential equation for $`T`$, consistent with the tachyon equation (3.4),

$$_\mathrm{E}=\frac{1}{2}T^2+U_\mathrm{E}(T),$$
(3.13)
where

$`_\mathrm{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1E^2),`$ (3.14)
$`U_\mathrm{E}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2E^2}{2\mathrm{\Pi }^2}}V(T)^2={\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2E^2}{2\mathrm{\Pi }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(T/T_0)}}.`$ (3.15)
(See Fig. 4 for a schematic shape of $`U(T)`$.)

Note that for static configurations the energy density (3.8) becomes

$`\rho T_{00}=T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }E+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}\left[T_2V(T)\right]^2,`$ (3.16)
and pressure $`T_{22}`$ orthogonal to the configuration is

$$p_2T_{22}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{E}(1E^2+T^2)=\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Pi }}[T_2V(T)]^20.$$
(3.17)
Non-constant piece of the energy density (3.16) coincides with $`y`$-component of the pressure (3.17) with opposite signature. Constant piece of the energy density (3.16) is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ but the second term given by square of the tachyon potential is inversely proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ so that constant piece dominates in large $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ limit and vice versa in small $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ limit. For the latter, the pressure orthogonal to the configuration also becomes large.

Tachyon configurations determined by Eqs. (3.13)–(3.15) are classified by the value of $`_\mathrm{E}`$. When $`_\mathrm{E}<U(0),`$ $`(E^2>1/[1+(T_2/\mathrm{\Pi })^2])`$, no real tachyon configuration is allowed. When $`=U(0),`$ (i.e., $`E^2=1/[1+(T_2/\mathrm{\Pi })^2]`$; see dotted-dashed line in Fig. 4), we have the ontop solution $`T(x)=0`$ with the corresponding energy density $`\rho =\mathrm{\Pi }E\left[1+(T_2/\mathrm{\Pi })^2\right]`$ (the dotted-dashed lines in Fig. 5 and 6). For $`U_\mathrm{E}(0)<<0,`$ ($`1/[1+T_2^2/\mathrm{\Pi }^2]<E^2<1`$; solid line in Fig. 4), we obtain spatially periodic inhomogeneous configuration similar to that (2.7) in the previous section,

$$x=_0^T\frac{dT}{\sqrt{E^2[1+T_2^2/\mathrm{\Pi }^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(T/T_0)]1}},$$
(3.18)
which gives

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{\frac{E^2T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2(1E^2)}1}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1E^2}}{T_0}x\right)\right].$$
(3.19)
The tachyon field oscillates between the “turning points” in Fig. 4, $`T_i^\pm =\pm T_0\mathrm{arccosh}\left(\frac{T_2E}{\mathrm{\Pi }\sqrt{1E^2}}\right)`$ with period $`2\pi \zeta =2\pi T_0/\sqrt{1E^2}`$. This solution is the generalization of the array of kinks found in Sec. 2 in the presence of electric field in the transverse direction of kinks. Comparing Eq. (3.19) with $`E=0`$ case (2.8), we find that turning on the electric field increases the period and also the effective tension $`T_2T_2/\sqrt{1E^2}`$. This kind of phenomenon was expected from the beginning through a rescaling of $`x`$-coordinate in the effective action (3.1)

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1E^2+\left(\frac{dT}{dx}\right)^2}}`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle 𝑑td(\sqrt{1E^2}x)𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1+\left[\frac{dT}{d(\sqrt{1E^2}x)}\right]^2}}.`$
Substituting the solution (3.19) into Eq. (3.16), we have

$`\rho \mathrm{\Pi }E=p_2={\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2}{1+\left[\frac{E^2T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2(1E^2)}1\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\left(x/\zeta \right)}}.`$ (3.21)
The tachyon profile $`T=T(x)`$ and the energy density $`\rho =\rho (x)`$ for this periodic solution are represented as the solid lines in Fig. 5 and 6.

As in Sec. 2 we integrate the energy density of the kink, i.e. the localized piece of $`\rho (x)`$, over the half period to get its tension ($`p=2`$ in the present case)

$`T_{p1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ET_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}\zeta }^{\frac{\pi }{2}\zeta }}𝑑xV^2(T(x))`$ (3.22)
$`=`$ $`\pi T_0T_p.`$
It is exactly the same value as the tension $`T_{p1}`$ without electric field (2.10) and again independent of the “turning points” $`T_i^\pm `$. Moreover it is independent of the electric field $`E`$ or F1 charge density $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ in the transverse direction. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Pi }0`$ with fixed $`E`$, which corresponds to $`T_{11}0`$, both the energy density (3.16) and the pressure (3.17) are given by sums of $`\delta `$-functions

$`\rho (x)T_{p1}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta (xn\pi T_0/\sqrt{1E^2})p_2.`$ (3.23)
As $``$ approaches $`0^{}`$, i.e., when $`E^2`$ approaches 1 (the dashed line in Fig. 4), $`T_i^\pm `$ stretches to infinity and we obtain new types of solutions, which does not exist in the limit of vanishing electric field. In fact the solution becomes a regular static single-kink configuration with $`T^{}(\pm \mathrm{})=0`$ (the dashed line in Fig. 5),

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left(\frac{T_2}{\mathrm{\Pi }T_0}x\right).$$
(3.24)
This regularity can also be understood through localization of the action (3.1) as follows

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑xd^{p1}yV(T)\sqrt{1E^2+T^2}}`$ (3.25)
$`\stackrel{E=\pm 1}{=}`$ $`(\pm )T_p{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑xd^{p1}yV(T)T^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑td^{p1}yT_p_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑TV(T)},`$ (3.26)
where $`+`$ ($``$) in the second line (3.25) corresponds to the kink (the antikink). The exact integral formula for the tachyon field in the third line (3.26) is nothing but that of the tension $`T_{p1}`$ (2.15) obtained through rather complicated manipulation only for the singular kink . In this case, the energy density $`\rho `$ is given in a particularly simple form,

$$\rho \mathrm{\Pi }=p_2=\pi T_0T_2\frac{\xi /\pi }{x^2+\xi ^2},$$
(3.27)
where $`\xi \mathrm{\Pi }T_0/T_2`$ represents the width of the kink. Note that as $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ goes to zero the localized energy density approaches a $`\delta `$-function with energy $`T_{p1}=\pi T_0T_p`$, while large $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ broadens the width.

Finally, when $`_\mathrm{E}>0`$, ($`E^2>1`$; see the dotted line in Fig. 4), the solution is given by

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{1+\frac{E^2T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2(E^21)}}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\sqrt{E^21}}{T_0}x\right)\right],$$
(3.28)
which has a finite asymptotic slope $`T^{}(\pm \mathrm{})0`$. The energy density (3.16) for this solution also has a constant and a localized piece which coincides with the pressure $`p_2`$ with opposite signature

$$\rho (x)\mathrm{\Pi }E=p_2=\frac{ET_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\frac{1}{1+\left[1+\frac{E^2T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2(E^21)}\right]\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{E^21}}{T_0}x\right)}.$$
(3.29)
Similar to the previous case, we obtain

$`T_{p1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ET_p^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xV^2(T(x))`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`2T_0T_p\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ET_2}{\mathrm{\Pi }\sqrt{E^21}}}\right)`$
which is no longer a constant and is less than $`\pi T_0T_p`$. Of course, $`E1^+`$ limit with fixed $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ reproduces trivially the previous case of topological kink (3.24) and thereby its tension $`T_{p1}`$ approaches $`\pi T_0T_p`$. The profiles of $`T(x)`$ and the energy density $`\rho (x)`$ are plotted as dotted lines in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. As $`0^+`$, the slope at spatial infinity $`T^{}(\pm \mathrm{})`$ goes to zero as expected. For huge electric field limit $`E\mathrm{}`$, the tachyon kink becomes sharply peaked, $`T^{}(\pm \mathrm{})\pm \mathrm{}`$, with keeping finite tension.

All the array and kinks are specified by two independent constants, $`x`$-component of electric field $`E`$ and conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for a given D2-brane. In synthesis for fixed $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, as the electric field $`E`$ increases, irregularity is induced in both energy density and transverse component of the pressure and becomes sharply peaked, and its pattern changes from an array to single kink.

## 4 Confined F1 Charge along the Tachyon Kink

In this section we consider the most general configuration of the static electromagnetic fields with $`x`$-dependence alone

$$𝐄=E_1(x)\widehat{𝐱}+E_2(x)\widehat{𝐲},B=B(x).$$
(4.1)
Since the system of our interest is still unstable D2-brane, we can use the formulas in Eqs. (3.1)–(3.8). If we insert Eq. (4.1) into the Faraday’s law (3.9), it forces constancy of $`y`$-component of the electric field $`E_2`$. Conjugate momenta $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ of the gauge fields are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{X}}}E_1,`$ (4.2)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T^2)E_2.`$ (4.3)
From time-component of the gauge equations (3.5), we see that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ should be a constant, while $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ need not be. Note that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ is nonzero only when the parallel component of the electric field $`E_2`$ is turned on. Now the $`y`$-component of the energy-momentum conservation $`_1T^{12}=0`$ is automatically satisfied and the $`x`$-component, $`_1T^{11}=0`$, gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{E_1}=T_2\frac{V(T)}{\sqrt{X}}=\mathrm{a}\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{constant},$$
(4.4)
so that $`x`$-component of the electric field $`E_1`$ is also a constant. The $`y`$-component of the gauge equations (3.5) dictates constancy of the magnetic field $`B`$. Therefore, all the electromagnetic fields $`(𝐄,B)`$ are actually independent of $`x`$. Then the remaining time-component of the energy-momentum conservation is also satisfied automatically: $`_1[(T_2V/\sqrt{X})(E_2+E_1B)B]=0`$.

Eliminating non-constant $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ in the remaining two equations (4.2)–(4.3), we can again summarize dynamics of our system by a single first-order equation as done in the previous sections

$$_{\mathrm{EM}}=\frac{1}{2}T^2+U_{\mathrm{EM}}(T),$$
(4.5)
where

$`_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1𝐄^2+B^2}{2(1E_2^2)}},`$ (4.6)
$`U_{\mathrm{EM}}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2E_1^2}{2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2(1E_2^2)}}V(T)^2={\displaystyle \frac{T_2^2E_1^2}{2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2(1E_2^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(T/T_0)}}.`$ (4.7)
In the limit of $`E_20`$ and $`B0`$, it is consistent with Eqs. (3.13)–(3.15). Therefore, all the solutions are classified by a set of four parameters, i.e., $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_1,E_1,E_2,B)`$ or $`(T_{11},E_1,E_2,B)`$ where

$$T_{11}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{E_1}(1E_2^2),$$
(4.8)
which has sign flip at the critical value of $`E_2=\pm 1`$.

In this setup, some components of the energy-momentum tensor are nonvanishing constants,

$`T_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{E_1}}ϵ_{0ij}E_jB,`$
$`T_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{E_1}}E_1E_2.`$ (4.9)
The other components of the the energy-momentum tensor have nontrivial $`x`$-dependence:

$`\rho T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T^2+B^2)`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(E_1^2B^2E_2^2)}{E_1(1E_2^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(1E_2^2)}}[T_2V(T)]^2`$
$``$ $`\rho _\mathrm{c}+\rho _\mathrm{l},`$
$`p_2T_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{X}}}(1+T^2E_1^2)`$ (4.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(E_1^2E_2^2B^2)}{E_1(1E_2^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(1E_2^2)}}[T_2V(T)]^2`$
$``$ $`p_{2\mathrm{c}}+p_{2\mathrm{l}}.`$
Note also that the string charge density $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ in the $`y`$-direction has essentially the same $`x`$-dependence,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1E_2(E_1^2B^2)}{E_1(1E_2^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_1E_2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(1E_2^2)}}[T_2V(T)]^2`$ (4.12)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2\mathrm{c}}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{2\mathrm{l}}.`$
These three inhomogeneous quantities, namely energy density (4.10), pressure (4.11), and string charge density (4.12) in $`y`$-direction share a few properties which may be related to confinement of D1F1: (i) They are composed of a constant and a common $`x`$-dependent part, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2\mathrm{l}}(x)=E_2\rho _\mathrm{l}(x)=E_2p_{2\mathrm{l}}(x)`$. (ii) The constant term is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ but the localized piece is inversely proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$. (iii) They have an overall multiplicative factor $`1/(1E_2^2)`$ so that they flip signature at the critical value $`E_2=\pm 1`$.

Now let us study solution spectra of Eqs. (4.5)–(4.7) in what follows. First, note that the coefficient of the potential term in Eq. (4.7) changes the sign at $`E_2^2=1`$. Therefore we will separately examine the system according to the value of $`E_2`$ (we assume $`E_20`$ with no loss of generality): $`0E_2<1`$, $`E_2=1`$ and $`E_2>1`$.

When $`E_2`$ is smaller than one, there is not much to do since Eq. (4.5) is essentially identical to that in the previous section. With some trivial replacements of parameters, we obtain the following result. (See Figs. 5 and 6 for the possible types of solutions.)

(i) When $`E_2<1`$ and $`1𝐄^2+B^2>T_2^2E_1^2/\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2`$, no solution exists.

(ii) When $`E_2<1`$ and $`1𝐄^2+B^2=T_2^2E_1^2/\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2`$, there is only a constant solution $`T(x)=0`$.

(iii) When $`E_2<1`$ and $`0<1𝐄^2+B^2<T_2^2E_1^2/\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2`$, we have the solution of kink-antikink array,

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{u^21}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{x}{\zeta _B}\right)\right],$$
(4.13)
where $`u`$ and $`\zeta _B`$ are defined by

$`u^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_1^2T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2|1𝐄^2+B^2|}},`$ (4.14)
$`\zeta _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{\sqrt{2|_{\mathrm{EM}}|}}}=\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1E_2^2}{1𝐄^2+B^2}}\right|}T_0.`$ (4.15)
Then the square of the tachyon potential $`V(T)^2`$, to which the localized pieces of $`\rho `$, $`p_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ are proportional, is given by

$$V^2(T(x))=\frac{1}{1+(u^21)\mathrm{sin}^2(x/\zeta _B)}.$$
(4.16)
From integration of the localized part of the energy density $`\rho (x)`$ along $`x`$-axis, we obtain the tension $`T_1`$ of codimension one object

$$T_1=\frac{\pi T_0T_2}{\sqrt{1E_2^2}},$$
(4.17)
which is larger than the previous case (3.22) by a multiplicative factor $`1/\sqrt{1E_2^2}`$. This is expected since the energy density of a Born-Infeld theory increases precisely by this factor when a constant electric field is turned on on the world volume.

In the limit of $`E_21`$, $`T_1`$ diverges and oscillation becomes rapid $`\zeta _B0`$ with infinite peak of the energy density. Let us take another limit $`\mathrm{\Pi }_10`$ which leads to $`u\mathrm{}`$ but $`\zeta _B`$ remains finite. Then $`V(T)^2`$ is written by a sum of $`\delta `$-functions so that we have

$`\rho (x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi T_0T_2}{\sqrt{1E_2^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta (x2\pi \zeta _B),`$ (4.18)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi T_0T_2E_2}{\sqrt{1E_2^2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta (x2\pi \zeta _B).`$ (4.19)
We can read the tension of each kink (or antikink) $`\pi T_0T_2/\sqrt{1E_2^2}`$ from Eq. (4.18) and string charge density of each kink $`\pi T_0T_2E_2/\sqrt{1E_2^2}`$ from Eq. (4.19).

(iv) When $`1𝐄^2+B^20`$, both $`u`$ and $`\zeta _B`$ diverge with finite ratio $`\zeta _B/u=\mathrm{\Pi }_1/T_2E_1`$. Since $`V(T)^2`$ takes a Lorentzian shape

$$V^2(T)\pi \frac{\zeta _B}{u}\frac{\zeta _B/\pi u}{x^2+(\zeta _B/u)^2},$$
(4.20)
so do the localized pieces of energy density (4.10), transverse pressure (4.11), and string charge density (4.12). This case corresponds to a single-kink solution as in the previous section. The configuration of tachyon kink is given by

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left(\frac{x}{\zeta _B}\right).$$
(4.21)
In this limit, the action (3.1) is rewritten again in a localized form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1𝐄^2+B^2+(1E_2^2)T^2}}`$ (4.22)
$`\stackrel{1𝐄^2+B^2=0}{=}`$ $`(\pm )\sqrt{1E_2^2}T_p{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑yV(T)T^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑y\sqrt{1E_2^2}T_p_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑TV(T)},`$ (4.23)
where $`+`$ ($``$) in the second line (4.22) corresponds to the kink (the antikink). In the third line (4.23) we obtain the same formula of tension (2.15) with the aforementioned overall factor $`\sqrt{1E_2^2}`$.

(v) Finally, when $`E_2<1`$ and $`1𝐄^2=B^2<0`$, we obtain the solution similar to Eq. (3.28). The details are omitted.

Now we consider the case $`E_2=1`$. In this case the solution is trivial since $`T^{}`$ disappears, for example, in Eq. (4.5) or in the tachyon equation of motion (3.4). Then the only remaining equation is $`V^{}(T)=0`$. Therefore there are only homogeneous solutions $`T=0`$ or $`T=\pm \mathrm{}`$.

As mentioned before, once the magnitude of $`E_2`$ is larger than 1, the property of our system changes drastically because of the sign flip of the potential $`U_{\mathrm{EM}}(T)`$ as shown in Fig. 7.

Similar to the analysis of the previous solutions, tachyon configurations are classified by the value of $`_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ (4.6). In fact, the solution configurations should be analogous to rolling tachyon solutions in unstable D2-brane with electromagnetic fields when $`1𝐄^2+B^20`$. From Eq. (3.1) the action of our system is rewritten as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1𝐄^2+B^2(E_2^21)\left(\frac{dT}{dx}\right)^2}}`$ (4.24)
$`=`$ $`T_2\sqrt{E_2^21}{\displaystyle 𝑑td\left(\frac{T_0x}{\zeta _B}\right)𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1\left[\frac{dT}{d(T_0x/\zeta _B)}\right]^2}}.`$
Note that the signature of $`x`$-direction flips when $`E_2>1`$. This action is actually exactly the same as that of rolling tachyon which is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_2{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1𝐄^2+B^2(1+B^2)\left(\frac{dT}{dt}\right)^2}}`$ (4.25)
$`=`$ $`T_2\sqrt{1+B^2}{\displaystyle d\left(\frac{T_0t}{\xi }\right)𝑑x𝑑yV(T)\sqrt{1\left[\frac{dT}{d(T_0t/\xi )}\right]^2}},`$
where

$$\xi =\sqrt{\frac{1+B^2}{1𝐄^2+B^2}}T_0.$$
(4.26)
Thus, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between a kink solution with spatial distribution and the time evolution of a homogeneous rolling tachyon solution. With this identification, the pressure $`T_{11}`$, in our system corresponds to the Hamiltonian density $``$, in the rolling tachyon system.

Now we describe the solutions in detail when $`E_2>1`$.

(i) As $`_{\mathrm{EM}}0^+`$, (i.e, $`𝐄^2B^21`$; see the dot-dashed lines in Figs. 79), static constant vacuum solution is allowed at $`T(x)=\pm \mathrm{}`$. Since the tachyon potential vanishes for $`T=\pm \mathrm{}`$, the localized terms in $`\rho (x)`$, $`p_2(x)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(x)`$ are all zero.

(ii) When the energy $`_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ is larger than zero but smaller than the top of tachyon potential (i.e., $`1(T_2E_1/\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^2<𝐄^2B^2<1`$; see the solid line in Fig. 7), there is a turning point $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ such that

$$|T|(x)T_{\mathrm{min}}=T_0\mathrm{arccosh}(u).$$
(4.27)
As shown by the solid curves in the Fig. 8, configuration is convex up (or convex down) so we will call this solution a tachyon bounce. Explicit form of the solution is given by

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{u^21}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{x}{\zeta _B}\right)\right],$$
(4.28)
where $`u`$ and $`\zeta _B`$ are given in Eqs. (4.14) and (4.15), respectively. Its asymptotic slopes are

$$T^{}(\pm \mathrm{})=\pm T_0/\zeta _B,$$
(4.29)
which are shown by the two solid straight lines in Fig. 8. Note that, since $`E_2>1`$, the localized parts of $`\rho (x)`$, $`p_2(x)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(x)`$ all flip their signs. For example, the energy density has positive constant term and a negative localized contribution near the origin (see the solid line in Fig. 9)

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(B^2E_2^2E_1^2)}{E_1(E_2^21)}\frac{E_1T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(E_2^21)}\frac{1}{1+(u^21)\mathrm{cosh}^2(x/\zeta _B)}.$$
(4.30)
Also it means that the transverse component of pressure $`p_2`$ is positive and the string charge density $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ is negative.

(iii) When the “energy” $`_{\mathrm{EM}}`$ is the same as the maximum of the “potential” $`U_{\mathrm{EM}}(0)`$, ($`𝐄^2B^2=1(T_2E_1/\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^2`$; see the dashed line in Fig. 7), we obtain the trivial vacuum ontop solution $`T(x)=0`$. In addition, there is also the tachyon “half-kink” (or “half-antikink”) solution which connects the unstable symmetric vacuum $`T(\mathrm{})=0`$ and a stable broken vacuum $`T(\mathrm{})=\pm \mathrm{}`$ (see the dashed curve in Fig. 8),

$$T(x)=\pm T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x}{\zeta _B}\right)\right].$$
(4.31)
Since the half-kink connects two vacua with different vacuum energy as $`V(T=0)>V(T=\pm \mathrm{})`$, the energy density is monotonically increasing (see the dashed curve in Fig. 9),

$$\rho (x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(B^2E_2^2E_1^2)}{E_1(E_2^21)}\frac{E_1T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(E_2^21)}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(2x/\zeta _B)}.$$
(4.32)
The transverse component of pressure $`p_2`$ and the string charge density $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ are also monotonic.

(iv) If $`_{\mathrm{EM}}>U_{EM}(0)`$, ($`𝐄^2B^2<1(T_2E_1/\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^2`$, see the dotted line in Fig. 7), we have

$$T(x)=T_0\mathrm{arcsinh}\left[\sqrt{1u^2}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{x}{\zeta _B}\right)\right].$$
(4.33)
Configuration is monotonically increasing (or decreasing) from $`T(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ to $`T(\mathrm{})=\pm \mathrm{}`$ (see also the dotted curve in Fig. 8). Opposite to the similar kink solutions in the previous section, slope of the solutions has minimum value at the origin, and maximum at infinity. This solution can be considered as two half-kink solutions joined at the origin. The energy density of this solution is given by

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(B^2E_2^2E_1^2)}{E_1(E_2^21)}\frac{E_1T_2^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(E_2^21)}\frac{1}{1+(1u^2)\mathrm{sinh}^2(x/\zeta _B)}.$$
(4.34)
It is plotted in Fig. 9 with the dotted line.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, static solutions have been investigated in Born-Infeld type tachyonic effective action with and without electromagnetic fields.

In pure tachyonic theory, we have shown that the periodic array of tachyon kink-antikinks is the unique static regular solution. In the limit of vanishing pressure along the array, the solution becomes an array of step functions with an infinite gap. The values of tension of single unit kink (or antikink) $`T_{p1}=\sqrt{2}\pi T_p`$ and period remain constant irrespective of the value of pressure.

When the electrostatic field orthogonal to the tachyon soliton is turned on in an unstable D2-brane, a periodic array, and regular topological tachyon kinks are obtained, classified by the value of electric field with fixed conjugate momentum. For a given electric field, taking limit of vanishing conjugate momentum leads to singular limit where both energy density and transverse component of pressure are given by sum of $`\delta `$-functions or a $`\delta `$-function. When the electric field is smaller than or equal to critical value, tension is $`T_{p1}=\sqrt{2}\pi T_p`$. When the electric field is larger than the critical value, a multiplicative factor depending on the value of electric field appears.

For the general case with both electric and magnetic fields, spectra of solutions are specified by four parameters, three components of electromagnetic fields and one pressure component along the soliton, and divided into two classes by transverse component of electric field. When it is smaller than critical value, the spectra of solitons are exactly the same as the cases of pure electric field, i.e., they are periodic array of tachyon kink-antikinks and topological tachyon kinks. Minor difference appears in the constant scales and the tension. Major difference is that they carry confined component of F1 charge density so that each kink is presumably a D1F1. When the transverse component of electric field is larger than critical value, we additionally found half-kink connecting unstable and stable vacua, tachyon bounce, and topological tachyon kink.

The topological tachyon kink at the critical value of the electric field orthogonal to the tachyon soliton seems to be a BPS object, but it should be addressed in future works by obtaining its worldvolume action and checking existing supersymmetry as has been done in Ref. .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank O-Kab Kwon, Ashoke Sen, and Piljin Yi for valuable discussions and comments. This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant KRF-2002-070-C00025(C.K.) and is the result of research activities (Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) and the Basic Research Program, R01-2000-000-00021-0) supported by Korea Science $`\&`$ Engineering Foundation(Y.K.).


format: text

text:
# An improved gamma-ray limit on the density of primordial black holes

(Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, CNRS-IN2P3/UJF
53, av des Martyrs, 38026 Grenoble Cedex, FRANCE
)
Abstract

Gamma-rays are, with antiprotons, a very efficient way to derive upper limits on the density of evaporating black holes. They have been successfully used in the last decades to severely constrain the amount of Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) in our Universe. This article suggests a little refinement, based on the expected background, to improve this limit by a factor of three. The resulting value is : $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}<3.3\times 10^9`$.

Small black holes could have formed in the early Universe if the density contrast was high enough (typically $`\delta >0.30.7`$ , depending on models). Since it was discovered by Hawking  that they should evaporate with a black-body like spectrum of temperature $`T=\mathrm{}c^3/(8\pi kGM)`$, the emitted cosmic rays have been considered as the natural way, if any, to detect them. Those with initial masses smaller than $`M_{}5\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}`$ should have finished their evaporation by now whereas those with masses greater than a few times $`M_{}`$ do emit nothing but extremely low energy massless fields. The emission spectrum for particles of energy $`Q`$ per unit of time $`t`$ is, for each degree of freedom, given by :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}Q\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}{h\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Q}{h\kappa /4\pi ^2c}\right)(1)^{2s}\right)}$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity, $`s`$ is the spin of the emitted species and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is the absorption probability proportional to $`M^2Q^2`$ in the high energy limit (contributions of angular velocity and electric potential have been neglected since the black hole discharges and finishes its rotation much faster than it evaporates). PBHs have been investigated for many different purposes, including tests for quantum gravity  that are especially active nowadays.

As was shown by MacGibbon and Webber , when the black hole temperature is greater than the quantum chromodynamics confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, quark and gluon jets are emitted instead of composite hadrons. This should be taken into account when computing the cosmic-ray flux expected from their evaporation. Among all the emitted particles, two species are especially interesting : gamma-rays around 100 MeV because the Universe is very transparent to those wavelengths and because the flux from PBHs becomes softer ($`E^3`$ instead of $`E^1`$) above this energy, and antiprotons around 0.1-1 GeV  because the natural background due to spallation of protons and helium nuclei on the interstellar medium is very small and fairly well known. This article aims at taking into account the contribution from blazars as well as from normal galaxies in the gamma-ray background to reduce the available window for PBHs.

Computing the contributions both from the direct electromagnetic emission and from the major component resulting from the decay of neutral pions, the gamma-ray spectrum from a given distribution of PBHs can be compared with measurements.

The flux on Earth can be written as:

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{dEdt}=\frac{1}{2}_{t_{form}}^{t_0}\left(\frac{R(t)}{R_{form}}\right)e^{\tau (t,E)}_{M_{}(t)}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^2\varphi }{dEdt}(M(t,M_i),E^{}=E\frac{R_0}{R})\frac{d^2n}{dM_idV}𝑑M_ic𝑑t$$

where $`t_{form}`$ is the formation time, $`t_0`$ is the age of the Universe, $`\tau `$ is the optical depth, $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor of the Universe at time $`t`$, $`\varphi `$ is the individual gamma spectrum from a PBH and $`d^2n/dM_idV`$ is the initial mass spectrum. When compared with the observations, this translates (in units of critical density) into  : $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}(M_{})<1.0\times 10^8`$, bettering substantially previous estimates .

This limit can be improved when taking into account the ”guaranteed” gamma-ray background. Computing the contribution from unresolved blazars and the emission from normal galaxies, Pavlidou & Fields  have estimated the minimum amount of extragalactic gamma-rays which should be expected. The first one was computed using the Stecker-Salamon model and the second one is assumed to be proportional to the massive star formation rate (which is itself proportional to the supernovae explosion rate) as it is due to cosmic-ray interactions with diffuse gas. This background at 100 MeV is estimated at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TH}=5.45\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. Using the Carr & MacGibbon estimation at the same energy  $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{PBH}=7.5\times 10^6\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, a new limit can be obtained by requiring that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{PBH}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{TH}<\mathrm{\Phi }_{EGRET}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{EGRET}`$ is the measured flux . To evaluate this later in a very conservative way, both the normalisation and the spectral index were chosen (within the error bars) in this paper at the value leading to the highest 100 MeV flux : $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{EGRET}<7.94\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. This leads to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}(M_{})<3.3\times 10^9`$.

From the cosmological point of view, this new limit improves directly the estimates of the maximum allowed PBH mass fraction $`\beta `$:

$$\beta (M_H)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _H(t_k)}_{\delta _{min}}^{\delta _{max}}e^{\frac{\delta ^2}{2\sigma _H^2(t_k)}}\text{d}\delta \frac{\sigma _H(t_k)}{\sqrt{2\pi }\delta _{min}}e^{\frac{\delta _{min}^2}{2\sigma _H^2(t_k)}},$$

where $`t_k`$ is the horizon crossing time for the considered mode, $`\delta `$ the density contrast ($`\delta _{min}0.7`$), $`M_H`$ is the Hubble mass at $`t_k`$ and $`\sigma _H^2(t_k)\sigma ^2(R)|_{t_k}`$ where $`\sigma ^2(R)<(\frac{\delta M}{M})_R^2>`$ is computed with a filtering window function with $`R=\frac{H^1}{a}|_{t_k}`$. The latest computations  relate this value to the density parameter by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}(M)h^2=6.35\times 10^{16}\times \beta (M)\left(\frac{10^{15}g}{M}\right).$$

Our new limit leads to $`\beta (M_{})<1.3\times 10^{26}`$ which is compatible with antiprotons estimations  and remains the only observational access to such small scales in the early Universe.

Measurements from the GLAST satellite and more refined theoretical predictions on the background could slightly improve these results but both gamma-rays and antiprotons seem to have closed their detection windows. One of the last hopes could reside in antideuterons which are very rarely induced by spallation below 1 GeV for kinematical reasons .


text:
# Fluctuations and Deconfinement Phase Transition in Nucleus–Nucleus Collisions

## Abstract

We propose a method to experimentally study the equation of state of strongly interacting matter created at the early stage of nucleus–nucleus collisions. The method exploits the relation between relative entropy and energy fluctuations and equation of state. As a measurable quantity, the ratio of properly filtered multiplicity to energy fluctuations is proposed. Within a statistical approach to the early stage of nucleus-nucleus collisions, the fluctuation ratio manifests a non–monotonic collision energy dependence with a maximum in the domain where the onset of deconfinement occurs.

1. Nucleus–nucleus (A+A) collisions at high energies provide a unique opportunity to study properties of strongly interacting matter which at sufficiently high energy density is predicted to exist in a deconfined or quark-gluon-plasma phase. Success of the statistical models to strong interactions  suggests that the system created in these collisions is close to thermodynamical equilibrium. Consequently, the properties of the matter are naturally expressed in terms of its equation of state (EoS) which in turn is sensitive to possible phase transitions. Increasing the energy of nuclear collisions, one expects to achieve at the collision early stage higher and higher energy density that at a certain point is sufficient for creation of the quark-gluon plasma. Then, EoS should experience a qualitative change. Observing a clear signal of this change is among main tasks of the whole experimental program of study A+A collisions. The task, however, has appeared rather difficult. It is far not simple to express thermodynamical characteristics at the early stage through the directly measurable quantities. The entropy is of particular interest, as it is believed to be conserved during the expansion of the matter, and several methods to determine it experimentally have been suggested . Other observables, which may be sensitive to the EoS of the early stage matter, have been also proposed. Transverse momentum spectra , two pion correlations , anisotropic flow  and strangeness production  are discussed in this context.

2. The recently measured energy dependence of the pion multiplicity, which is related to the system’s entropy, and kaon (system’s strangeness) production in central Pb+Pb collisions  show the changes which are consistent with the hypothesis  that a transient state of deconfined matter is created at the collision energies higher than about 30 A$``$GeV in fixed target experiments. This conclusion is reached within the Statistical Model of the Early Stage, SMES , which assumes creation of the matter (in confined, mixed or deconfined phase) at early stage of the collision according to the maximum entropy principle.

3. In this letter we propose a new method of study of EoS which uses the ratio of properly filtered multiplicity and energy fluctuations as directly measurable quantity and refers to SMES  as a physical framework. Within this model the ratio is directly related to the fluctuations of the early stage entropy and energy and thus is sensitive to the EoS of the early stage matter. We show here that the model predicts a non-monotonic energy dependence of the ratio with the maximum where the onset of deconfinement occurs.

4. In thermodynamics, the energy $`E`$, volume $`V`$ and entropy $`S`$ are related to each other through EoS. Thus, various values of the energy of the initial equilibrium state lead to different, but uniquely determined, initial entropies. When the collision energy is fixed the energy, which is used for particle production, still fluctuates. These fluctuations of the inelastic energy are caused by the fluctuations in the dynamical process which leads to the particle production. They are called here the dynamical energy fluctuations. Clearly, the dynamical energy fluctuations lead to the dynamical fluctuations of entropy, and the relation between them is, in the thermodynamical approach, given by EoS. Consequently, simultaneous event–by–event measurements of both the entropy and energy should yield an information on EoS. Since EoS manifests an anomalous behavior in a phase transition region the anomaly should be also visible in the ratio of entropy to energy fluctuations.

5. The energy and entropy can be defined in any form of matter, confined, mixed and deconfined, in the collision early stage and in the system’s final state. If the produced matter can be treated as an isolated system, the energy is obviously conserved. The entropy is also expected to be conserved during the system’s expansion and freeze–out. However, there is a significant difference between the two quantities. While the energy is defined for every event the entropy refers to an ensemble of events.

6. Since we are going to discuss the collision energy dependence of the fluctuations within the SMES , let us present the model’s basic assumptions. The volume, $`V`$, where the matter in confined, mixed or deconfined state is produced at the collision early stage, is given by the Lorentz contracted volume occupied by wounded nucleons. For the most central collisions the number of wounded nucleons $`N_W2A`$. The net baryonic number of the created matter equals zero. Even in the most central A+A collisions, only a fraction of the total collision energy is used for a particle production. The rest is taken away by the baryons which contribute to the baryon net number.

7. The fluctuations occurring in the collision early stage, which are local in coordinate or momentum space, are washed out, at least partially, in the course of temporal evolution of the fireball due to relaxation processes such as particle diffusion, see e.g. . This probably explains why the electric charge fluctuations generated at the QGP phase , which are significantly smaller than those in the hadron phase, are not seen in the experimental data . It should be stressed, however, that the relaxation processes are irrelevant for our considerations as we are interested in the fluctuations of total inelastic energy and entropy of the system created at the collision early stage. Because of the exact energy and approximate entropy conservation the fluctuations observed in the final state equal to the early stage fluctuations. We assume here that all produced particles are detected but further we relax this assumption. The inelastic energy deposited in the fireball for the particle production should not be confused with the collision energy. While the former one fluctuates the latter is fixed and it does not fluctuate at all.

8. We denote by $`\delta E`$ the event–by–event deviations of the energy from its average value $`E`$ caused by the dynamical fluctuations which occur in the thermalization process. We assume that $`\delta EE`$. As $`E=\epsilon V`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy density. One has $`\delta E=V\delta \epsilon +\epsilon \delta V,`$ i.e. the change of the system’s energy is due to the changes of the system’s energy density and volume which are considered further as two independent thermodynamical variables. The energy density is usually a unique function of the temperature, $`T`$, but when the system experiences a first order phase transition, $`\epsilon `$ in the mixed phase depends on the relative abundance of each phase.

9. According to the first and the second principles of thermodynamics, the entropy change $`\delta S`$ is given as $`T\delta S=\delta E+p\delta V`$, which provides $`T\delta S=V\delta \epsilon +(p+\epsilon )\delta V`$, where $`p`$ is the pressure. Using the identity $`TS=E+pV`$ one finds

$$\frac{\delta S}{S}=\frac{1}{1+p/\epsilon }\frac{\delta \epsilon }{\epsilon }+\frac{\delta V}{V}.$$
(1)
10. When $`\delta \epsilon =0`$, i.e. when the fluctuations of the initial energy and entropy are entirely due to the volume fluctuations at a constant energy density, Eq. (1) provides: $`\delta S/S=\delta V/V=\delta E/E`$. Thus, the relative dynamical fluctuations of entropy are exactly equal to those of energy and they are insensitive to the form of EoS. The $`\delta \epsilon =0`$ limit may serve as an approximation for all inelastic A+A collisions where fluctuations of the collision geometry dominate all other fluctuations. This case, however, is not interesting from our point of view.

11. When $`\delta V=0`$ the fluctuations of the initial energy, $`\delta E`$, are entirely due to the energy density fluctuations. In this case Eq. (1) gives:

$$\frac{\delta S}{S}=\frac{\delta E}{E}\frac{1}{1+p/\epsilon }.$$
(2)
As seen, $`\delta S/S`$ is now sensitive, via the factor $`(1+p/\epsilon )^1`$, to the EoS at the early stage of A+A collision. We are interested just in such a situation.

12. The number of wounded nucleons can, in principle, be measured on the event–by–event basis. This can be achieved by measuring the number of spectator nucleons, $`N_S`$, in the so-called zero degree calorimeter, used in many experiments. Then, $`N_W2(AN_S)`$. Selecting the most central events, we can neglect contribution from the impact parameter variation. Since the system’s volume, as defined in SMES, is then fixed the entropy fluctuations are given by Eq. (2).

13. To study the entropy fluctuations it appears convenient to introduce the ratio of relative fluctuations:

$$R_e\frac{(\delta S)^2/S^2}{(\delta E)^2/E^2}=\left(1+\frac{p}{\epsilon }\right)^2,$$
(3)
which qualitatively behaves as follows. The ratio $`p/\epsilon `$ is about $`1/3`$ in both the confined phase and in the hot quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Then, $`R_e(3/4)^20.56`$ and it is rather independent of the collision energy except the domain where the initially created matter experiences the deconfinement phase transition. An exact nature of the transition is unknown but modelling of the transition by means of the lattice QCD  shows a very rapid change of the $`p/\epsilon `$ ratio in a narrow temperature interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }T5`$ MeV where the energy density grows by about an order of magnitude whereas the pressure remains nearly unchanged. One refers to this temperature interval as a ‘generalized mixed phase’. The ratio $`p/\epsilon `$ reaches minimum at the so-called softest point of the EoS  which corresponds to a maximum of $`R_e1`$. Consequently, we expect a non–monotonic behavior of the ratio $`R_e`$ as a function of the collision energy.

14. The energy dependence of the fluctuation ratio $`R_e`$ calculated within SMES  (using its standard values of all parameters) is shown in Fig. 1. We repeat here that the model correctly reproduces the energy dependence of pion and strangeness production and it relates experimentally observed anomalies to the onset of deconfinement. Within the model, the confined matter, which is modelled as an ideal gas, is created at the collision early stage below the energy of 30 A$``$GeV. In this domain, the ratio $`R_e`$ is approximately independent of collision energy and equals about 0.6. The model assumes that the deconfinement phase-transition is of the first order. Thus, there is the mixed phase region, corresponding to the energy interval 35$`÷`$60 A$``$GeV, where $`R_e`$ ratio increases and reaches its maximum, $`R_e0.8`$, at the end of the transition domain. Further on, in the pure QGP phase represented by an ideal quark-gluon gas under bag pressure, the ratio decreases and $`R_e`$ approaches its asymptotic value 0.56 at the highest SPS energy 160A$``$GeV. Small deviations from $`p=\epsilon /3`$ are in SMES due to non-zero masses of strange degrees of freedom, both in confined and deconfined phases, and due to the bag pressure in QGP. The two effects can be safely neglected at $`TT_c`$.

15. In principle, the initial energy fluctuations might be sizable while our analysis holds for infinitesimally small fluctuations as the ratio $`R_e`$ (3) is defined above by introducing the dynamical energy fluctuations $`\delta E`$ and we use thermodynamical identities to calculate the entropy fluctuations $`\delta S`$. However, the calculations with explicit initial energy distribution show that the finite size of initial energy fluctuations does not much change our results. The dependence of $`R_e`$ on the collision energy shown in Fig. 1 remains essentially the same. The only difference is a ‘smooth’ behavior of $`R_e(F)`$ near the maximum.

16. The early stage energy and entropy fluctuations are not directly observable, however, as we discuss in the remaining part of the paper, $`R_e`$ can be inferred from the experimentally accessible information. Since the energy of an isolated system is a conserved quantity, one measures the initial energy deposited for the particle production, summing up the final state energies of all produced particles. The system’s entropy is not strictly conserved but, as already discussed, it is approximately conserved. Therefore, the final state entropy of all produced particles is close to the initial entropy. The entropy cannot be directly measured but it can be expressed through measurable quantities.

17. As well known, the system’s entropy is related to the mean particle multiplicity. For example, $`\overline{N}=S/3.6`$ in the ideal gas of massless bosons. The relation is, in general, more complex but we assume that the final state mean multiplicity is proportional to the initial state entropy, i.e. $`\overline{N}S`$. With the over-bar we denote averaging over events that have identical initial conditions (the same amount of energy is deposited for the particle production). It is clear that for the class of events with a fixed value of $`\overline{N}`$, the multiplicity $`N`$ measured in each event fluctuates around $`\overline{N}`$. These are statistical but not dynamical fluctuations. We note that particle multiplicity can be determined for every event, in contrast to the entropy which is defined by averaging of hadron multiplicities in the ensemble of events. Since $`\overline{N}S`$, we get: $`\delta S/S=\delta \overline{N}/\overline{N}`$. Thus, the dynamical entropy fluctuations are equal to the dynamical fluctuations of the mean multiplicity. It is crucial to distinguish the dynamical fluctuations of $`\overline{N}`$ from the statistical fluctuations of $`N`$ around $`\overline{N}`$. We clarify this point below.

18. The multiplicity $`N`$ measured on event–by–event basis varies not only due to the dynamical fluctuations at a collision early stage but predominately due to the statistical fluctuations at freeze–out. Thus, the final multiplicity distribution, $`𝒫(N)`$, is given by:

$$𝒫(N)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{N}W(\overline{N})P_{\overline{N}}(N),$$
(4)
where $`W(\overline{N})`$ describes fluctuations of $`\overline{N}`$ due to dynamical fluctuations of $`E`$, and $`P_{\overline{N}}(N)`$ is the statistical probability distribution of $`N`$ for a given $`\overline{N}`$. The finally measured mean value of an observable $`f(N)`$ results from averaging over the $`W`$ and $`P`$ distributions as

$$f_N\underset{N}{}f(N)𝒫(N)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{N}W(\overline{N})\underset{N}{}f(N)P_{\overline{N}}(N)\overline{f(N)}.$$
(5)
Thus, the complete averaging, $`\mathrm{}`$, is done in two steps: first – the statistical, $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_N\mathrm{}P_{\overline{N}}(N)`$, and second – the dynamical averaging, $`\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{N}\mathrm{}W(\overline{N})`$, one after another. One easily shows that

$$N=\overline{N},(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2N^2N^2=(\delta \overline{N})^2+(\delta N)^2,$$
(6)
where $`(\delta \overline{N})^2\overline{N}^2\overline{N}^2`$ and $`(\delta N)^2\overline{N^2}\overline{N}^2`$. Thus, the total fluctuations $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2`$, which are experimentally measured, are equal to the sum of the dynamical (early stage) fluctuations $`(\delta \overline{N})^2`$ and the dynamically averaged statistical fluctuations $`(\delta N)^2`$ at freeze–out.

19. We have considered above the ideal detector which measures all produced particles. A real detector, however, measures only a fraction of them, say charged particles in the limited momentum acceptance of the detector. Let us denote the mean energy and multiplicity of accepted particles as $`\overline{E}_A`$ and $`\overline{N}_A`$. We assume that

$$\frac{\delta \overline{E}_A}{\overline{E}_A}=\frac{\delta E}{E},\frac{\delta \overline{N}_A}{\overline{N}_A}=\frac{\delta S}{S},$$
(7)
i.e. relative dynamical fluctuations of the mean energy and mean multiplicity of accepted particles are equal to the relative dynamical fluctuations of the total energy and entropy in the initial state. In our further considerations, we will omit the index ‘$`A`$’, however, it is understood that we deal with the accepted particles.

20. There is a simple procedure to eliminate the statistical fluctuations, and thus, to extract the dynamical fluctuations of interest from the measured fluctuations, if $`P_{\overline{N}}(N)`$ is the Poisson distribution. Then, $`(\delta N)^2=\overline{N}`$, and $`(\delta \overline{N})^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2N`$. Therefore, the relative dynamical fluctuations are expressed through the total relative fluctuations as

$$\left(\frac{\delta \overline{N}}{N}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{N}\right)^2\frac{1}{N}.$$
(8)
The distribution of energy $`E`$ of the system of several particles is assumed to be of the form

$$𝒫(E)=\underset{N}{}𝑑\zeta W(\zeta )P_\zeta (N)𝑑\omega _1P_\zeta (\omega _1)\mathrm{}𝑑\omega _NP_\zeta (\omega _N)\delta (E\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _i),$$
(9)
where $`W(\zeta )`$ describes dynamical fluctuations of the parameter $`\zeta `$ which controls the multiplicity and energy fluctuations. In principle, $`\zeta `$ can be understood as a whole set of parameters. $`P_\zeta (N)`$ is the multiplicity and $`P_\zeta (\omega )`$ single particle energy distribution, both giving the statistical fluctuations. One easily finds that

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{N}\overline{\omega },`$ (10)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2`$ $``$ $`E^2E^2=(\delta \overline{E})^2+(\delta E)^2,`$ (11)
where $`\overline{\omega ^n}𝑑\omega \omega ^nP_\zeta (\omega )`$ and

$`(\delta \overline{E})^2`$ $``$ $`\overline{E}^2\overline{E}^2=(\overline{N}\overline{\omega })^2\overline{N}\overline{\omega }^2,`$ (12)
$`(\delta E)^2`$ $``$ $`\overline{E^2}\overline{E}^2=\overline{N}(\overline{\omega ^2}\overline{\omega }^2)+(\overline{N^2}\overline{N}^2)\overline{\omega }^2.`$ (13)
One sees that $`\delta \overline{E}=0`$ for vanishing dynamical fluctuations i.e. when $`W(\zeta )=\delta (\zeta \zeta _0)`$. Assuming again that the multiplicity distribution $`P_\zeta (N)`$ is poissonian, then $`\overline{N^2}\overline{N}^2=\overline{N}`$, and $`(\delta E)^2`$ reads

$$(\delta E)^2=\overline{N}\overline{\omega ^2}=N𝑑\omega \omega ^2P_{\mathrm{incl}}(\omega ),$$
(14)
where $`P_{\mathrm{incl}}(\omega )`$ is the single particle inclusive energy distribution defined as

$$P_{\mathrm{incl}}(\omega )\frac{1}{N}\underset{N}{}N𝑑\zeta W(\zeta )P_\zeta (N)P_\zeta (\omega ).$$
(15)
Thus, the relative dynamical fluctuations of energy equal

$$\left(\frac{\delta \overline{E}}{E}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}\right)^2\frac{\lambda }{N},$$
(16)
where

$$\lambda \frac{𝑑\omega \omega ^2P_{\mathrm{incl}}(\omega )}{\left(𝑑\omega \omega P_{\mathrm{incl}}(\omega )\right)^2}.$$
(17)
21. In general, the statistical fluctuations are not poissonian, and a priori their form is even not known. The dynamical fluctuations can be then measured by means of the so–called sub–event method  where one considers two different, non-overlapping but dynamically equivalent regions of the momentum space ‘1’ and ‘2’. These can be two equal to each other non-overlapping rapidity intervals symmetric with respect to the center–of–mass rapidity. Let $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are the numbers of hadrons (e.g. negative pions) in these regions. There is a principal difference between the dynamical and statistical fluctuations discussed above. The statistical event–by–event fluctuations of $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ in different parts of the momentum space are uncorrelated: $`P(N_1,N_2)=P_1(N_1)P_2(N_2)`$. The dynamical fluctuations represent, according to Eq. (7), a correlated change of the average particle numbers $`\overline{N}_1`$ and $`\overline{N}_2`$ with that of total entropy. Since these average values are equal to each other, $`\overline{N}_1=\overline{N}_2\overline{N}`$ (the regions ‘1’ and ‘2’ are dynamically equivalent), the distributions of statistical fluctuations are also the same: $`P_1(N_1)P_{\overline{N}}(N_1)`$ and $`P_2(N_2)P_{\overline{N}}(N_2)`$. Therefore, the total probability for detecting $`N_1`$ particles in the region ‘1’ and $`N_2`$ particles in the region ‘2’ is

$$𝒫(N_1,N_2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{N}W(\overline{N})P_{\overline{N}}(N_1)P_{\overline{N}}(N_2),$$
(18)
and the total averaging of an observable $`f(N_1,N_2)`$ provides:

$`f(N_1,N_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N_1,N_2}{}}f(N_1,N_2)𝒫(N_1,N_2)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{N}W(\overline{N}){\displaystyle \underset{N_1,N_2}{}}f(N_1,N_2)P_{\overline{N}}(N_1)P_{\overline{N}}(N_2).`$ (20)
It follows from Eq. (19) that

$$\frac{1}{2}(N_1N_2)^2=\overline{N^2}\overline{N}^2(\delta N)^2.$$
(21)
Therefore, measuring the total fluctuations of $`(N_1N_2)/2`$, one obtains the dynamically averaged statistical fluctuations in the region ‘1’ (equal to that in the region ‘2’). Subtracting $`(\delta N)^2`$ from the total fluctuations in this region, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2`$, one finds the dynamical part, $`(\delta \overline{N})^2`$, of interest. Similar analysis can be performed to get the dynamical energy fluctuations.

22. We have assumed that only dynamical fluctuations generated at the collision early stage lead to the particle correlations in the final state. Of course, it is not quite true. The effects of quantum statistics also lead to the inter-particle correlations. However, the correlation range in the momentum space is in this case rather small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ 100 MeV/$`c`$. The contribution of these effects can be accounted in $`(\delta N)^2`$ if the selected acceptance regions are separated by the distance significantly larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$.

23. There are also long range correlations which have nothing to do with the early stage dynamical correlations and cannot be accounted in $`(\delta N)^2`$ by the sub-event method described above. In particular, there are correlations due to conservation laws. Those can be effectively eliminated if one studies only a small part of a whole system which is constrained by the conservation laws.

24. A large fraction of the final state particles comes from the decays of various hadron resonances. The existence of resonances decaying into at least two hadrons enlarges the final state multiplicity fluctuations. This effect can not be eliminated by use of the sub-event method. It is because the decay products are correlated at the scale of approximately one rapidity unit which at the SPS energy domain is comparable to the width of rapidity distribution. To remove bias due to resonance production and decay, we suggest to study the fluctuations of negatively charged hadrons as typically only one negatively charged hadron comes from a single resonance decay.

25. In summary, we propose a new method to study the equation of state of strongly interacting matter produced at the early stage of nucleus–nucleus collisions. The method exploits the properly filtered relative fluctuations of multiplicity and energy. Within the Statistical Model of the Early Stage  this ratio is directly related to the fluctuations of the early stage entropy and energy and thus is sensitive to the EoS of the early stage matter. We show that within the model the ratio is a non–monotonic function of the collision energy with the maximum at the end of the mixed phase ($`60`$ A$``$GeV). Consequently, it can be considered as a further signal of deconfinement phase transition.

We are grateful to Maciek Rybczyński and Zbyszek Włodarczyk for stimulating criticism. Partial support by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (M. G.) and by Polish Committee of Scientific Research under grant 2P03B04123 (M. G. and St. M.) is acknowledged.


text:
# Resolving the Microlens Mass Degeneracy for Earth-Mass Planets

## 1. Introduction

Among all proposed methods to search for extra-solar planets, only microlensing has the property that the intrinsic amplitude of the planetary signature remains constant as the planet mass decreases. Hence, with the notable exception of pulsar timing (Wolszczan, 1994), microlensing can in principle probe to lower masses than any other technique. A microlensing space mission that was of similar scale to the transit missions Kepler111http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/ and Eddington222http://sci.esa.int/home/eddington/index.cfm or to the astrometry satellite Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)333http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim\_index.html would be sensitive to Mars-mass companions (Bennett & Rhie, 2002), a decade or two below these other techniques. Furthermore, any microlensing detections of terrestrial planets are expected to be at significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), and thus will be more robust to unforeseen systematic errors. Hence, microlensing can potentially play a major role in determining the frequency of terrestrial planets around main-sequence stars. An accurate assessment of this frequency is a key requirement for the design of the Terrestrial Planet Finder444http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf\_index.html, which will ultimately take images and spectra of such planets.

Unfortunately, while microlensing can detect planets of very low mass, there has not seemed to be any way to measure the masses of those planets to better than a factor of a few: although microlensing light curves automatically yield the planet-star mass ratio $`q=m_p/M`$, the stellar mass itself is unknown due to the classic microlensing degeneracy. This degeneracy arises from the fact that among the three microlensing “observables”, the Einstein timescale $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, the angular Einstein radius $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, and the projected Einstein radius $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$, only $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is routinely extractable from the microlensing light curve. These three observables are related to the three underlying physical parameters, $`M`$, $`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}`$, and $`\mu _{\mathrm{rel}}`$, by

$$t_\mathrm{E}=\frac{\theta _\mathrm{E}}{\mu _{\mathrm{rel}}},\theta _\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4GM\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}}{c^2\mathrm{AU}}},\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}=\sqrt{\frac{4GM\mathrm{AU}}{c^2\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}}}.$$
(1)
Here, $`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{rel}}`$ are the source-lens relative parallax and proper motion. To determine the mass would require measurement of the other two observables: $`M=(c^2/4G)\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. To date, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ have been measured for only about a dozen events each out of the more than 1000 so far discovered, and only for one event have both been measured, thus yielding the mass (An et al. 2002 and references therein).

Although several methods to partially break the microlensing mass degeneracy in special instances have been proposed (Gaudi & Gould, 1997; Rattenbury et al., 2002; Bennett & Rhie, 2002), so far there has only been one idea to do so for a large, representative ensemble of events. Gould & Salim (1992) showed that by combining observations from the ground and the solar-orbiting SIM, one could measure $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ astrometrically and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$ photometrically and so routinely measure the mass. Unfortunately, this technique cannot be applied to terrestrial-planet microlensing events, even in principle. Terrestrial planets can only be detected in events of main-sequence source stars. For giant sources, the planetary microlensing pattern would be much smaller than the source and so would be undetectable (Bennett & Rhie, 2002). Because of its small aperture, SIM cannot observe Galactic-bulge main-sequence stars to the required precision.

Here we present a new method to measure microlens masses for terrestrial planets. The method requires only a modest adjustment to the orbit of a microlensing planet-finder satellite and combining its observations with a ground-based observing program.

## 2. Microlensing Parameters from a Single Observer

To understand how $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ can both be measured for terrestrial planets, one should first take a careful inventory of what parameters are automatically measured from planetary microlensing events detected from a planet-finder satellite.

From the width, height and peak time of the underlying event due to the primary, one obtains the three standard microlensing parameters $`t_\mathrm{E}`$, $`u_0`$, and $`t_0`$, where the latter two are the dimensionless impact parameter and time of maximum (Paczyński, 1986). In addition to these usual three parameters, one additional parameter of the primary event can also be routinely measured: the parallax asymmetry $`\gamma `$. The Earth’s acceleration during the event induces parallax effects on the lightcurve. If the event lasts a substantial fraction of a year, then these effects can be used to measure both components of the vector microlens parallax (Gould, 1992). However, for more typical short events, the effect reduces to an asymmetry in the light curve (Gould, Miralda-Escudé & Bahcall, 1994). This parallax asymmetry is in effect a projection of the full vector parallax, and as such is described by a single parameter, $`\gamma `$,

$$\gamma a_{}\frac{t_\mathrm{E}}{\stackrel{~}{v}}\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{v}\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}}{t_\mathrm{E}},a_{}\frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{AU}}{\mathrm{yr}^2}.$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{AU}\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ is the length of the Earth-Sun separation projected onto the plane of the sky, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the source trajectory and this projected separation, and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ is the source-lens relative speed projected onto the observer plane. For the typical timescales and projected velocities of events toward the Galactic bulge, $`t_\mathrm{E}20\mathrm{days}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}800\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the parallax asymmetries would appear to be unmeasurable small, $`\gamma 10^2`$. However, high-cadence $`(f144\mathrm{day}^1)`$, high-precision ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{ph}}0.01\mathrm{mag}`$) continuous photometric monitoring is required to detect terrestrial planets in the first place (Bennett & Rhie, 2002). As a by-product of such photometry, it should be possible to measure such small parallax asymmetries. Gould (1998) showed that $`\gamma `$ can be measured with S/N

$$\frac{|\gamma |}{\sigma _\gamma }=12\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{ph}}}{0.01}\right)^1\left(\frac{f}{144\mathrm{day}^1}\right)^1\left[\frac{S(u_0)}{3}\right]^1$$
(3)
$$\times \left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{v}}{800\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^1\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{E}}{20\mathrm{days}}\right)^{3/2}\frac{|\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi |}{0.5},$$

where for observation streams beginning and ending well beyond the event, $`S`$ varies monotonically from $`S(0)=2.1`$ to $`S(0.7)=4.4`$. Thus except near June 21 when $`\mathrm{cos}\psi 0.1`$ for observations toward the Galactic bulge, and except for extremely short events, it should be possible to routinely measure $`\gamma `$ with good S/N.

For all planetary events, it is generally possible to measure an additional three parameters. Planets generally induce a short-duration deviation to an otherwise unperturbed standard microlensing event. From the duration, peak time, and size and shape of the planetary perturbation, one obtains the planet-star mass ratio $`q`$, the angle $`\alpha `$ of the planet-star projected separation relative to the source trajectory, and the angular planet-star separation in units of $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ (Gould & Loeb, 1992).

Finally, for terrestrial planets it should be possible to routinely measure one additional parameter: $`\rho _{}\theta _{}/\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, where $`\theta _{}`$ is the source radius. Since $`\theta _{}`$ can be determined from the dereddened color and magnitude of the source (see e.g., fig. 10 from An et al. 2002), this would yield $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. This ratio can be measured whenever the source passes over a magnification pattern with structure on scales $`\rho _{}`$. In particular, for planetary events, Gaudi & Gould (1997) find that it can be measured provided that $`\rho _{}0.3q^{1/2}`$, which corresponds to,

$$m_p4M_{}\left(\frac{\theta _{}}{r_{}/R_0}\right)^2\left(\frac{\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}}{40\mu \mathrm{as}}\right)^1,$$
(4)
where $`r_{}/R_0`$ is the angular size of a solar-type star at the Galactocentric distance. Note that it is also possible to measure $`\rho _{}`$, and thus $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, from events due to higher-mass planets if the source crosses the planetary caustic.

## 3. Parameters from Two Observers and Degeneracy Resolution

From satellite measurements alone (§ 2), most of the pieces are already in place for terrestrial planet mass measurements. Since both $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ and one combination of the vector microlens parallax $`(\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E},\varphi )`$ can already be measured, all that is required is a measurement of another combination of $`(\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E},\varphi )`$.

It is well known that $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$ can be measured by observing an event simultaneously from two telescopes that are significantly displaced from each other. Here ‘significantly’ means that the light curve appears measurably different from the two observatories. In other words, the magnification pattern being probed must have structure on a scale that, when projected to the observer plane, is comparable to the separation of the observers. For typical primary lensing events toward the Galactic bulge, the projected scale of the magnification structure is $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}8\mathrm{AU}`$, and so the observers must be separated by at least $`O(\mathrm{AU})`$. Thus, by observing the event simultaneously from telescopes on the Earth and in solar orbit, one could routinely measure $`\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$ (Refsdal, 1966; Gould, 1995).

Therefore, at first sight, the solution appears simple: just put the microlensing satellite in orbit around the Sun and carry out simultaneous observations from the ground. Unfortunately, the huge data stream from the continuous monitoring of $`O(10^9)`$ pixels required to detect the planets (Bennett & Rhie, 2002) make this impossible unless there are major breakthroughs in satellite telemetry. The satellite must stay reasonably close to the Earth to transmit these data efficiently.

However, two factors combine to make feasible microlens parallax measurements from short baselines for events with terrestrial planets. First, one component of the vector microlens parallax is already measured for these events because of the extremely high overall S/N required to detect them. See § 2. Second, the planetary perturbation has structure on scales that are smaller than the primary Einstein ring by a factor of $`q^{1/2}`$. Therefore, two observers need only be separated by of order the scale of the structures, not the whole Einstein ring (Hardy & Walker, 1995; Gould & Andronov, 1999; Graff & Gould, 2002). For planetary events, the perturbed regions of the Einstein ring typically lie on a line along the planet-star axis and have a width of order $`q^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$. The satellite will cross this line at a time that differs from the Earth crossing by $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Figure 1a shows the geometry. By applying the Law of Sines, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=(q^{1/2}t_\mathrm{E})\frac{d_{\mathrm{sat}}}{q^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\beta \alpha )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha },$$
(5)
where $`d_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is the distance to the satellite, $`\alpha `$ is the known angle between planet-star axis and the source trajectory, $`\beta `$ is the known angle between the Earth-Sun and Earth-satellite axes, both projected on the sky, and $`\varphi `$ is the (a priori) unknown angle between the Earth-Sun axis and the source trajectory. Combining equations (2) and (5), one obtains an explicit expression for $`\varphi `$,

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\gamma }\frac{a_{}t_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\psi }{d_{\mathrm{sat}}\mathrm{cos}(\beta \alpha )}\mathrm{tan}(\beta \alpha ),$$
(6)
and by means of equation (2) an explicit expression for $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ as well.

The first term on the right-hand side of equation (5) is roughly the duration of the perturbation, the second term is the dimensionless ratio of the Earth-Satellite separation to the width of the perturbation, while the third term is of order unity. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be measured with a fractional precision $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }t)/\mathrm{\Delta }t(\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}q^{1/2}/d_{\mathrm{sat}})/(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is the square of the S/N with which the perturbation is detected from the weaker observatory (probably the ground). The proposed planet detection threshold from space is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=160`$, but the expected distribution has a long tail toward larger values, so that half the detections have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2>800`$ (Bennett & Rhie, 2002). Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ could be measured with reasonable precision for a significant fraction of events provided that the satellite was not more than a few times closer than the size of the planetary Einstein ring, $`q^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$, and that the ground-based observations were not more than a few times worse than the satellite observations. In addition, the separation cannot be more than a few planetary Einstein radii or the Earth will pass outside the region of the planetary perturbation. To target Earth-mass planets, the separation should therefore be

$$d_{\mathrm{sat}}\sqrt{\frac{4GM_{}\mathrm{AU}}{c^2\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}}}=0.025\mathrm{AU}\left(\frac{\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}}{40\mu \mathrm{as}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(7)
A near optimal solution would seem to be to place the satellite in L2 orbit, which lies at $`0.01\mathrm{AU}`$ in the anti-Sun direction. However, while data transmission is $`10^4`$ times more efficient from L2 than from an AU, that still might not be efficient enough.

A plausible alternative approach would then be to put the satellite in a highly elliptical orbit with period $`P1`$month. It would spend the majority of its time near $`2a0.005\mathrm{AU}`$, adequate for Earth-mass and lighter planets. During the brief perigee each month it could focus on highly efficient data transmission. Because of this large semi-major axis, the orbit would have to be well out of the ecliptic to avoid gravitational encounters with the Moon, but not so far out that the orbit destablized and crashed into the Earth. In fact, it might be difficult to find such long-term stable orbits, but the satellite could be ejected into solar orbit at the end of its mission with a boost at perigee of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }v100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$, thereby evading the requirement for long-term stability.

One potential concern is that if the satellite is anywhere in the ecliptic (including L2), then $`\beta =0^{}`$ (or $`180^{}`$). Microlensing is most sensitive to planets close to the peak of the event. At the peak itself, $`\alpha =90^{}`$. Therefore, near the peak both terms in equation (6) would be very large, which would in effect magnify the observational errors. However, we find from simulations that the enhanced sensitivity at $`\alpha =90^{}`$ does not imply a tight clustering of events at this value. Rather the distribution is extremely broad, so there is only a marginal cost to having the satellite in the ecliptic.

## 4. Discussion

For typical relatively short events, the parallax asymmetry is quite weak and is only detectable because of the satellite’s high cadence and S/N. Thus, one must worry about systematic effects. Gould (1998) identified three such effects not specific to terrestrial observers: variable sources, binary sources, and binary lenses. Because of the long high-quality data stream, the source can easily be checked for low levels of variability. While there may be occasional stars that vary over a few months but not otherwise over several years, the fraction of such stars is not likely to be large and can be measured from the prodigious supply of data on “stable” stars. A binary companion to the source star would have to be separated by 2 or 3 $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ and have a flux ratio of $`\gamma 1\%`$ to reproduce the magnitude and shape of a parallax asymmetry. Although additional flux at this level would be evident from a fit to the microlensing event itself, it would not be distinguishable from light from the lens star. However, one could check for consistency between the amount of blended light and the mass and distance to the lens as determined from the parallax asymmetry. Further, if the source is really a binary, high-resolution spectroscopy could uncover of order $`10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ radial velocity variations over time. Binary lenses can also induce asymmetries. There are no studies of the expected rate of these, but for field stars it is probably of the same order as events with pronounced deviations, which is $`5\%`$. However, most stars with planets are unlikely to have binary companions within a factor 3 or so of the Einstein radius because they would render the planetary orbit unstable. Thus, while caution is certainly warranted in interpreting lightcurve asymmetries as being due to parallax, systematic effects are unlikely to dominate the signal.

There are two types of checks that can be performed on the mass measurements derived by our method. First, in a significant minority planetary events, the lens can be directly observed (Bennett & Rhie, 2002). The derived mass and relative lens-source parallax ($`\pi _{\mathrm{rel}}/\mathrm{AU}=\theta _\mathrm{E}/\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E}`$) can then be compared to the same quantities as determined from multi-color photometry and/or spectroscopy. Second, in some cases it will be possible to measure not only the offset parallel to the source-lens relative motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }t/t_\mathrm{E}`$, but also the offset in the orthogonal direction $`\mathrm{\Delta }u_0`$. This is because the source will pass over a different part of the planetary perturbation, which will generally yield a slightly different perturbation magnitude (see Fig. 1c). Measurement of both the difference in the magnitude and time of the perturbation then gives the two-dimensional offset in the Einstein ring, and thus a measurement of both components of $`(\stackrel{~}{r}_\mathrm{E},\varphi )`$. This effect is typically weaker than the time offset because the magnification contours as stretched along the planet-star axis, and so requires a higher S/N to detect, but in the cases for which it is detected, the result can be cross checked against the asymmetry measurement.

A microlens planet-finding satellite with parallax capabilities would have a number of other applications. First, it would automatically make precise mass measurements on all caustic-crossing binaries (Graff & Gould, 2002). Second, although it would not measure masses for the majority of larger planets such as gas giants, it would do so for the significant minority of cases in which the source passed over the planetary caustic. From a mathematical point of view, these cases are identical to the caustic-crossing binaries analyzed by Graff & Gould (2002). These caustics are substantially larger than the entire perturbation due to an Earth mass planet. Hence, if there are equal numbers of Earth-mass and Jovian-mass planets, the latter will yield the majority of the mass measurements even though the fraction of mass measurements is higher among the former.

Finally, we have so far not given much attention to the problem of organizing the round-the-clock (and so round-the-world) ground-based observations that must complement the satellite observations. Although easier and cheaper than launching a satellite, the effort required for this is by no means trivial. Such a survey would have tremendous potential in its own right and might be undertaken independently of a satellite. We reserve a full discussion of this idea to a future paper.

Work by AG was supported by JPL contract 1226901. Work by SG was supported by NASA through a Hubble Fellowship grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Work by CH was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the Science Research Center (SRC) program.