text:
# A Theory for the Radius of the Transiting Giant Planet HD 209458b

## 1 Introduction

These past seven years have seen the number of known extrasolar giant planets (EGPs) grow from 1 in 1995 (Mayor and Queloz 1995) to more than 100 today.111see J. Schneider’s Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia at http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html for an current tally, with ancillary stellar data. The wide variety in their projected masses (Mpsin(i)), orbital distances ($`a`$), and eccentricities continues to challenge theories of EGP birth, evolution, and abundance. However, as of this writing, only two EGPs (HD 209458b and OGLE-TR-56b) are claimed to transit their primaries and of the two HD 209458b is by far the best studied. The second transiting EGP, OGLE-TR-56b, has only recently been suggested as such (Konacki et al. 2003) and, at a distance of $``$1500 parsecs, even if the detection is verified, its light curve and radial-velocity measurements are not yet competitive with those for HD 209458b. Since HD 209458’s stellar reflex motion has been accurately measured, and its transit light curve has been measured using HST/STIS to $``$100-micromagnitude precision (Brown et al. 2001), it is an ideal testbed for the theory of irradiated EGPs, their evolution, structure, and atmospheres. The transit of the F8V/G0V star HD 209458 lasts $``$3 hours (out of a total period of 3.524738 days) and has an average photometric depth of $``$1.6% in the optical. Its ingress and egress phases each last $``$25 minutes (Henry et al. 2000; Charbonneau et al. 2000; Brown et al. 2001). Using the complementary radial-velocity data (e.g., Henry et al. 2000), good estimates for the planet’s mass, orbital distance, and orbital inclination are $``$0.69 M$`_\mathrm{J}`$, $``$0.045 AU, and $``$86, respectively. Such proximity makes HD 209458b the quintessential “roaster” (Sudarsky, Burrows, and Pinto 2000; Hubbard et al. 2001; Sudarsky, Burrows, and Hubeny 2002). Of course, the depth of the transit light curve can be used to derive the planet’s radius (§2). It is the simultaneous availability of both a radius and a mass (together with an age estimate for the system from stellar evolution theory and a luminosity estimate for the star from its parallax) that makes this system especially useful to theorists. Moreover, Charbonneau et al. (2002) have recently binned their HST/STIS data to derive a wavelength dependence for HD 209458b’s transit radius. In this way, they have inferred the presence of neutral sodium atoms (Seager and Sasselov 2000; Hubbard et al. 2001) and, hence, have made the first measurement, however indirect, of the composition of the atmosphere of an extrasolar planet.

Importantly, the measured radius is a transit radius at a given wavelength, or range of wavelengths. It is not the canonical planetary radius at a “1-bar” pressure level (Lindal et al.1981; Hubbard et al. 2001). As such, the measured radius is the impact parameter of the transiting planet at which the optical depth to its primary’s light along a chord parallel to the star-planet line of centers is $``$1. This is not the optical depth in the radial direction, nor is it associated with the radius at the radiative-convective boundary. Hence, since the pressure level to which the transit beam is probing near the planet’s terminator is close to 1 millibar (Fortney et al. 2003), there are many pressure scale heights ($``$10) between the measured transit radius and both the radiative-convective boundary ($``$1000 bars) and the “1-bar” radius.222If, as implied in Barman et al. (2002), the transit radius is at pressures well below the 1 millibar level then the multiple-pressure-scale-height effect we identify here would be even larger. Furthermore, exterior to the radiative-convective boundary, the entropy is an increasing function of radius. One consequence of this fact is significant radial inflation vis à vis a constant entropy atmosphere. The upshot of both these effects is an increase of $``$0.1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$($``$10%) in the theoretical radius.

Including the “thickness of the atmosphere” could change recent interpretations of the radius of HD 209458b. Guillot and Showman (2002), Baraffe et al. (2002,2003), and Bodenheimer et al. (2000,2003) all have difficulty fitting HD 209458b’s radius without an extra heat source. Guillot and Showman posit the dissipation at depth of mechanical energy generated by the stellar flux at altitude. Bodenheimer et al. invoke tidal heating or the presence of an additional planetary companion in near resonance to create the “Io” heating effect. However, we find that self-consistently calculating irradiated atmospheres and the irradiated planet’s structural and thermal evolution and assuming that the lower end of the range of the measured transit radius obtains, we can fit the observations without an extra source of heat. Our calculations also self-consistently and implicitly derive a Bond albedo, generally assumed by others as an input.

In §2, we describe and discuss the measurements of HD 209458b’s transit radius. This is followed in §3 by a brief review of previous theoretical calculations of the radii of irradiated EGPs. In §4, we summarize the computational procedures we employ in this paper and discuss the various strengths and weaknesses of our approach and in §5 we present our theoretical results for the radius of HD 209458b, as well as its temporal evolution. This section contains the major conclusions of our study and includes in Fig. 2 what we think is a favorable comparison between theory and measurement. We wrap up in §6 with general remarks and caveats.

## 2 The Measured Planetary Radius

Photometric light curve measurements of the relative transit depth of the HD 209458 system from both the ground (Henry et al. 2000; Charbonneau et al. 2000) and from space (HST/STIS: Brown et al. 2001) have provided direct estimates of the ratio of the radii of the planet and star. Mandel and Agol (2002) conclude that this ratio can be obtained from the data to relatively high precision (R$`_\mathrm{p}`$/R = 0.1207$`\pm 0.0003`$). Seager and Mallén-Ornelas (2003) suggest that future transit measurements alone, done with dense time sampling and the best photometric precision attainable from the ground, can yield the individual radii themselves. However, currently, estimates of the radius of the planet HD 209458b require estimates of the star’s radius and this requires both a fit to stellar evolution theory and a good parallax.333The Hipparcos distance to the star HD 209458 is 47.3 parsecs, with an error of $``$5% (Perryman 1997). As a result, ambiguities in the stellar radius translate into uncertainties in the inferred planetary radius. Mazeh et al. (2000) conclude from $`\mathrm{log}(g)`$/T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$spectral-line fits and $`M_V`$/$`(BV)`$ photometric fits that M= $`1.1\pm 0.1`$ M, R = $`1.2\pm 0.1`$ R, T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$``$6000 K, \[Fe/H\]$``$0.0, and $`t=5.5\pm 1.5`$ Gyr. From these data they derive a radius for HD 209458b of 1.40$`\pm 0.17`$ R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, where the error bars are one-sigma and R$`_\mathrm{J}`$= $`7.149\times 10^9`$ cm. Similarly, Cody and Sasselov (2002) derive R = $`1.18`$ Rand M= 1.06 M, with one-sigma error bars of $``$10%. The resultant planetary radius is R$`_\mathrm{p}`$= 1.42$`{}_{0.13}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.10}`$ R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, where in this case the error bars in the planet radius do not include the errors in the stellar radius; Cody and Sasselov assume in deriving this estimate that the stellar radius is fixed at 1.18 R. They also derive a best-fit age of $``$5.2 Gyrs ($`\pm `$10%), but second the age range quoted in Mazeh et al. (2000).

Hence, to obtain a reliable stellar radius (given a parallax), one is obliged to derive the stellar metallicity, age, mass, and helium fraction simultaneously. This procedure perforce introduces ambiguities into the estimate of the planetary radius. In particular, if Cody and Sasselov were to use for the star’s radius a value of 1.10 R(within their quoted errors), they would obtain a planetary radius of 1.32$`{}_{0.11}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.09}`$ R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. Hence, their one-sigma lower bound would be 1.21 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. At R= 1.18 R, their one-sigma lower bound is 1.29 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. Similar arguments can be marshalled in the context of the Brown et al. (2001) and Mazeh et al. (2000) planet radius estimates. As a result, it is not far-fetched to conclude that HD 209458b’s transit radius in the optical could be as small as $``$1.2 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. While we are not completely convinced that this is the correct value, it is nevertheless useful to explore the theoretical consequences of such a possibility. Given an age range for the HD 209458 system and a radius range for the planet, theories for the irradiated planet’s evolutionary trajectory in age-radius space can be compared with observations to derive physical constraints on the nature of this irradiated planet and its atmosphere.

## 3 Previous Theories for the Radii of Irradiated Giant Planets

The modern theory of the radii of irradiated EGPs begins with the paper of Guillot et al. (1996). This paper focussed on 51 Pegasi b, but 1) predicted that irradiation due to proximity to a central primary would result in super-Jovian radii, 2) distinguished clearly between the radii of hydrogen-rich and metal-rich giants (in the tradition of Zapolsky and Salpeter 1969), and 3) suggested that lower-mass irradiated EGPs will be larger, all else being equal. However, these calculations were performed using an irradiation-modified version of atmospheric boundary conditions (needed for the evolutionary calculations) appropriate for isolated giants (Burrows et al. 1995; Burrows et al. 1997) and employed an ad hoc Bond albedo. The latter determines the absorption and heating efficiency of stellar light. A fully consistent spectrum and atmosphere calculation was not attempted. Hence, while the results were qualitatively valid, the actual radius-age trajectories obtained were ambiguous. In addition, very large radii (1.4-1.8 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$) seemed plausible for older EGPs ($`>1`$ Gyr).

In the first year of the HD 209458b campaign, Burrows et al. (2000) employed similar boundary algorithms and Bond albedo ansatze to fit HD 209458b’s measured transit radius. They concluded that the planet could not be as large as measured unless it had migrated in early in its life before it had had time to cool and shrink appreciably. They showed that once an EGP achieves mere Jovian proportions it cannot be inflated enough to conform to the new transit radius measurements. While we concur with this general conclusion, we disagree with the magnitude of the discrepancy that late migration would have created. If, as we suggest in §2, HD 209458b’s transit radius can be as small as $``$1.2 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, we now find that the discrepancy in the radius would be $``$0.1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, not $``$0.3 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, as implied in Burrows et al. (2000). This is still significant, but less so. This modified conclusion is a consequence of our better and more consistent boundary conditions and the use of a state-of-the-art, frequency-dependent stellar atmosphere code that can accurately handle insolation (§45).

Recently, Guillot and Showman (2002), using a modified version of the Guillot et al. (1996) boundary conditions, have questioned the larger radii derived in Guillot et al. (1996) and Burrows et al. (2000). They conclude that HD 209458b’s radius cannot be explained without an extra heat source and they speculate that this might be due to the degradation at depth of gravity waves generated in the upper atmosphere by a fraction of the stellar flux. However, in order to obtain boundary conditions for their new irradiated-planet evolutionary calculations (their “cold” case, without an extra heat source), they modify the atmospheric temperature/pressure profiles of isolated models (Burrows et al. 1997) by shifting the temperature at 3 bars by a somewhat arbitrary 1000 Kelvin. They suggest that this procedure mimics the effect of the thick radiative zones of close-in EGPs, through which stellar light can not penetrate to heat the convective interior. While no attempt is made to construct self-consistent atmospheres that incorporate actual stellar and planetary spectra, this procedure does qualitatively capture the expected differences in T/P profiles between distant Jovian planets and nearby roasters at the same gravity and interior entropy. The result is an HD 209458b model with a radius no greater than $``$1.1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. Guillot and Showman (2002) have a discussion of the possible differences between day-side and night-side cooling (see §4), but do not provide definitive quantitative guidance concerning this important, and still open, issue.

The results of Bodenheimer, Lin, and Mardling (2001) and Bodenheimer, Laughlin, and Lin (2003), who assume a Bond albedo and that the atmospheric temperature at $`\tau _{Rosseland}=2/3`$ is equal to T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, are quantitatively similar to those of Guillot and Showman (2002) and they explore the possible effects of heating by tidal circularization and forcing by a second planet or of the explicit presence or absence of a heavy-element core. However, recently, in parallel with the present work, Baraffe et al. (2002,2003) have begun to incorporate more realistic atmospheric boundary conditions into HD 209458b studies using a frequency-dependent atmosphere code. Nevertheless, they too obtain smaller radii than found in the Guillot et al. (1996) and Burrows et al. (2000) studies and, as a consequence, also evoke an another source of heat to explain the measured transit radius.

It is the thesis of this paper that a combination of the proper interpretation of the transit radius (§1) and a lower measured value of that radius (still within the error bars, §2) can be shown to be in accord with consistent and frequency-dependent atmosphere and evolutionary calculations, without an additional source of heat. These calculations do not use an ad hoc Bond albedo and do use a realistic G0 V irradiation spectrum. However, the completeness of our theory as an explanation for HD 209458b’s transit radius hinges upon the assumption that the true radius resides at the lower end of its measured range. We now turn to a description of our computational procedures.

## 4 Computational Methods and Assumptions

At the low effective temperatures achieved by brown dwarfs and EGPs, boundary conditions for evolutionary calculations must incorporate realistic atmospheres (Burrows et al. 1997; Allard et al. 1997). The traditional method of setting the effective temperature equal to the temperature at a Rosseland mean optical depth of $`2/3`$ does not really provide the T/P profile in the atmosphere and can lead to errors in T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$of hundreds of Kelvin. Hence, for isolated objects with cold molecular atmospheres, we calculate a grid of detailed T/P profiles and spectra at various Teffs and gravities ($`g`$). These atmospheres penetrate deeply into the convective core. In this way, we determine the relationship between the core entropy ($`S`$), T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and $`g`$ (Hubbard 1977). Since the core contains the mass and the heat, while the thin atmosphere is the valve that regulates radiative losses, interpolating in this pre-calculated $`S`$-T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-$`g`$ grid at each timestep in an evolutionary calculation assures accuracy and self-consistency.

However, when an EGP is being irradiated by a primary star, the above procedure must be modified to include the outer stellar flux in the spectrum/atmosphere calculation that yields the corresponding $`S`$-T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-$`g`$ relationship. This must be done for a given external stellar flux and spectrum, which in turn depends upon the stellar luminosity spectrum and the orbital distance of the EGP. Therefore, we use the Discontinuous Finite Element (DFE) variant of the spectral code TLUSTY (Hubeny 1988; Hubeny and Lanz 1995) that we have developed for EGP and brown dwarf atmospheres (Sudarsky, Burrows, and Hubeny 2002) to calculate a new $`S`$-T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-$`g`$ grid under the irradiation regime of HD 209458b. This grid is tailor-made for the luminosity and spectrum of HD 209458 at a distance of 0.045 AU. For the stellar spectrum, we employ a theoretical G0 V spectrum of Kurucz (1994) and we assume that the orbital distance, stellar luminosity, and stellar spectrum are all constant during the EGP’s evolution. (Hence, we ignore the “faint young sun” problem.)

The procedure is straightforward. For a given inner flux boundary condition (represented by T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, where $`\sigma \mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$ is the interior core flux of the EGP) and a given gravity $`g`$, we calculate the atmospheric T/P profile, including the irradiation. Using mixing-length theory, the atmosphere is continued deep into the convective region. The radiative-convective boundary may be at pressures of $``$10 bars (for younger ages) to $``$4000 bars (for older ages). The entropy of the core ($`S`$) is now known for a given interior heat flux (parametrized by T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) and gravity ($`g`$). After the table in $`S`$, T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(internal flux), and $`g`$ is generated, it is inverted to obtain the more useful relationship T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$($`S`$,$`g`$) for the interior flux. This is the function used to advance the evolutionary calculations for HD 209458b, using a state-of-the-art equation of state (Saumon, Chabrier, and Van Horn 1995) and evolutionary code (Burrows et al. 1997). Note that since an EGP core is convective the radius of the radiative-convective boundary for a given mass EGP (e.g., 0.69 M$`_\mathrm{J}`$) is a function of $`S`$ and $`g`$ alone. Implicit in this procedure is an albedo, which therefore does not have to be assumed, as well as an emergent planetary spectrum and a T/P profile to pressures below a microbar. Since we calculate the atmospheric profile, we can automatically include the multiple-scale-height effect described in §1 in our calculation of the transit radius.

We have explored the effects on the resultant EGP transit radius of variations in the helium fraction (YHe), of the presence or absence of clouds in the upper atmosphere (Sudarsky, Burrows, and Hubeny 2002), of the possible presence of a rocky core, and of changes in the opacities in the deep atmosphere (e.g., due to the presence or absence of TiO/VO). Note with the latter that our motivation for varying the opacities in this manner is not to suggest that TiO or VO may not be present (we certainly think they are), but to explore thereby the dependence on the radius evolution of large changes in the opacities at depth. Increasing YHe from 0.25 or 0.28 to 0.30 can mimic the effect of a metal-rich “rock” core or envelope and slightly shrink the object (Zapolsky and Salpeter 1969; Guillot and Showman 2002). For instance, we have calculated that for an EGP with a mass of 0.69 M$`_\mathrm{J}`$replacing a one-Earth-mass heavy-element core by one containing 11 Earth masses can shrink the planet’s radius by 3-4%. This amounts to approximately -350 kilometers per Earth mass. An increase in the core mass by 10 Earth masses is comparable to the effect of increasing YHe by $``$0.02 units. The models plotted in Figs. 1 and 2 do not incorporate a rocky core, though some of the models assume a high YHe to mimic its presence. However, there are two major issues that in the final analysis will need to be addressed in detail before a definitive answer is derived. For the time being, they must be finessed and have been finessed in all previous theoretical studies. The first is the fact that the planet is spherical, while the insolating stellar flux is a bundle of parallel beams. This results in a flux whose angle of incidence is a function of latitude. At the sub-stellar point the flux is a maximum, while it decreases as the terminator is approached. We have introduced the flux parameter $`f`$ which accounts in approximate fashion for the variation in incident flux with latitude when using a planar atmosphere code such as we employ. Hence, a value of $`f=1/2`$ is a reasonable average and is our baseline value, but we have explored the consequences of the bounding values $`f=1.0`$ (appropriate for the sub-stellar point) and $`f=1/4`$.

The second major issue is the day-night cooling difference. The gravity and interior entropy are the same for the day and the night sides of HD 209458b. For a sychronously rotating planet such as HD 209458b, the higher core entropies needed to explain a large measured radius imply higher internal fluxes on a night side if the day and the night atmospheres are not coupled (Guillot and Showman 2002). As described in Burrows et al. (2000), the day side core flux is quite suppressed by the flattening of the temperature gradient and the thickening of the radiative zone due to irradiation. However, Showman and Guillot (2002), Menou et al. (2002), and Cho et al. (2003) have recently demonstrated that strong atmospheric circulation currents that advect heat from the day to the night side at a wide range of pressure levels are expected in HD 209458b. Showman and Guillot (2002) estimate that below pressures of $``$1 bar the night-side cooling of the air can be quicker than the time it takes the winds to traverse the night side, but that at higher pressures the cooling timescale is far longer. Importantly, the radiative-convective boundary in HD 209458b is deep in the planet, at pressures above 1000 bars. We take this to mean that due to the coupling of the day and the night sides via strong winds at depth, the temperature-pressure profiles at the convective boundary on both sides are similar (A. Showman, private communication). This implies that HD 209458b’s core cooling rate is roughly the same in both hemispheres. This is similar to the case of Jupiter, where the interior flux is latitude- and longitude-independent, despite solar irradiation. Clearly, a full three-dimensional radiation/hydrodynamic study or Global-Climate-Model (GCM) is necessary to resolve this thorny issue definitively, but in the interim we assume in this paper that the interiors on the day and night sides cool at the same rate.

In calculating our T/P profiles, we assume a constant $`g`$. Since $`g`$ in fact decreases slightly from the bottom to the top of HD 209458b’s extended atmosphere, the thicknesses of our calculated atmospheres are slightly underestimated. Furthermore, winds carrying gas from the day side to the night side (and vice versa) should experience temperature changes at altitude that might alter the composition and cloud profiles. Since a transit observation probes the day-night terminator, such variations could affect the character of the transit itself. However, for this study, we ignore this potential complication. We use the opacity library described in Sudarsky, Burrows, and Hubeny (2002) and 5000 frequency points from 0.4 to 300 $`\mu `$m in calculating the T/P profiles.

## 5 Results: Rp versus Age

Figure 1 portrays temperature-pressure profiles at various ages along the solid model trajectory plotted in Fig. 2 with $`f=0.5`$, YHe = 0.30, and without TiO/VO opacities. We plot the T/P profiles for this model only as one example among many. The positions of the radiative-convective boundaries are indicated with large dots and each profile is for a specific time (and T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) during the evolution. The pronounced inflection in the curves is predominantly a result of the near balance at some depth between countervailing incident and internal fluxes, but changes in the opacity profiles also play a role. Nevertheless, such inflections are generic features of consistent calculations of irradiated atmospheres and affect the mapping between T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`S`$, and $`g`$ used in evolutionary calculations. As is indicated on Fig. 1, the T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$for this model at 7.5 Gyr is near $``$62 K, which implies a $``$65% lower internal flux than obtained for the isolated (I) model. For the isolated model at 7.5 Gyr, T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$is $``$82 K. The large contrast between these low Teffs and the high atmospheric temperatures (1000-2000 K) seen in Fig. 1 for an irradiated object may seem counterintuitive, until one realizes that T$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$is the interior “flux temperature” from which the core luminosity is derived. Evolution over time and the stanching of heat loss by the hot atmospheric thermal blanket result in flux temperatures for irradiated objects that are smaller than, but of the same order as, those for isolated or orbitally distant EGPs (Burrows et al. 2000).

Figure 2 compares the transit radius data summarized in §2 with various representative radius-age trajectories calculated in this paper. The theoretical ages start at 108 years and the radii are in Jovian units (1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$$``$ 7.149$`\times 10^4`$ km). As described in §1, the radius at the 1.0 millibar level is taken to be the relevant radius (Fortney et al. 2003). In this way, the thickness of the atmosphere, which thereby contributes 0.08 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$to 0.13 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$to the total radius, is incorporated into the theoretical numbers. The 1-$`\sigma `$ radius ranges inferred by Mazeh et al. (2000, red), Brown et al. (2001, green), and Cody and Sasselov (2002, gold) are plotted; for all observational estimates the age is assumed to be bracketed by 4 and 7 Gyr. For the Cody and Sasselov (2002) data, two boxes, one assuming a stellar radius of 1.18 R(solid gold) and the other assuming a stellar radius of 1.1 R(dashed gold), are provided. The red curve adjacent to an I is the corresponding trajectory for an isolated EGP with a helium fraction of 0.28. As one can clearly see, the difference between the I trajectory and the irradiated trajectories is approximately $``$0.2 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$.

The theoretical irradiated trajectories are all shown in Fig. 2 in blue. The solid curve is for $`f=0.5`$, YHe = 0.30, does not include TiO and VO at depth, and does not have clouds (see Fig. 1). The short dashed curve is similar, but includes both TiO/VO at depth and a forsterite cloud at altitude (Fortney et al. 2003). The dotted curve is for $`f=1.0`$, but otherwise has the same parameters as the solid curve, and the long-dashed curve has no TiO or VO at depth, no cloud, and a helium fraction of 0.25. The presence or absence of TiO/VO is meant to gauge the effect of significant changes in opacity at higher pressures and temperatures. We see that the effect of altering this opacity, while discernable, is not large. This representative model set illustrates and quantifies several clear systematic trends. The first is that the radius is a decreasing function of increasing YHe (or metallicity). A larger YHe might mimic the effect of a rocky core (Guillot and Showman 2002). The second is that a larger $`f`$ yields a larger radius. Intense irradiation inflates the atmosphere and at a given epoch results in interiors with slightly higher entropies. The third is that the extra opacity effect of a cloud seems to decrease the radius. However, this last trend is actually a bit misleading, since the presence of a cloud also puts the transit radius at lower pressure levels, thereby increasing the measured radius. The two effects roughly cancel. For none of the models shown is there an extra source of heating power. The finite thickness of the atmosphere and the low pressure level of the actual transit radius account for $``$0.1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$of our theoretical radii and are the major reasons we differ from the theories of Guillot and Showman (2002), Bodenheimer, Lin, and Mardling (2001), and Bodenheimer, Laughlin, and Lin (2003). Baraffe et al. (2003) do account for the finite thickness of the atmosphere, but their estimated thickness is about half the thickness that we obtain here. Moreover, details of the atmospheric boundary condition govern the core entropy, and, hence, the overall size of the planet. This dependence can also lead to dispersion in theoretical estimates of the planet’s size.

The general proximity of the sheaf of models on Fig. 2 to the 1-$`\sigma `$ lower bounds of the measured radius is what motivates us to suggest that an additional heat source may not be necessary to explain the HD 209458b radius measurements. However, the effective YHe or $`f`$ and the role of day-night thermal coupling by winds are not yet sufficiently well constrained to pinpoint the theoretical radius of the 0.69-M$`_\mathrm{J}`$EGP, HD 209459b, to better than $``$0.05-0.1 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$. Note that we obtain a theoretical upper bound to the transit radius of HD 209458b at 4.0 Gyr of $``$1.3 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$if YHe = 0.25, $`f`$=1.0, there is no rocky core, and the TiO/VO opacity is suppressed. Radii greater than this for HD 209458b will be difficult to explain without significant alterations in the physics or chemistry and/or without an extra source of internal power.

## 6 Conclusions

We have calculated consistent T/P profiles for various models of an irradiated HD 209458b. These profiles penetrate deeply into its inner convective zone and have been used to derive realistic boundary conditions for evolutionary models of its transit radius. The latter has been pegged to the $``$1-millibar pressure level inferred in the work of Fortney et al. (2003) and Hubbard et al. (2001) and accounts for $``$10% of the total radius. We find that irradiation and the proper interpretation of the measured radius as the transit radius alone can explain HD 209458b’s observed radius, without invoking an additional source of heating, if its true transit radius is at the lower end of the measured range.

Major caveats and uncertainties remain and include the actual effect of heat transport by winds from the day to the night sides, the possible presence of a rocky core, the actual helium fraction, and the true effective insolation parameter $`f`$. To resolve most of these issues will require multi-dimensional modeling with realistic radiative/convective transport. If the actual helium fraction is greater than $``$0.28, then a rocky core much larger than $``$15 Earth masses may be difficult to accommodate. If better measurements of the transit radius indeed yield large radii for HD 209458b at or above $``$1.40 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, then our interpretation is not tenable. However, if radii closer to the current lower error bars are proven to obtain, we would conclude that the theory of the structure of irradiated EGPs is in hand and well poised to interpret the new transiting EGPs anticipated to be discovered in the next few years.

Curiously, the preliminary radius for OGLE-TR-56b obtained by Konacki et al. 2003) is only $`1.3\pm `$0.15 R$`_\mathrm{J}`$, despite its extreme proximity ($``$0.023 AU) to its central sun-like star. Having a mass ($``$0.9 M$`_\mathrm{J}`$) similar to that of HD209458b ($``$0.69 M$`_\mathrm{J}`$), one might have expected the radius of HD209459b (at an orbital ditance of $``$0.045 AU) to have been smaller, not larger, than that of OGLE-TR-56b. This could suggest that our theory for irradiated EGPs is basically correct, and that additional heat sources are not the norm, but that the transit radius of HD209458b is anomalously large, perhaps because of the special circumstance of a companion (as suggested by Bodenheimer et al.). With a collection of transits, supplemented with good radial-velocity data, and a family of radius-mass pairs for different irradiation regimes, we will be able to check this hypothesis, as well as our general theory for irradiated planet transit radii. Such a family will be a major boon to the emerging study of extrasolar giant planets.

We would like to thank Ivan Hubeny, Dimitar Sasselov, Adam Showman, Jonathan Lunine, Drew Milsom, Jonathan Fortney, Curtis Cooper, and Christopher Sharp for insightful discussions during the course of this work. This work was supported in part by NASA grants NAG5-10760 and NAG5-10629.


format: text

text:
# Chapter 1 A Search for Pulsed TeV Gamma-Ray Emission from the Crab Pulsar using the Whipple High ResolutionGRANITE III Camera

## Chapter 1 A Search for Pulsed TeV Gamma-Ray Emission from the Crab Pulsar using the Whipple High Resolution
GRANITE III Camera

### Abstract

We present the results of a search for pulsed TeV emission from the Crab pulsar using 97 hours of data recorded with the high-resolution GRANITE III camera of the Whipple 10 m gamma-ray telescope.

### 1. Introduction

The Crab pulsar/nebula complex is one of the most studied objects in astrophysics with observations covering the complete detectable range of the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to TeV gamma-rays. Given that pulsed emission from the pulsar is detected up to at least 10 GeV  and that only upper limits, well below the extrapolated spectrum, exist above $``$100 GeV (for example ), a pulsed emission cut-off necessarily lies in between. Two main emission models, the polar cap model  and the outer gap model , compete to explain high-energy gamma-ray emission from pulsars. Although both predict spectral cut-offs within the 10–100 GeV regime; the polar cap model anticipates a steep super-exponential cut-off while the outer gap model allows for a more gradual simple-exponential turnover. As such, any clear detection of pulsed gamma-ray emission by ground-based Čerenkov detectors would favour the outer gap model.

In 1999 the Whipple 10 m gamma-ray telescope was upgraded to hold a finely pixelated camera comprising an array of 379 PMTs with a total field-of-view of 2.6. Given the improved image characterisation of the new camera, the fact that all mirrors on the 10 m reflector were re-aluminized during the upgrade, and the abundance of Crab nebula/pulsar data, it was considered appropriate to undertake a renewed search for evidence of a pulsed gamma-ray signal.

### 2. Gamma-ray Selection

In the Crab pulsar analysis reported here a total dataset of 97.33 hours of on-source data, recorded in clear weather from January 2000 until February 2002, was examined. Prior to any gamma-ray selection analysis, all Čerenkov events were subjected to the standard Whipple pre-selection processing and image parameterisation using a moment-fitting analysis. Two independent analysis techniques, Supercuts  and Kernel analysis , were used to select gamma-ray images from the dataset. In order to extract the optimum number of gamma-ray events, with maximum significance above background and over the widest possible range of energies, the selection criteria for both techniques were optimised in discrete elevation and *size* bands using the complete dataset itself (*size* is a measure, in digital counts, of the total Čerenkov light in an image after standard image cleaning). Although generally a source of bias, optimising on the dataset itself was not considered unreasonable in this case, as TeV gamma-rays from the direction of the Crab nebula are firmly established and the present work is a search for pulsed emission. Elevation and *size* banding were important in order to account for the effects of both elevation and *size* on the gamma-ray shape parameters, and to allow for changes in collection area and peak response energy of the telescope as a function of elevation. Figure 1 presents the telescope’s collection area as a function of energy at 45 and 75 elevation for the Supercuts and Kernel analyses.

The Kernel analysis was considered a useful complement to the standard Supercuts technique because its looser selection criteria allow for larger collection areas (Figure 1) at higher energies, and improved gamma-ray identification at lower energies , when compared to Supercuts. Using only those gamma-ray events selected by the band-specific selection criteria, described above, a temporal analysis was performed within each band and within all bands combined, to search for evidence of a periodic signal.

### 3. Temporal Analysis

The arrival times of Čerenkov events were registered by a GPS clock with an absolute resolution of 250 $`\mu `$s and an interpolated resolution of 0.1 $`\mu `$s. All times were transformed to the solar system barycentre using the JPL DE200 Planetary and Lunar Ephemeris. The phase of each event, with respect to the Crab pulsar radio ephemeris, was calculated using the Jodrell Bank monthly ephemeris updates. To test the barycentering algorithms, an optical signal of the Crab pulsar, observed on December 02, 1996, with the Multiple Mirror Telescope but passed directly through the electronics of the Whipple 10 m, was analysed. The resulting optical lightcurve showed clear evidence of a pulsed signal phase-aligned with the radio pulsations. This demonstrated the validity of the barycentering software and also the telescope’s timing electronics which are essentially unchanged since 1996.

### 4. Results

No evidence for pulsed gamma-ray emission above 106 $`\pm `$ 20 GeV was found in the gamma-ray dataset used in this work. To calculate flux upper limits, we used the method of Helene  to estimate 99.9% upper limits for excess events within the pulsed phase profile seen by EGRET at lower energies . That is, emission is assumed to occur in the phase range of the main pulse, phase 0.94–0.04, and the intrapulse, phase 0.32–0.43. Despite the selection of gamma-ray events by the Kernel analysis down to $``$106 GeV, upper limits were only determinable within the elevation and *size* bands for which the peak in the telescope’s differential response curve was greater than 160 GeV. This was due to sky-noise problems experienced at low energies, which complicate the effective collection area determination. Studies to understand the effects of sky-noise, using simulations and an improved padding algorithm, are ongoing. The lowest energy integral upper limit in this work was estimated at $`<570\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2s-1 at a peak response energy of 160 $`\pm `$ 30 GeV (estimated using data selected in the *size*: 150–250 digital counts, elevation: 71–80 band).

### 5. Discussion

To constrain the pulsed gamma-ray spectrum using the lowest energy upper limit from this work, a function of the form

$$\frac{dN}{dE}=KE^\gamma e^{\frac{E}{E_0}}$$
(1)
was used where $`\gamma `$=2.08 $`\pm `$ 0.03 is the EGRET pulsed emission power-law spectral index , $`E`$ is the photon energy, and $`E_0`$ is the cutoff energy. Extrapolating the EGRET power-law to our energies using equation 1, while simultaneously constraining it with our upper limit, yields a cut-off energy of $`E_0`$ 55 GeV for pulsed emission. Figure 2 shows our spectral point together with the model predictions and recent measurements by other groups. Although consistent with previous Whipple measurements , the present cut-off cannot offer discrimination between the models.

### 6. Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the technical assistance of E. Roache and J. Melnick. J. Kildea is grateful for useful discussions with A.K. Harding, K. Hirotani, and D.A. Smith. This research is supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy, by Enterprise Ireland and by PPARC in the UK.

### 7. References

1. Dunlea S. et al. 2001, ICRC Hamburg, vol 7, 2939
2. Fierro J.M. 1995, PhD thesis, Stanford University
3. Helene O. 1983, Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 212, 319
4. Hirotani K. and Shibata S. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1228
5. Kildea J. 2002, PhD thesis, National University of Ireland
6. Lessard R.W. et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, 942
7. Muslimov A.G and Harding A.K. 2003, ApJ, 588, 430
8. Punch M. 1991, ICRC Dublin, vol 1, 464


text:
# Meissner effect in a charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion

## I Introduction

The Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect (which from now on we call the Meissner effect) is known as a striking phenomenon showing directly the existence of the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). Actually, when cooling the metal in an applied magnetic field, just at the moment when the metal becomes superconducting, the metal begins to exclude the magnetic field.

A simple model exhibiting the Meissner effect is the charged Bose gas. Before the advent of the BCS model, Schafroth gave a clear definition of the Meissner effect using the charged Bose gas sch1 sch5 . The BCS model, starting from a realistic picture of the electrons in metal, established a realistic model exhibiting the Meissner effect bar .

A common feature of these two models is an appearance of the off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) in low temperature such as yan ,

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(0)>f^{}(x)f(0),|x|\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
To make the problem clearer, a model-independent derivation of the Meissner effect from fundamental principles and the ODLRO is desirable. Recently, such a derivation was attempted, with the result that the Meissner effect is derived from the gauge invariance and the ODLRO sew nie . This result means that the ODLRO is a sufficient condition of the Meissner effect.

For the converse statement that the ODLRO is a necessary condition of the Meissner effect, however, the problem is not so simple. Consider the following counterexample. In the two-dimensional systems, the order which one observes at zero temperature is not the ODLRO, but the off-diagonal finite-range order (ODFRO), which falls off exponentially at a long distance hoh . But its dynamical response is not an ordinary one. Experimentally, the thin-film superconductors exhibit the Meissner effect. Theoretically, the two-dimensional charged Bose gas, although it does not show any mathematical singularity in the thermodynamic quantities, excludes the applied magnetic field at low temperature, which cannot be distinguished from the conventional Meissner effect in a practical sense may . This example poses a question of whether the ODLRO is a necessary condition of the Meissner effect. In other words, we face another question of whether we must have a more general definition of the Meissner effect than our present one.

In this paper, we assert that the ODLRO is not a necessary condition of the Meissner effect. The Meissner effect occurs even at temperatures in which the many-body wave function obeying Bose statistics grows to a large but not yet macroscopic size (ODFRO) dia .

An objection to this assertion is that one does not observe in the superconductors the Meissner effect at $`T>T_c`$. The phenomenon occurring in the superconducting metals at the vicinity of $`T_c`$ is, however, not a gradual growth of the coherent wave function from a finite to a macroscopic scale, but a formation of the Cooper pairs from two electrons. Once the Cooper pair forms a composite boson at low temperature and high density, the system does not change through the pre-BEC state, but it immediately jumps to the BEC phase flu . Hence, the Meissner effect abruptly occurs at $`T_c`$ without any precursor. In this meaning, the absence of the Meissner effect at $`T>T_c`$ in the superconductors does not contradict the above assertion.

In principle, the charged Bose gas is a most elementary model of the Meissner effect. But, we do not have any experimental example except for the superconducting metal. This situation leads us to a preconceived idea that the ODLRO is a necessary and sufficient condition of the Meissner effect. Although the BEC is a most peculiar feature of Bose statistics, it does not automatically mean that all anomalous properties are attributed to the BEC. The bosons obey Bose statistics even when the Bose condensate is absent. Hence, to what extent these anomalous phenomena imply the existence of the Bose condensate is, logically, a problem to be considered separately. From this standpoint, we can classify all phenomena in the dense cold bosons into two classes, the distinguishing factor being the necessity of the Bose condensate. The first is a class for which the Bose condensate is a necessary and sufficient condition, and the second is a class for which the Bose condensate is only a sufficient one, thus being possible even when the Bose condensate is absent.

In real systems, the existence of the interaction between particles complicate the above classification. An interplay between Bose statistics and the repulsive or attractive interaction determines the class of the phenomenon. In this paper, we study the Meissner effect using the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion having the following hamiltonian,

$`H={\displaystyle d^3x\left(\frac{E^2+B^2}{2}+|(_\mu +ieA_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }(x)|^2\right)}`$
$`+g{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{pq}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p^{}+q}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p,`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the spinless boson, and $`g`$ ($`>0`$) represents the short-range repulsive interaction due to the internal structure of the bosons ($`\mu =x,y,z`$).

As will be explained in Sec.2A, the Meissner effect occurs when the transverse excitation of the system is suppressed compared with the longitudinal excitation bay . Following Feynman’s argument fey , Sec.2B explains that this suppression is a fundamental feature of Bose statistics, being independent of the presence or absence of the BEC. In the charged ideal Bose gas ($`g=0`$), where the long-range Coulomb force is assumed to be screened by the opposite charges in the medium, the suppression of the transverse excitation comes only from Bose statistics, and it exhibits the Meissner effect only in the BEC phase. In the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion ($`g>0`$), however, the collective excitation due to the repulsive interaction complicates the situation. As a general property of the gas, the longitudinal excitation prevails over the transverse one, thus destroying further the balance between the transverse and the longitudinal excitation. When this effect is added to the suppression due to Bose statistics, it is natural to ask whether the Meissner effect occurs before the many-body wave function grows to a macroscopic scale.

Sec.3 studies the Meissner effect by calculating the electromagnetic susceptibility of the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion using the perturbation expansion with respect to the repulsive interaction $`g`$. To examine a meaning of the BEC for the Meissner effect, we cannot assume the Bose condensate from the beginning by replacing the operator of zero-momentum particle with a $`c`$-number bog . Rather, it is crucially important to incorporate the Bose-statistical coherence of the many-body wave function without assuming the Bose condensate. Starting from the normal phase, the perturbation must be developed in such a way that as the order of the expansion increases, the susceptibility includes a new effect due to a larger coherent wave function. Sec.3 shows an occurrence of the Meissner effect prior to the BEC phase in cooling the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion. Sec.4 discusses the role of the repulsive interaction from a different point of view, and compare this Meissner effect with the conventional one in the superconductors.

## II Meissner effect in the charged Bose gas

### II.1 Divergence of the susceptibility

We apply to the charged Bose gas a weak stationary magnetic field derived from a transverse vector potential $`A_\mu (q,\omega )e^{i\omega t}`$. The current density within the linear response is,

$$J_\mu (q,\omega )=\frac{e^2}{m^2c}[nm\chi ^T(q,\omega )]A_\mu (q,\omega ),$$
(3)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ is a number density and a mass of the particle, respectively. The first term in the right-hand side of Eq.(3) is the usual diamagnetic current, and the second one is the paramagnetic term arising from a change in the system’s wave function induced by $`A_\mu (q,\omega )`$. The second term $`\chi ^T(q,\omega )`$ is a transverse part of the Fourier component of the current-current response tensor,

$$\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega _n)=\frac{1}{V}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}(i\omega _n\tau )T_\tau J_\mu (q,\tau )J_\nu (q,0),$$
(4)
where

$$J_\mu (q,\tau )=\underset{p,n}{}\left(p+\frac{q}{2}\right)_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p+q}e^{i\omega _n\tau },$$
(5)
($`\mathrm{}=1`$), and defined as,

$$\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\chi ^L(q,\omega )+\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)\chi ^T(q,\omega ).$$
(6)
Inside of the matter, Eq.(3) is added to the Maxwell equation in vacuum,

$$\left(\frac{\omega ^2}{c^2}q^2\right)A_\mu ^{ex}(q,\omega )=\frac{4\pi }{c}J_\mu ^{(0)}(q,\omega ),$$
(7)
as an additional source term. Hence, one obtains a following relationship between $`A_\mu (q,\omega )`$ in matter and $`A_\mu ^{ex}(q,\omega )`$ in vacuum,

$$A_\mu (q,\omega )=\frac{A_\mu ^{ex}(q,\omega )}{1{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{m^2c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nm\chi ^T(q,\omega )}{\omega ^2/c^2q^2}}\right)}.$$
(8)
For the static limit, from gauge invariance, one knows $`nm=\chi ^L(q,0)`$ relating the longitudinal current-current response tensor $`\chi ^L(q,\omega )`$ with number density $`n`$ and mass $`m`$ of the particle noz . Hence, one gets,

$$A_\mu (q,0)=\frac{A_\mu ^{ex}(q,0)}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{m^2c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^L(q,0)\chi ^T(q,0)}{q^2}}\right)}.$$
(9)
Equation.(9) means that, when the balance between the transverse and the longitudinal excitation is destroyed in the static and uniform limit ($`lim_{q0}[\chi ^L(q,0)\chi ^T(q,0)]0`$), the denominator in the right-hand side of Eq.(9) diverges as $`q0`$, thus vanishing $`A_\mu (q,0)`$ and $`H=\times A`$ at $`q0`$ in matter (Schafroth’s criterion of the Meissner effect).

From now on, we express a term proportional to $`q_\mu q_\nu `$ in $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ by $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }`$ such as,

$`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )=\delta _{\mu \nu }\chi ^T(q,\omega )+q_\mu q_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^L(q,\omega )\chi ^T(q,\omega )}{q^2}}\right)`$
$`\delta _{\mu \nu }\chi ^T+\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }.`$ (10)
Hence, Eq.(9) is expressed as,

$$A_\mu (q,0)=\frac{A_\mu ^{ex}(q,0)}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{m^2c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)}{q_\mu q_\nu }}\right)}.$$
(11)
(1) In the charged ideal Bose gas, $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by,

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{4}\underset{p}{}\frac{f(ϵ(p))f(ϵ(p+q))}{\omega +ϵ(p)ϵ(p+q)},$$
(12)
where $`ϵ(p)`$ is the kinetic energy $`p^2/2m`$ of the spinless boson, and $`f(ϵ(p))`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution. In the BEC phase (chemical potential $`\mu =0`$), $`f(ϵ(p))`$ in Eq.(12) is a macroscopic number for $`p=0`$ and nearly zero for $`p0`$. Thus, in the sum over $`p`$ in the right-hand side of Eq.(12), only two terms corresponding to $`p=0`$ and $`p=q`$ remain, with a result that,

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)=mn_0\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2},$$
(13)
where $`n_0`$ is the number density of the $`p=0`$ Bose particles. In view of $`q^2`$ in Eq.(13), the charged ideal Bose gas in the BEC phase exhibits the Meissner effect. In the normal phase ($`\mu <0`$), however, when the sum over $`p`$ in Eq.(12) is carried out by replacing it with an integral, one notices that $`q^2`$ dependence disappears in the result. Hence, in the charged ideal Bose gas, the BEC is a necessary and sufficient condition of the Meissner effect. In this case, the penetration depth $`\lambda _0(T)`$, defined in Eq.(3) by $`J_\mu (q,0)=(c/4\pi )(1/\lambda _0^2(T))A_\mu (q,0)`$ at $`q0`$, is $`\lambda _0(T)=n_0(T)^{0.5}\sqrt{mc^2/4\pi e^2}`$.

(2) To analyze the Meissner effect in the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion, instead of $`lim_{q0}[\chi ^L(q,0)\chi ^T(q,0)]0`$, we regard a divergence of the coefficient of $`q_\mu q_\nu `$ in $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ at $`q0`$ (Eq.(10)), as a general definition of the Meissner effect.

### II.2 Effects of Bose statistics

The physical explanation of $`lim_{q0}[\chi ^L(q,0)\chi ^T(q,0)]0`$ in the Bose gas dates back to Feynman’s argument on the scarcity of the excitation in the liquid helium 4 fey . We recapitulate his explanation of how Bose statistics affects the many-body wave function in configuration space.

(1) When the gas is in the BEC phase ($`\mu =0`$), the wave function has the permutation symmetry on a macroscopic scale. Consider a collective transverse displacement moving particles on a solid straight line in Fig.1(a) to that on a dotted wavy curve (black circles). At first, it seems a configuration change on a large scale. This displacement is, however, reproduced by a set of slight displacements (depicted by short arrows) moving the particle close to the wavy curve in the initial configuration to the exact positions on the curve. The transverse displacement like Fig.1(a) changes only slightly the local density of particles (defined in some volume). Hence, at any part of the wavy curve, it is possible to find in the initial configuration a particle close to the wavy curve. In Bose statistics, due to permutation symmetry, one cannot distinguish between one particle on the wavy curve which comes from the position close to the wavy curve by the short arrow and another particle which comes from the straight line by the long arrow. Even if the displacement from the straight to the wavy line is a large displacement in the classical statistics, it is only a slight displacement in Bose statistics (short arrows). Hence, the excited state lies in a small distance from the ground state in configuration space. Since the excited state is orthogonal to the ground state, the wave function corresponding to the excited state must spatially oscillate. Accordingly, the many-body wave function of the transversely excited state oscillates within a small distance in configuration space. Since the kinetic energy of the system is determined by the gradient of the wave function, this means that the energy of the transverse excitation is not small even at $`q=0`$, leading to the scarcity of the low-energy transverse-excitation density. This is a reason for $`\chi ^T(q,0)0`$ as $`q0`$ at low temperature.

On the other hand, for the longitudinal displacement like Fig.1(b), we see a different situation. Since the longitudinal displacement changes the local density so much, it is not possible to always find in the initial configuration a particle which is close to a given particle after displacement. (Even if it is possible for only a few particles after displacement, it is not possible for all particles.) Hence, one can not reproduce the configuration pattern after displacement only by permutation of the initial pattern (a lower pattern in Fig.1(b) can not be reproduced with an upper pattern). This means that the longitudinally-displaced configuration is far from the initial one in configuration space. Hence, the wave function of the longitudinally excited state gradually oscillates in a long distance. Applying the definition of the kinetic energy to this case, one concludes that the low-energy longitudinal excitation is possible. This is a reason for $`\chi ^L(q,0)0`$ at $`q0`$. The above explanation asserts that Bose statistics is an essential reason for the Meissner effect.

(2) When the gas is at high temperature ($`\mu 0`$), the wave function has the permutation symmetry only in the limited area. Accordingly, in the transverse displacement like Fig.1(a), one can not regard the wave function after permutation as an equivalent of the initial wave function. The displacement which was regarded as a small displacement in the BEC phase becomes a large one in the normal phase. Since the difference between the transverse and the longitudinal excitation discussed in (1) vanishes, the Meissner effect disappears at high temperature.

(3) From our viewpoint, a remarkable state of the Bose gas lies at the vicinity of the BEC transition temperature in the normal phase ($`\mu 0`$) koh . The coherent many-body wave function grows to a large size but not yet to a macroscopic one. In such a situation, whereas the mechanism in (2) works for the large displacement extending over two different wave functions, the mechanism in (1) works for the small displacement within a single wave function.

As shown in Eq.(13), the BEC is the necessary and sufficient condition of the Meissner effect for the charged ideal Bose gas. This conclusion is, however, applicable only to a simplified model like the charged ideal Bose gas. An inclusion of the repulsive interaction will change the situation, which will be studied in Sec.3.

## III Formalism

To examine the normal Bose gas at the vicinity of the BEC transition temperature, we can not use the conventional method of assuming the Bose condensate by replacing the operator of zero momentum particle with a $`c`$-number from the beginning. Consider the current-current response tensor of the charged Bose gas at the vicinity of the BEC transition temperature as illustrated in Fig.2. The $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ in coordinate space includes the following form,

$`G|T_\tau J_\mu (x,\tau )J_\nu (0,0)|G`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{0|T_\tau \widehat{J}_\mu (x,\tau )\widehat{J}_\nu (0,0)exp\left[{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau \widehat{H}_I(\tau )\right]|0}{0|exp\left[{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau \widehat{H}_I(\tau )\right]|0}},`$ (14)
where $`|G`$ is a ground state of $`_pϵ(p)\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p+g_{p,p^{}}_q\mathrm{\Phi }_{pq}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{p^{}+q}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$. The excitation energy due to the long-range Coulomb force is too high to affect the dynamics of the bosons in the Meissner effect cou . Hence, the photon-boson vertex appears only at an initial and a final vertex of the $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`H_I(\tau )`$ in Eq.(14) represents $`g_{p,p^{}}_q\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{pq}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{p^{}+q}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_p`$ (dotted lines in Fig.2). In the ground state of Bose gas, due to the repulsive interaction $`g`$ contained in $`exp(iH_I(\tau )𝑑\tau )`$ of Eq.(14), one-particle excitations frequently occur as illustrated by an upper bubble with a dotted line in Fig.2(a). The current-current response tensor of such a medium is depicted by a lower bubble in Fig.2(a). (The black and the white small circle in Fig.2 represents the vector and the scalar vertex respectively.)

When $`|G>`$ is the ground state at the vicinity of the BEC transition temperature in the normal phase, the perturbation must be developed in such a way that as the order of the expansion increases, the susceptibility gradually includes a new effect due to Bose statistics. An important feature of the response to the photon by the large coherent many-body wave function is that bosons appearing in the response tensor also participate in the coherent wave function of the medium. (The response tensor and the medium form a coherent wave function as a whole.) Hence, we must seriously consider the influence of Bose statistics on the graph like Fig.2(a). When one of the two bosons in the lower bubble and one of the two bosons in the upper bubble have a same momentum ($`p=p^{}`$), and another bosons in the lower and the upper bubble have another same momentum ($`p+q=p^{}+q^{}`$), a graph made by exchanging these two particles must be included in the expansion of $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$. Such a graph is obtained in two steps as illustrated in Fig.2. When two boson lines with $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$($`=p`$) is exchanged in Fig.2(a), a square appears in Fig.2(b). Further, when two boson lines with $`p+q`$ and $`p+q^{}`$($`=p+q`$) is exchanged in Fig.2(c), a graph linked by the repulsive interaction appears in Fig.2(d). The resulting current-current correlation tensor has a form elongated by the density-density correlation.

A contribution of Fig.2(d) to $`\chi _{\mu \nu }`$ is given by,

$`\chi _{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(q,\omega )=g{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}(p+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})_\mu (p+{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})_\nu `$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{f(ϵ(p))f(ϵ(p+q))}{\omega +ϵ(p)ϵ(p+q)}}\right]^2.`$ (15)
With decreasing temperature, the coherent wave function grows to a large size, and the particle exchange due to Bose statistics like Fig.2 occurs many times. Hence, one can not ignore the higher-order term $`\chi _{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$ corresponding to the larger coherent wave function. Particularly important is the coherent wave function consisting of $`p=0`$ bosons. Correspondingly, a quantity of most interest which contribute to $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }`$ in Eq.(10) is a term proportional to $`q_\mu q_\nu `$ in $`\chi _{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(q,0)`$, the $`p=0`$ component of which has the following form;

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(q,0)=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{2}g^nF_\beta (q)^{n+1},$$
(16)
where

$$F_\beta (q)=\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu )\left(\frac{(1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ))^1(\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ(q))\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ))^1}{ϵ(q)}\right).$$
(17)
$`F_\beta (q)`$ is a positive monotonously decreasing function of $`q^2`$ which approaches zero as $`q^2\mathrm{}`$. As $`\mu 0`$, $`|F_\beta (q)|`$ increases at any $`q`$.

The general definition at the end of Sec.2A says that, when a power series in $`g`$

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^nF_\beta (q)^{n+1}\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ng^n,$$
(18)
diverges at $`q0`$, the Meissner effect occurs. At high temperature in normal phase ($`\beta \mu 0`$), a small $`F_\beta (q)`$ guarantees the convergence of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ (Eq.(18)). With decreasing temperature ($`\mu 0`$), however, a gradual increase of $`F_\beta (q)`$ makes the higher-order term significant, finally leading to the divergence of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$. A convergence radius $`r_c`$ of the power series $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_nx^n`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{r_c}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|a_n|^{1/n},$$
(19)
(Cauchy-Hadamard’s theorem). Applying this theorem to Eq.(18) ($`a_n=F_\beta (q)^{n+1}`$), one obtains $`1/r_c=F_\beta (q)`$. Hence, as a convergence condition: $`0<g<r_c`$, we have

$$|gF_\beta (q)|<1.$$
(20)
Generally, for the Meissner effect to occur, the balance between the longitudinal and the transverse excitation must be destroyed on a macroscopic scale ($`q0`$). Together with the Bose-statistical coherence, the repulsive interaction enhances this tendency, finally violating the condition of Eq.(20).

An expansion form of $`F_\beta (q)`$ around $`q^2=0`$ is given by

$`F_\beta (q)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu )}{(1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ))^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ){\displaystyle \frac{(1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ))}{(1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu ))^3}}ϵ(q)+\mathrm{}.`$ (21)
At high temperature, Eq.(20) is satisfied, and $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ has the following form,

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)=\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{2}\frac{F_\beta (q)}{1gF_\beta (q)}.$$
(22)
In cooling the gas, $`|F_\beta (q)|`$ increases monotonously, and the convergence condition is first violated at $`q=0`$ when $`|gF_\beta (0)|=1`$, that is, using Eq.(21),

$$g\beta =4\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\beta \mu }{2}\right).$$
(23)
From now, we call $`T_0`$ an onset temperature of the Meissner effect satisfying Eq.(23). In view of Eq.(23), we conclude that the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion ($`g>0`$) shows the Meissner effect prior to the BEC phase ($`\mu <0`$), thus leading to $`T_{BEC}<T_0`$. At $`T=T_0`$, substituting Eq.(21) in Eq.(22) with Eq.(23), we get

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)=\frac{m}{\mathrm{sinh}|\beta \mu |}\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2},$$
(24)
which shows the Meissner effect in Eq.(11).

Compared with Eq.(13), the number density $`n_0`$ of $`p=0`$ boson which is a macroscopic number at $`T_{BEC}`$ is replaced by $`0.5/\mathrm{sinh}|\beta \mu |`$ in Eq.(24). Accordingly, the penetration depth has a form such as $`\lambda (T)=\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}|\beta \mu |}\sqrt{mc^2/4\pi e^2}`$. Since $`\mu <0`$ at $`T_0`$, $`\lambda (T_0)`$ is larger than $`\lambda _0(T_{BEC})`$ in the ideal Bose gas, because at $`T_0`$ only $`p=0`$ boson whose number is large, but not yet macroscopic is responsible for this Meissner effect. Hence, at the onset temperature $`T_0`$, the magnetic field penetrates deeply into the gas. (It is in contrast with the abrupt exclusion of the magnetic field, that is, a very small $`\lambda (T_c)`$ in the superconductor.)

(a) In the weak-coupling case $`(g0)`$, we can make a rough estimation of the condition of Eq.(23). Using $`\mu _0(T)`$ of the ideal Bose gas for $`\mu (T)`$ in Eq.(23) such as

$$\beta \mu _0(T)=\left(\frac{2.61}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\right)^2\frac{T_{BEC}}{T}\left[\left(\frac{T}{T_{BEC}}\right)^{1.5}1\right]^2,$$
(25)
we can determine $`T_0`$ as a solution of simultaneous equations (23) and (25). Figure.3 shows a phase diagram in which the onset temperature $`T_0`$ of the Meissner effect is plotted at a given strength of the repulsive interaction $`g`$. (Since only the relative strength of $`g`$ to the particle mass has a meaning, $`g/k_BT_{BEC}`$ is plotted.) Figure.3 confirms that for the charged ideal Bose gas ($`g=0`$), the Meissner effect occurs just at $`T=T_{BEC}`$, but it shows that the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion ($`g0`$) begins to exclude the applied magnetic field prior to the BEC phase in cooling. (Although the repulsive interaction suppresses the $`T_{BEC}`$, it does not change the overall feature of Fig.3.) The BEC is not a necessary condition of the Meissner effect for the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion.

(b) At high temperature ($`T/T_{BEC}1`$), the repulsive interaction which is necessary for the Meissner effect to occur in Eq.(23) increases as $`T\mathrm{exp}[a(T/T_{BEC})^2]`$. In view of the exponential factor, the Meissner effect does not occur at high temperature in real materials, thus not affecting the essential feature of the Meissner effect, a phenomenon in low temperature.

(c) When cooling the system further below $`T_0`$ in Fig.3 at a given $`g`$ , the $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ (Eq.(18)) diverges not only at $`q=0`$, but also for a region $`0<qq_c(T)`$, where $`q_c(T)`$ is determined by a condition $`|gF_\beta (q_c(T))|=1`$ at a given $`T`$. For $`q_c(T)<q`$, the $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ converges even below $`T_0`$. To obtain the overall feature of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ below $`T_0`$, we get a concrete form of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }`$ by expanding $`1gF_\beta (q)`$ in the right-hand side of Eq.(22) with respect to $`q^2q_c(T)^2`$. Hence one gets the following result:

$`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{},\hfill & 0qq_c(T),\hfill \\ \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{2g\left({\displaystyle \frac{lnF_\beta (q)}{q^2}}\right)_{q_c}\left(q^2q_c\left(T\right)^2\right)},\hfill & q_c(T)<q.\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
Equation.(26) in Eq.(11) means that the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion excludes not only the uniform applied magnetic field $`(q=0)`$, but also the spatially modulated magnetic field $`H(q)`$ with $`0<qq_c(T)`$.

With decreasing temperature, the number of particles with $`p0`$ which satisfies the divergence condition of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ gradually increases. Hence such particles participate in excluding the applied magnetic field, leading to a gradual decrease of the penetration depth.

The $`q_c(T)`$ reminds us of the coherence length $`\xi `$ in the superconductor, because $`q_c(T)`$ and $`\xi ^1`$ have a similar property: As they become larger, the Bose-statistical coherence grows. (For more comparison, see Sec.4.) Here, we discuss the temperature dependence of $`q_c(T)`$.

(1) Just below $`T_0`$, $`q_c(T)`$ in Eq.(26) is small, and we can obtain the temperature-dependence of $`q_c(T)`$ as follows. We expand $`F_\beta (q)`$ in the condition of $`|gF_\beta (q)|=1`$ with a small $`q_c(T)`$ as in Eq.(21). Taking only the first and the second term in the right-hand side of Eq.(21), we get an approximate form of $`q_c(T)`$ as

$$q_c(T)^2=4mk_BT\mathrm{tanh}\frac{|\beta \mu (T)|}{2}\left[1\frac{4k_BT}{g}\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{\beta \mu }{2}\right)\right].$$
(29)
At $`T=T_0`$, $`q_c(T)`$ is zero because of Eq.(23). At $`T<T_0`$, $`q_c(T)`$ is expanded with respect to $`T_0T`$. In the case of weak repulsive interaction, using $`\mu _0(T)`$ (Eq.(25)) as $`\mu (T)`$, one gets

$$q_c(T)=2\sqrt{Amk_BT\mathrm{tanh}\frac{|\beta \mu _0(T)|}{2}}\sqrt{1\frac{T}{T_0}},$$
(30)
where

$$A=1+1.08(\alpha ^20.5\alpha ^{0.5}0.5\alpha ^1)\sqrt{\frac{4k_BT_0}{g}+1},$$
(31)
and $`\alpha =T_0/T_{BEC}`$.

(2) When the decreasing temperature reaches $`T=T_{BEC}`$, $`F_\beta (q)`$ (Eq.(17)) diverges at all $`q`$, thus leading to a divergence of $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ at all $`q`$. Hence $`q_c(T)`$ in Eq.(26) goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the BEC phase.

## IV Discussion

(1) In this paper, we explained the mechanism in which the repulsive interaction destroys the balance between the longitudinal and the transverse excitation on a macroscopic scale. This explanation can be viewed from a different point of view.

Generally, the influence of the repulsive interaction on the dynamical properties of the boson systems differs from that on the thermal properties. For the thermal properties, the repulsive interaction generally suppresses the growth of the Bose-statistical coherence. For example, it is known that due to the strong short-range repulsion, not all helium 4 atoms participate in the BEC even at zero temperature (depletion effect).

For the dynamical properties such as the superfluidity, however, the repulsive interaction generally enhances singular properties due to Bose statistics. For the ideal Bose gas, the particle with non-zero momentum behaves like a free particle (except for the statistical constraint) to the external dynamical perturbation. For the repulsive Bose gas, however, the particles are likely to spread uniformly in coordinate space due to the repulsive force. This feature makes the particles with $`p0`$ behave similarly with other particles, especially with the particle having zero momentum. If it behaves differently from others, a resulting locally high density of particle raises the interaction energy. This is a reason why all particles seem to show singular dynamical behavior even at temperature in which not all particles participate in the BEC. (This fact corresponds to the well-known property that the one-particle energy spectrum changes from $`p^2/2m`$ to $`sp`$ due to the repulsive interaction, enhancing the stability of the superfluid flow to the thermal disturbance by raising the energy barrier around $`p=0`$.)

The Meissner effect is a dynamical response of the Bose gas to the external perturbation (the applied static magnetic field) as well. The boson excited from the $`p=0`$ to the $`p0`$ state does not respond as a free particle to the magnetic field, but it excludes the magnetic field cooperatively with the $`p=0`$ bosons by the repulsive interaction. Hence, even when the Bose-statistical coherence grows to a large but not to a macroscopic scale (ODFRO), the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion shows the Meissner effect. In this meaning, as well as the superfluidity, the Meissner effect is another example of the mechanism in which the repulsive interaction enhances the singular dynamical response of the boson system.

(2) As discussed in Sec,1, the Meissner effect occurring in the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion differs from that in the superconductors in some respects. Comparing two different Meissner effects is useful for a deeper understanding of them.

Let us replace the boson operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ in the right-hand side of Eq.(5) with the fermion operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{p,\sigma }`$, and use such a $`J_\mu (q,\tau )`$ in Eq.(4). By factorizing the resulting $`T_\tau J_\mu (q,\tau )J_\nu (q,0)`$ into a product of the two anomalous fermion Green’s functions, we get

$`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}(p+\frac{q}{2})_\mu (p+\frac{q}{2})_\nu }`$
$`\times \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_pϵ_{p+q}+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}{E_pE_{p+q}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_p+E_{p+q}}},`$ (32)
where $`ϵ_p=p^2/2m\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the order parameter, and $`E_p=\sqrt{ϵ_p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. Performing the integral over $`p`$ in Eq.(30) yields

$$\chi ^T(q,0)=(nma|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2)bq^2,$$
(33)
where $`nm=\chi ^L(q,0)`$, and $`a`$ and $`b`$ is a parameter independent of $`q^2`$. Substituting Eq.(31) in the definition of Eq.(10), one obtains

$$\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)=q_\mu q_\nu \left(\frac{a|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}{q^2}+b\right),$$
(34)
which means that only below $`T_c`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }|0`$), $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ shows the mathematical singularity like $`q^2`$, leading to the Meissner effect.

As well as the charged ideal Bose gas, the BCS model does not show the mathematical singularity in $`\widehat{\chi }_{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ prior to the BEC, but after the BEC, only the first-order term in the perturbation expansion of $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ is enough to show the $`q^2`$ singularity. In the BCS model, the particle interaction is assumed to be completely diagonalized by the formation of the Cooper pair, thus leaving no residual interaction between the pairs. This fact makes the next-order calculation of the susceptibility unnecessary. On the other hand, the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion shows another type of singularity prior to the BEC in the normal phase, if the perturbation expansion of $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,0)`$ is summed to infinite order.

In the superconductors, two different kinds of the coherence length are known. The first is $`\xi _0`$ appearing in the Pippard nonlocal electrodynamics, and the second is $`\xi (T)`$ appearing in the Ginzburg-Landau equation. They are not the same quantities, but both quantities represent the smallest size of the wave packets which the supercurrent carriers can form, thus reflecting an extent of transformation of individual particles from fermion to boson. Due to the composite-boson nature underlying the Cooper pairs, the type-2 superconductors show the complicated nonuniform response to the uniform applied magnetic field.

On the other hand, the response of the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion to the magnetic field is different, because it consists of the elementary boson. ($`\xi _0`$ or $`\xi (T)`$ corresponds to the particle radius in this case.) The critical wave number $`q_c(T)`$ defined as Eq.(28) is an inverse of another type of the coherence length. The $`1/q_c(T)`$ represents a characteristic length of the spatial variation of magnetic field. Generally, compared with the uniform field case, screening of the spatially modulated applied magnetic field needs the stronger Bose-statistical coherence in the gas. When the applied field varies with a length larger than the value of $`1/q_c(T)`$, it is screened by the charged Bose gas with short-range repulsion. The increase of $`q_c(T)`$ in Eq.(28) means the growth of the Bose-statistical coherence in cooling the system.


text:
# Weighting CMB and Galactic synchrotron polarisation

## 1 Introduction

An extraordinary improvement in Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) observations is presently ongoing (see Bennett et al.2003 and references therein). Several balloon-borne and ground-based observations map CMB anisotropies on angular scales going from a few arcminutes to tens of degrees; the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe111map.gsfc.nasa.gov (WMAP) satellite released recently the first year full sky maps, with angular resolution $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}14}`$ and a sensitivity of the order of ten $`\mu `$K, on a frequency range extending from 22 to 90 GHz. The Planck satellite222astro/estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck will provide total intensity and polarisation full sky maps with resolution $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}^{}`$ and a sensitivity of a few $`\mu `$K, on nine channels in the frequency range 30-857 GHz.

Measurements of CMB polarisation are still at the beginning. As it is well known (see Zaldarriaga & Seljak 1997 and Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & Stebbins 1997), CMB polarisation is conveniently expressed in terms of $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes, non-local combination of the familiar $`Q`$ and $`U`$ Stokes parameters. Total intensity $`T`$ and $`E`$ components are excited by all kinds of cosmological perturbations, namely scalars, vectors and tensors, and strongly correlated; the $`B`$ modes select vectors and tensors only. This rich phenomenology, and the hope to reveal tensors, i.e. cosmological gravitational waves, is the reason for the great effort toward CMB polarisation measurements, despite of the weakness of the signal, expected one order of magnitude less than total intensity. Recently, a first detection was carried out (Kovac et al.2002); WMAP was also successful in detecting the $`TE`$ correlation.

Any CMB observation must control the foreground emission. Polarised foregrounds are less known than in total intensity, see De Zotti (2002) for reviews. At low CMB frequencies, say 100 GHz or less, the main foreground is synchrotron (Haslam et al.1982, Duncan et al.1997, 1999, Uyaniker et al.1999), which is the most known in polarisation, and the subject of this work. The free-free emission is relevant on the same frequencies, and is expected to be negligibly polarised. On higher frequencies, the Galactic thermal dust emission dominates, and is very poorly known in polarisation (Lazarian & Prunet 2002). Moreover, several populations of extra-Galactic sources are expected at all frequencies (see De Zotti 2002),

In this work we focus on the contamination coming from the diffuse polarised Galactic synchrotron emission. In Section 2 we review the current knowledge and forecast about this signal. In Section 3 we assess the level of contamination to the CMB radiation, on $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes, as expected after the first year WMAP measurements.

## 2 Guessing all sky polarised synchrotron

Current radio band observation cover about half of the sky at the degree resolution (Brouw & Spoelstra 1976), as well as low and medium Galactic latitudes with $`10`$ arcminutes resolution (Duncan et al. 1997, Uyaniker et al. 1999, Duncan et al. 1999), up to $`b20^{}`$. These data allow an estimate of the polarised synchrotron fluctuations, and in particular their angular power spectrum, up to multipoles $`\mathrm{}1500`$ (Tucci et al. 2000, Baccigalupi et al. 2001, Giardino et al. 2002).

Giardino et al. (2002) assumed a theoretical polarisation degree of $`75\%`$ correlated with the Haslam et al. (1982) template at 408 MHz. The polarisation angle is assumed random and obeying the power spectrum derived from the high resolution radio observations mentioned above. The $`Q`$ and $`U`$ simulated templates, reaching a resolution of about ten arcminutes, were then scaled in frequencies by considering either constant or a space-varying spectral index inferred by multi-frequency radio observations.

On sub-degree angular scales, by analysing the high resolution data in the radio band, Tucci et al.(2000) and Baccigalupi et al. (2001) found a quite flat slope for the polarisation angular power spectrum, $`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{1.5÷2}`$, in agreement with Giardino et al. (2002) but with smaller amplitude. Baccigalupi et al. (2001) also estimated the power on super-degree angular scales, corresponding to multipoles $`\mathrm{}<200`$, using the Brouw & Spoelstra (1976) data, finding a steeper behavior, $`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^3`$.

The two simulated templates, by Giardino et al. (2002), hereafter $`S_G`$, and Baccigalupi et al. (2001), hereafter $`S_B`$ (obtained by properly rescaling the power of the $`S_G`$ template), are shown in figure 1, in a non-linear scale to highlight the behavior at high Galactic latitudes; the templates shown are for the $`Q`$ Stokes parameter, the case of $`U`$ being qualitatively analogue, and have been extrapolated at 100 GHz. The two templates have roughly the same amplitude, but for $`S_B`$ more power on large angular scale can be clearly seen, and we return on this in the next Section. For completeness, we also show the template for the synchrotron spectral index as inferred by Giardino et al. (2002), in figure 2. As it can be seen, the spectral index is far from being uniform in the sky, having variations reaching $`15\%`$ on all Galactic latitudes, mostly on large angular scales.

Before going to consider the angular power spectrum and its relative strength compared to the CMB, it is interesting to look at the sky distribution of the forecasted synchrotron signal, to be compared with the Gaussianity of the CMB. The signal distributions are shown in figure 3; as expected for a Galactic signal, they are far from Gaussianity, and exhibit a marked super-Gaussian behavior. Note that this feature could be useful to reduce the contamination to the CMB, since recently proposed algorithms rely on the statistical independence of the signals to recover (Maino et al.2002).

## 3 Forecasted CMB contamination

As a CMB template, we generate a realization of the expected polarisation signal corresponding to the WMAP measurements, more precisely a flat Friedmann Robertson Walker (FRW) model according to table 7 in Spergel et al. (2003):

$$h=0.72,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0228,\tau =0.117,n_S=0.96.$$
(1)
Moreover, we allow for a consistent background of gravitational waves, assumed to have a power which is $`30\%`$ with respect to the scalar one, with spectral index given by $`0.044`$, according to the simplest inflationary prescription.

In Fig. 4 we report the power spectra of the $`S_G`$ and $`S_B`$ models compared to the CMB; in both panels, showing $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes, the dotted curve represents the CMB, while the upper and lower solid lines represent the $`S_G`$ and $`S_B`$ synchrotron models, respectively. The plots are at 100 GHz, in antenna temperature; at lower frequencies, the steep synchrotron frequency scaling makes the contamination rapidly worse, by a factor of about $`[100/\nu (GHz)]^{5.5}`$, according to the scaling represented in figure 2. At higher frequencies, the contribution from polarised dust emission is likely to become relevant (Prunet & Lazarian 2002). As a general feature, it can be noted how the Galactic emission has almost equal power on $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes, according to the most natural expectation for a non-cosmological signal (Zaldarriaga 2001).

The contamination is severe on large angular scales, almost covering the reinsertion bump, in both cases. The $`S_B`$ signal drops rapidly below the CMB at $`\mathrm{}40`$; therefore, according to this scenario, the synchrotron contamination to the CMB $`E`$ mode acoustic oscillations should be irrelevant. On the other hand, the $`S_G`$ model predicts a severe contamination also for the first CMB $`E`$ acoustic oscillation, being although irrelevant at higher multipoles. This behavior clarifies the qualitative difference between the two template images in figure 1, where the $`S_B`$ power has clearly the dominant power on large angular scales, while the fine structure contribution for the $`S_G`$ case is much more important.

CMB $`B`$ modes are clearly dominated by foreground emission, on all scales and according to both models. Note that the level of $`B`$ power that we adopt is optimistically close to the upper limit set by WMAP, and corresponds to high energy inflation models. As we already stressed, at higher frequencies the contribution from polarised dust emission is likely to become relevant (Lazarian & Prunet 2002), and even a percent polarisation degree would greatly dominate the CMB $`B`$ modes.

Future CMB polarisation measurements must take into account the expected, severe contamination from diffuse Galactic synchrotron. In particular, $`B`$ modes are likely to receive a major contamination on all scales and at all frequencies. A way out is certainly the scanning of particularly clean regions; alternatively, the data analysis can suitably exploit the multifrequency coverage to isolate and subtract the Galactic contamination to the CMB. Although these are non-trivial tasks, they have to be accomplished in order to extract the whole scientific information contained in CMB polarisation.

The author warmly thanks Giovanna Giardino for useful discussions. The HEALPix pixelisation scheme, available at www.eso.org/healpix, by A.J. Banday, M. Bartelmann, K.M. Gorski, F.K. Hansen, E.F. Hivon, and B.D. Wandelt, has been extensively used.