text:
# The Generalized Uncertainty Principle , entropy bounds and black hole (non-)evaporation in a thermal bath

## 1 Introduction

There has been a great deal of interest in the Holographic Principle  (the generalization of the Bekenstein limit ) as a new and fundamental principle in physics, leading important issues and clues to the unified theories of elementary fields and forces .

This limit is very important for black hole physics (as discussed, for example, in Ref.3), information theory, and several other fields. There are different derivations of the Bekenstein bound and the Holographic Principle, but we shall recall here the simplest intuitive approach.

Let us consider a region with size $`R`$ containing total energy $`E`$. Due to the uncertainty relation the minimum energy $`ϵ(R)`$ of a particle localized inside this region is $`ϵ(R)1/R`$ (we use natural units, $`L_{pl}=c=\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$, however, we restore occasionally $`L_{pl}`$ in important formulae for the sake of clarity). The value $`ϵ(R)`$ can be considered as a quantum of energy for that 3-D region. Therefore, the maximum number of particles inside this region with bounded energy $`E`$ could be estimated as the ratio

$$N_{max}\frac{E}{ϵ(R)}ER$$
(1)
Since the Boltzmann entropy of this system is

$$S=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }(N)$$
(2)
then a maximal entropy of this system is obtained if we consider that the number of microstates is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(N)=2^N`$ (for a simple system in which each degree of freedom has just two states and no degeneration of the levels). But if the number of particles (or quanta) is bounded, then we obtain an upper limit to the entropy $`S_{max}<\alpha ER`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a calculable number that accounts for the lack of detailed information of the specific system under consideration. The presence of a finite number of species and the internal degrees of freedom do not change this upper bound.

## 2 The Generalized Uncertainty Principle

Heisenberg obtained the Uncertainty Principle on very general grounds, using only the quantization of the electromagnetic radiation radiation field. The uncertainty in the position of the electron (when it interacts with a photon) is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_H\mathrm{\Delta }P1`$, in natural units. He did not, however, consider gravitational interaction between the electron and the photon, as is usually assumed to be negligible. However, at increasingly large energies this interaction is more and more important.

Here we follow the same arguments of Ref. 3 to derive a Generalized Uncertainty Principle, later applied to the generalization of the Bekenstein limit. The fate of extremely small black holes is discussed within this approach to show an apparent tendency of remnants with masses around the Planck mass $`M_{pl}`$ to remain in equilibrium with a radiation bath.

The simplest way of thinking of this gravitational uncertainty is to follow a Newtonian approach. If we suppose that the photon is a classical particle with energy $`E`$ and effective mass $`m=E/c^2`$, then this particle will interact with the electron imparting to it an acceleration given by $`a=Gm/r^2`$. We consider that the interaction region has size $`L`$ and the interaction lasts $`c\mathrm{\Delta }tLr`$. Then, the variation of the velocity of the electron is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }v\frac{GE}{c^2r^2}\frac{c\mathrm{\Delta }t}{c}\frac{GE}{c^3L}`$. Then, the position uncertainty due to this interaction may be obtained by inverting $`v\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}GE/c^3L`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_G\frac{GEc\mathrm{\Delta }t}{c^4L}\frac{GP}{c^3}`$. The impulse given to the electron is $`P\mathrm{\Delta }P`$. Therefore, the total uncertainty in the position is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }x_H+\mathrm{\Delta }x_G=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }P}+L_{pl}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }P$$
(3)
This relation is invariant under $`\mathrm{\Delta }P\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }P}`$. However, it is unclear whether we can simply add up the contributions linearly as done above. The reasons of concern arise from the fact that the gravitational and the electromagnetic fields interact non-trivially at these energy scales, and may produce terms $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }x_H\mathrm{\Delta }x_G}`$ Then, an alternative suggestion may be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }x_H+\mathrm{\Delta }x_G+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }x_H\mathrm{\Delta }x_G}$$
(4)
which is also invariant under the transformation $`\mathrm{\Delta }P\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }P}`$.

A General Relativistic approach, free of the action-at-distance Newtonian drawbacks may be attempted. The field equations of General Relativity are

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
The left side has $`(length)^2`$ units. Thus, on dimensional grounds we may write the left side in terms of deviations of a flat metric, as

$$LHS\frac{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}{L^2}$$
(6)
and $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes this deviation and $`L`$ is a lengthscale. The energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is roughly the photon energy by $`L^3`$. Thus, we may write

$$R.H.S\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\frac{E}{L^3}\frac{GP}{c^3L^3}$$
(7)
and finally, equating both dimensional estimates yields

$$\delta g_{\mu \nu }\frac{GP}{c^3L}$$
(8)
This deviation corresponds to an uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ inside the region of size $`L`$. Thus, the uncertainty in the position of the particle due to this gravitational interaction must be given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x_G}{L}\delta g_{\mu \nu }\frac{GP}{c^3L}$$
(9)
And it implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_G\frac{G\mathrm{\Delta }P}{c^3}`$. This is the same relation obtained in the Newtonian approach.

String theory provides yet another way of deriving this result, the details can be found in Refs. 4. The GUP arises on quite general grounds and may be applied to re-derive known results, but also to physical systems for which a detailed theory does not give definitive results, either because not yet completed or because of the difficulty of the calculations.

### 2.1 The Holographic Bound near the Planck scale

One of these examples is the issue of a maximum entropy within a bounded region of space, currently subject to a great deal of activity . To obtain the generalization of the Holographic Bound we start with eq.(3) and consider a finite region of size $`R`$ filled with quanta with minimum energy given by $`c\mathrm{\Delta }Pϵ(R)`$. The GUP expression leads immediately to

$$ϵ^2(R)Rϵ(R)+10$$
(10)
Solving for the minimum

$$ϵ(R)_{min}=\frac{R}{2}\left[1\sqrt{1(2L_{pl}/R)^2}\right]$$
(11)
Then, as before, the maximum number of quanta within the region with size $`R`$ and total energy $`E`$ is

$$N_{max}=\frac{E}{ϵ_{min}}=\frac{2E}{R}\left[1\sqrt{1(2L_{pl}/R)^2}\right]^1$$
(12)
The number of microstates is $`2^{N_{max}}`$, and the maximum Boltzmann entropy just

$$S_{max}=\alpha \frac{2E}{R}\left[1\sqrt{1(2L_{pl}/R)^2}\right]^1$$
(13)
In the limit $`R>>L_{pl}`$ when the region is much larger than the Planck length $`L_{pl}`$ , $`S_{max}=\alpha ER`$ as expected (which follows from $`ϵ_{min}1/R`$), but there is a deviation from the linear behavior for small $`R`$. It must be kept in mind that the ratio $`\frac{S_{max}}{E}`$ can be related to the number of bits that cross the unit area. Note that the square brackets requires strictly that $`R>2L_{pl}`$ in order to keep the entropy real, then, around the Planck scale we found a minimal value for the Bekenstein bound. Then, we may say that the use of the GUP excludes values below $`2L_{pl}`$ naturally. The spacetime would be quite fuzzy at this scale, and we can not obtain information from areas below $`4L_{pl}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Fig. 1 show the behavior of $`\frac{S_{max}}{E}`$ versus the size of the system under consideration $`R`$ illustrating this feature. If an alternative expression for the GUP, such as eq.(4) is used the lower bound on $`R`$ becomes $`3L_{pl}`$, which may be equally acceptable. This feature may be also inferred from the proposed form of the GUP relations eqs. (3) and (4) reminding that the spread in the momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ must be real. It must be noted that there is, in fact, no a priori reason to discard the choice of the ”+” sign for the square root in eqs. (14) and (15); however as Adler, Chen and Santiago pointed out , that choice would not reproduce the Hawking temperature in the limit of large black holes, a result that has been derive using a number of physical arguments. Therefore, we have also chosen to keep the ”-” sign to be consistent with that limit.

## 3 GUP effects on the evaporation/absorption of black holes

It is well-known that evaporating black holes emit particles with a thermal spectrum characterizing the Hawking temperature $`T_H=\frac{M_{pl}^2}{8\pi M}`$. This effect can be attributed to the vacuum polarization induced by the gravitational collapse and holds for several kinds of black holes (including proper modifications due to rotation, charge, etc). It is important to recall that the Hawking temperature above was deduced by applying the principles of Quantum Mechanics to General Relativity. This effect is a semiclassical approximation considering quantum fields around a collapsing body described classically by the General Relativity. If we modify the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as above, we expect that the Hawking temperature will be modified, since the simple formula $`T_HM^1`$ is a reflection of the uncertainty relating the size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and the wavelength $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ^1`$ of the field fluctuations.

Adler,Chen and Santiago (Ref.5 and references therein) analysis used the GUP to derive a modified black hole temperature exactly as above. From the eq.(10), we solve for the momentum uncertainty in terms of the distance uncertainty, which we again take to be the Schwarzschild radius $`R_g`$. This gives the following momentum and temperature for the radiated photons (and other particles)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{2L_{pl}^2}\left[1\sqrt{1(\frac{2L_{pl}}{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}\right]$$
(14)
And therefore, according to their analysis, the corrected formula for the temperature is

$$T_{GUP}=\frac{M}{4\pi }\left[1\sqrt{1(\frac{M_{pl}}{M})^2}\right]$$
(15)
which behaves as $`T_{GUP}T_H`$ in the limit $`MM_{pl}`$. As already noted, the uncertainty relations eqs.(3) or (4) also admit the solution with a ”+” sign in front of the square root, but this choice would not become the standard Hawking temperature in the large mass limit. Other physical reason for discarding this possibility is not known to us.

Now, it is important to recall that radiation incident onto a small black hole can be absorbed by the object if the temperature of the environment $`T_{rad}`$ is high compared to the black hole temperature $`T_H`$ (in agreement with the second law of thermodynamics). Then the absorption condition is $`T_{rad}(t)>T_H(t)`$. Geometrically, we know that it happens if the wavelength of the incident radiation is smaller than the gravitational radius of the black hole. In the very early universe, inside the radiation-dominated era, the density evolves as $`\varrho _{rad}(t)8\times 10^5(t/s)^2gcm^3`$ assuming zero curvature, i.e. an universe which was flat at its very early epochs.

The geometric condition $`\lambda _{max}<R_g`$ for absorption of radiation quanta onto the black hole then becomes a familiar thermodynamic condition if we substitute Wien’s law and the Hawking temperature in these formula (($`\lambda _{max}T_{rad}=constant`$ and $`R_gT_H=constant`$)), because we obtain $`T_{rad}>T_H`$, as naively expected.

Then, all black holes immersed in a radiation environment are able to accrete this ambient radiation provided the geometric condition is met. When the geometric condition is not valid, the environment is colder than the black hole, and the evaporation dominates over accretion. The evaporation/accretion regimes of black holes have been studied in the semiclassical approach, and while it has been shown that a large room for the accretion regime exists, this regime does not lead to explosive growing when a radiation ”fuel” is considered. Hawking  showed that an evaporating black hole must loss mass at a rate given by

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{A(M)}{M^2}$$
(16)
This result is obtained considering that the energy flux is thermal and the Stefan-Boltzmann law valid, i.e. $`\dot{E}=4\pi R_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma T_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$. Numerically, $`A(M)10^{24}g^3s^1J(M)`$, where $`3<J(M)<100`$ denotes the particles emitted by the black hole. Their emission probability is sizeable when $`T_H>m`$, where $`m`$ is the rest mass of the given particle. On the other hand, the classical cross section for absorption is

$$\sigma _{r_g}=\frac{27\pi }{4}R_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(17)
And the mass accretion is given by the product $`\sigma _{r_g}F_{rad}(T)`$, where $`F_{rad}(T)=c\varrho _{rad}(T)`$ is the flux of radiation around the event horizon of the black hole (non-trivial effects due to the full quantum-mechanical treatment of the problem for large black holes are described by N.Sanchez in Ref.7 and references therein).

Therefore, the total variation of mass would be given by

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{A}{M^2}+BM^2T_{rad}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}(t)$$
(18)
where $`B=\frac{27\pi }{M_{pl}^4}`$ in natural units. It is very interesting to study the equilibrium conditions for these objects at given epochs. In general, if the mass rate is null, the black hole is in thermodynamical equilibrium with its surroundings, and therefore considering $`\dot{M}=0`$ above, we arrive at the critical mass defined by

$$M_c(t)\frac{10^{26}g}{T_{rad}(t)/T_0}$$
(19)
where $`T_0`$ is the present temperature of the CMBR . Today, $`M_c10^7M_{}`$ and all isolated stellar black holes are actually absorbing the meager relic radiation from the background. Assuming that the cosmological mass density in black holes is subdominant (see Refs. 8 and 9 and references therein), the time dependence of the critical mass is quite simple. It has been further shown that the equilibrium between black holes and radiation is not stable, and therefore the black holes will not remain in equilibrium after the condition $`MM_c`$ is met. Large black holes ($`MM_{pl}`$) would drift away the critical mass curve to the evaporating regime.

What happens with black holes near the Planck scale? When considering the same problem near the Planck scale, we may improve our equations taking into account the GUP to study the behavior of small primordial black holes formed in the very early universe. The quantum evaporation term may be constructed using the Stefan-Boltzmann law again $`\dot{E}=4\pi R_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma T_{GUP}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ to obtain

$$\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)_{evap}=\frac{\sigma M^6}{16\pi ^3M_{pl}^4}\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{M_{pl}^2}{M^2}}\right)^4$$
(20)
In order to deduce the absorption term for these very small PBHs, it is enough require that the critical mass to be the same in this regime. The argument for this criterion is that the critical mass is a parameter describing the properties of the bath, not of a black hole in particular . The critical mass rather describes the equilibrium between a reservoir and any black hole with generic mass, therefore it has to be an invariant function, in spite that the absorption and emission terms might vary. Furthermore, its value is such that, even though derived for semiclassical conditions, gives a value $`M_{pl}`$ when the temperature increases towards the Planck scale, therefore it seems to comprise information about the near-Planckian regime as well. We write the absorption term in the form

$$\dot{M}_{abs}=\frac{27\pi M^2}{M_{pl}^4}F_{rad}(T)\mathrm{\Xi }(M)$$
(21)
and the total variation as (after defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{1(M_{pl}/M)^2}`$)

$$\left(\frac{dM}{dt}\right)=\frac{\sigma M^6}{16\pi ^3M_{pl}^4}\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^4+\frac{27\pi M^2}{M_{pl}^4}F_{rad}(T)\mathrm{\Xi }(M)$$
(22)
Requiring the critical mass to be the function given in eq.(19), the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is found

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(M)=(1\mathrm{\Delta })^4\left(\frac{M}{\sqrt{2}M_{pl}}\right)^8.$$
(23)
The interesting property of such changes in the emission/absorption properties is that all the higher-order derivatives $`\ddot{M},\mathrm{}`$ vanish on the critical curve. This suggests that the mass remains unchanged once it reaches the near-Planckian regime, stabilizing itself at a value $`M_{pl}`$. Thus, the semiclassical evaporation extended down to the near-Planckian regime gives a calculation framework to implement the quantum feature of non-evaporating black holes of size $`23L_{pl}`$. Black holes would not evaporate completely, but leave a microscopic residue which, depending on formation scenarios, may even be cosmologically relevant .

## 4 Conclusions

Let us summarize the main results of this work. First, we have shown that at very small scales (close to Planck scale), non-trivial corrections due to the GUP are introduced to the Holographic Bound to the entropy. In particular, we have show that the entropy bounds hold for physical systems bigger than $`23L_{pl}`$. Loop quantum gravity  recently yielded a consistent result for a quantized minimal area, namely $`4\mathrm{log}3\times L_{pl}^2`$. It is tempting to suggest a link between these results coming from different approaches.

Second, the GUP has been applied in order to understand the equilibrium of very small PBHs in a thermal bath. The Hawking evaporation must be changed to the new regime, and therefore, the time scale for complete evaporation is altered . But we argued that we must also describe how energy absorption is modified, since the event horizon is subject to a position uncertainty according to the GUP. The effective cross-section for absorption rises close to the Planck scale, as dictated by the critical mass. Thus, thermodynamical equilibrium conditions are changed. For extremely small PBHs, the total evaporation is delayed as a consequence of the reduced emission rate induced by the fuzziness of the horizon, as well as the contribution of the modified absorption of hard quanta from the environment. Since the entropy bound reaches a minimum just above Planck scale, the absorption must be bounded (whereas emission certainly is,see ), and suggests the quenching of the evaporation due to quantum Planck-scale physics. We have argued that absorption is important to describe the process, since an approach containing the emission term only is necessarily incomplete for the very early universe. While based on general arguments only, the results support earlier claims about a residual mass from black hole evaporation , an issue which merits further studies.

## 5 Acknowledgements

Both authors wish to thank the São Paulo State Agency FAPESP for financial support through grants and fellowships. J.E.H. has been partially supported by CNPq (Brazil). We would like to thank the scientific advice from E. Abdalla on several aspects of this work.

## 6 References

1) R.Bousso, hep-th/0203101 (2002).

2) J.Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973).

3) P. Chen and R.J. Adler, gr-qc/0205106 (2002).

4) G. Veneziano, Europhys. Lett.2, 199 (1986); E. Witten, Phys.Today, (1996).

5) R.J. Adler, P. Chen and D. I. Santiago, Gen. Rel. Grav33, 2101 (2001).

6) S.W.Hawking, Comm.Math.Phys.43, 199 (1974).

7) N. Sánchez, gr-qc/0106222 (2001).

8) P.S.Custodio and J.E.Horvath, Phys.Rev.D58, 023504 (1998)

9) J.D.Barrow, E.J. Copeland and A.R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D46, 645 (1992); see also MNRAS 253, 675 (1991).

10) O. Dreyer, gr-qc/0211076 (2002); L. Motl, gr-qc/0212096 (2002) and references therein

11) S. Alexeyev et al. , gr-qc/0201069 (2002).

Figure caption

Figure 1. The Holographic Bound to the entropy for near-Planckian systems. The amount of information crossing the unit area is proportional to the vertical axis quantity $`S/E`$, plotted against the physical size of the system under consideration $`R`$. Note that a real value of $`S`$ is obtained for $`R2L_{pl}`$ (or $`3L_{pl}`$ depending on the exact form of addition of the uncertainties, eqs.(3) and (4). The decreasing amount of information allowed may ultimately limit the accretion onto extremely small black holes (last term of eq.18)


format: text

text:
# Exo-interferometric Phase Determination of X rays

##

Experiments were performed at sector 3 of the Advanced Photon Source. The storage ring was filled with 23 electron bunches producing about 6.2$``$106 x-ray pulses per second. The SR was monochromatized to about 2 meV bandwidth to avoid overload of the detector system while maintaining the spectral brightness of the x rays around the nuclear transition energy. After reduction of the beam size to 0.3$`\times `$0.3 mm2, the photon flux was 109 ph/s and about 3$``$107 ph/s after the triple-Laue IFM. A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. Three situations were realized : the sample is placed outside the IFM and magnetized collinear with the linear polarization of the SR, as before but magnetized perpendicular to polarization and propagation direction of the SR, the sample is mounted inside the IFM and magnetized parallel to the polarization direction of the SR. In all cases, the reference was a 1.1-$`\mu `$m-thick foil of stainless steel (Fe0.55Cr0.25Ni0.2) that was 95 % enriched in the 57Fe isotope. The sample outside the IFM was a 2.5-$`\mu `$m-thick iron foil that was 53 % enriched in the 57Fe isotope. The control measurements with sample inside the IFM used a 2.2-$`\mu `$m-thick iron foil that was 95 % enriched in the 57Fe isotope. Very good knowledge of the time response of magnetized iron and stainless steel motivated this choice.

For each experimental situation, we measured six time spectra : the phase retarder adjusted to $`\alpha =0,\pi ,\pm \pi /2`$, and either IFM path blocked. The spectra were collected in back-to-back sequences of 10 min/spectrum to minimize systematical errors caused by potential beam instabilities and temperature drifts.

Temperature variations during the experiment were less than 150 mK. For the control case, the relative phase change of the x-rays by the sample is calculated from the four interference spectra $`I(\alpha )`$ without specific knowledge about the IFM imperfections. With $`\xi =I(0)I(\pi )`$ and $`\eta =I(\pi /2)I(\pi /2)`$, we obtain from ref. Sturhahn01  for the time-dependent phase angle

$$\text{e}^{\text{i}\varphi }=\frac{\xi +\text{i}\eta }{\sqrt{\xi ^2+\eta ^2}}.$$
(3)
The time spectra for the different phase-retarder settings, the time spectrum of the sample alone, and the derived phase angle, $`\varphi `$, are shown in Fig. 2. A standard evaluation code, Conuss Sturhahn00 , was used to fit the spectrum of the sample. The excellent agreement supports the notion of well-defined hyperfine interaction parameters of the chosen iron foil.

If the sample is placed outside the IFM, Eq. (2) is applied, and, if one neglects the convolution integral, the relative phase results from Eq. (3) with the replacement $`\xi =I(0)I(\pi )4fI_S`$. The last term is composed of the time spectrum of the sample, $`I_S`$, and a factor $`f`$ that accounts for absorption in the reference and IFM imperfections. $`f`$ is the product of IFM visibility, 0.45 in this case, and intensity ratio of the individual IFM paths. We determined experimentally $`f=0.504`$. Fig. 3 shows the time-dependent intensities and phases for the two directions of magnetization with the sample outside the IFM. In Figs. 2 and 3, one notices overshoots at phase jumps, i.e., at sign changes of the transmitted electric field associated with zero intensity. In those minima, the measurement is most sensitive to effects of the detector resolution and potentially other systematic errors. However, the resulting phase errors are associated with very small field amplitudes, which reduces their significance.

##

The determination of the time-dependent phase as described in the previous section did not require specific knowledge of reference or sample. The phase angle together with the measured intensities of the sample alone, as displayed in Figs. 2 and 3, permits us to reconstruct the energy response $`\stackrel{~}{S}(E)`$ of the sample by Fourier transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(E)=\sqrt{I_S(t)}\text{e}^{\text{i}\varphi (t)}\text{e}^{\text{i}Et/\mathrm{}}𝑑t.$$
(4)
In this expression, $`I_S(t)`$ is the time spectrum of the sample, shown in Figs. 2(b) and 3(a), and $`\varphi (t)`$ is the phase angle determined earlier and shown in Figs. 2(c) and 3(b). $`\stackrel{~}{S}(E)`$ was calculated for each sequence of data (about 1h collection time). In Fig. 4, we show the reconstructed energy spectra $`|\stackrel{~}{S}(E)|^2`$ for each data sequence, the average of all data sequences, and the calculated energy spectra. The oscillation pattern in the time spectra and the separation of the resonances in the energy spectra are dominated by the magnetic field at the 57Fe nuclei. The results for magnetic field values agree within 0.03 % for the control case and within 0.2 % and 0.7 % for the exo-interferometric situations A and B. In addition, the reconstructed energy spectra contain a small but noticeable overall shift, the so-called isomeric shift. One obtains 1.037(6) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the control case, in agreement with the literature value of 0.9(2) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ MBdataIx74 . The exo-interferometric situations A and B give 1.05(2) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and 0.67(2) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the same quantity. The values are given in units of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=4.66 neV, the width of the nuclear-excited state. In our measurement, we used an avalanche photodiode detector with about 1 ns resolution, which results in an accessible energy range in the reconstructed spectrum of about 140 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.66 $`\mu `$eV. The energy resolution is related to the observed duration of the time-delayed signal Sturhahn01 . Here the time duration of 116 ns was determined by the operating mode of the Advanced Photon Source and detector dead time. It leads to an energy resolution of 23 neV. The additional broadening of the resonances in Fig. 4 is caused by thickness-related self-absorption effects in the samples. The agreement of calculation and reconstructed spectra is generally very good even though Fig. 4 shows deviations, which appear to be stronger for the exo-interferometric cases. Also for the control case, a slight asymmetry in the spectrum can be observed. Possible explanations include inhomogeneity in sample or reference and non random imperfections of the IFM. At present, we have no conclusive explanation for these small but noticeable effects. In situation B, our neglect of the convolution term in Eq. (2), which amounts to an approximation in the process of phase determination, leads to larger deviations of, e.g., the measured isomeric shift. A glance at Fig. 4 B shows that two resonances of the sample are rather close to the origin of the energy scale, which marks the position of the single resonance of the stainless-steel reference. The overlap of the energy spectra leads to a stronger contribution of the convolution term than in situation A, and its neglect causes a larger distortion in the reconstructed energy spectra.

Exo-interferometry has been introduced as spectroscopic use of an x-ray IFM with distinct advantages in sample utilization. The ideas of exo-interferometry are general, but potential applications need to use technically available time scales, which are essentially given by the best time resolution of x-ray detectors. At present, streak cameras provide ps resolution, which could make a meV-energy range accessible with $`\mu `$eV resolution. The presented data have unambigously demonstrated that time-dependent phase changes in x-ray fields can be measured with samples positioned inside or outside an x-ray IFM. To demonstrate the principle, our studies were conducted in transmission geometry. But, in contrast to conventional x-ray interferometry, crystal diffraction or surface reflection could be investigated as well. For example, in pump-probe time-resolved x-ray diffraction experiments Reis01 , exo-interferometric phase determination may become a very useful tool. It also becomes possible to manipulate the x-ray beam between IFM and sample, e.g., by focusing or polarization control.

We want to thank J. Zhao for valuable support during beamline operations. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, Office of Science, under Contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A new era in Gamma-ray Burst (GRB) research opened in 1991 with the launch of the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), whose ground-breaking results have been summarized in . The most significant results came from the all-sky survey by the Burst and Transient Experiment (BATSE) on CGRO, which recorded over 2700 bursts, complemented by data from the OSSE, Comptel and EGRET experiments, in the 20 keV - 1 MeV, 0.1-10 MeV, 1-30 MeV and 20 MeV - 30 GeV gamma-ray bands, respectively. The next major advance was ushered in by the Italian-Dutch satellite Beppo-SAX in 1997, which obtained the first high resolution 0.2-10 keV x-ray images  of the fading afterglow of a burst, GRB 970228, a phenomenon which had been previously theoretically predicted. This was followed by an increasing list of burst afterglow detections with Beppo-SAX. These X-ray detections, after a 4-6 hour delay needed for data processing, led to arc-minute accuracy positions, which finally made possible the optical detection and the follow-up of the GRB afterglows at longer wavelengths (e.g. ). This paved the way for the measurement of redshift distances, the identification of candidate host galaxies, and the confirmation that they were at cosmological distances , etc. In the last year, the HETE-2 spacecraft  has been discovering bursts at the rate of $``$ 2/month, in the 0.5-400 keV range. Besides classical bursts, a number of these have been in the sub-class of X-ray flashes, first identified with Beppo-SAX , or X-ray rich bursts .

Another remarkable observation  was that of a prompt and extremely bright ($`m_v9`$) optical flash in the burst GRB 990123, 15 seconds after the GRB started (and while it was still going on). A prompt multi-wavelength flash, contemporaneous with the $`\gamma `$-ray emission and reaching such optical magnitude levels is an expected consequence of the reverse component of external shocks . The prompt optical flash of 990123 is generally interpreted  as the radiation from a reverse external shock (although prompt optical flashes can be expected from both an external reverse shock and from an internal shock ). The behavior of the reverse shock is more sensitive than the forward shock on the details of the shock physics . This has become apparent with the recent prompt flashes seen from ground-based optical follow-up of two other bursts, GRB 021004 and GRB 021211, , made possible by HETE-2 spacecraft position alerts. In the near future, the prospects look bright for detecting 100-150 bursts per year with a new multi-wavelength GRB follow-up spacecraft called Swift , which is due for launch in December 2003 and is equipped with $`\gamma `$-ray, x-ray and optical detectors. Predictions of the dependence of spectra and lightcurves on the initial bulk Lorentz factor, magnetic energy content, etc.  opens up the interesting possibility of charting in much greater detail the shock physics and the dynamics of the relativistic outflow in GRB.

The large bulk of the information on GRB has come from electromagnetic signals at MeV and lower energies, except for a handful of bursts detected at higher photon energies with SMM , with the EGRET, OSSE and Comptel experiments on CGRO , and more recently INTEGRAL . However, new missions are planned for ultra-high energies (UHE). One of these, aimed at the 20 MeV - 300 GeV as well as as 10 keV - 30 MeV range, is GLAST , due for launch in 2006. In addition, several new ground-based air and water Cherenkov telescopes as well as solar array facilities are coming or will shortly come on-line, sensitive in the 0.2-10 TeV range, with GRB as one possible class of targets . Furthermore, there are several other, as yet unconfirmed, but potentially interesting observing channels for GRBs, relating to the baryonic component of the outflow, the shock physics and the progenitor collapse dynamics. There is the prospect of measuring ultra-high energy cosmic rays from GRB with the Auger array ; TeV and higher energy neutrinos with large, cubic kilometer ice or water Cherenkov telescopes such as ICECUBE or ANTARES ; and measuring gravitational wave signals accompanying the GRB formation with LIGO and similar arrays . We discuss below some of the theoretical expectations for the GRB ultra-high energy (UHE) $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ GeV electromagnetic signals, the UHE neutrino signals, and the gravitational wave signals.

## 2 UHE photons from GRB

Ultra-high energy emission, in the range of GeV and harder, is expected from from electron inverse Compton in external shocks  as well as from internal shocks  in the prompt phase. The combination of prompt MeV radiation from internal shocks and a more prolonged GeV IC component for external shocks  is a likely explanation for the delayed GeV emission seen in some GRB . (For an alternative invoking photomeson processes from ejecta protons impacting a nearby binary stellar companion see ). The GeV photon emission from the long-term IC component in external afterglow shocks has been considered by . The IC GeV photon component is likely to be significantly more important  than a possible proton synchrotron or electron synchrotron component at these energies. Another possible contributor at these energies may be $`\pi ^0`$ decay from $`p\gamma `$ interactions between shock-accelerated protons and MeV or other photons in the GRB shock region . However, under the conservative assumption that the relativistic proton energy does not exceed the energy in relativistic electrons or in $`\gamma `$-rays, and that the proton spectral index is -2.2 instead of -2, both the proton synchrotron and the $`p\gamma `$ components can be shown to be substantially less important at GeV-TeV than the IC component . Another GeV photon component is expected from the fact that in a baryonic GRB outflow neutrons are likely to be present, and when these decouple from the protons, before any shocks occur, $`pn`$ inelastic collisions will lead to pions, including $`\pi ^0`$, resulting in UHE photons which cascade down to the GeV range . The final GeV spectrum results from a complex cascade, but a rough estimate indicates that 1-10 GeV flux should be detectable with GLAST for bursts at $`z\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ .

In these models, due to the high photon densities implied by GRB models, $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption within the GRB emission region must be taken into account (see also ). So far, these calculations have been largely analytical. One interesting result is that the observation of photons up to a certain energy, say 10-20 GeV with EGRET, puts a lower limit on the bulk Lorentz factor of the outflow, from the fact that the compactness parameter (optical depth to $`\gamma \gamma `$) is directly proportional to the comoving photon density, and both this as well as the energy of the photons depend on the bulk Lorentz factor. This has been used by  to estimate lower limits on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the range 300-600 for a number of specific bursts observed with EGRET.

At higher energies, a tentative $`\stackrel{>}{}0.1`$ TeV detection at the $`3\sigma `$ level of GRB970417a has been reported with the water Cherenkov detector Milagrito . Another possible TeV detection  of GRB971110 has been reported with the GRAND array, at the $`2.7\sigma `$ level. Stacking of data from the TIBET array for a large number of GRB time windows has led to an estimate of a $`7\sigma `$ composite detection significance . Better sensitivity is expected from the upgraded larger version of MILAGRO, as well as from atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes under construction such as VERITAS, HESS, MAGIC and CANGAROO-III . However, GRB detections in the TeV range are expected only for rare nearby events, since at this energy the mean free path against $`\gamma \gamma `$ absorption on the diffuse IR photon background is $``$ few hundred Mpc . The mean free path is much larger at GeV energies, and based on the handful of GRB reported in this range with EGRET, several hundred should be detectable with large area space-based detectors such as GLAST .

## 3 UHE neutrinos from GRB

While stellar scenarios for GRB will result in large thermal ($`1030`$ MeV) neutrino luminosities comparable to those in supernovae, at typical redshifts $`z1`$ these are extremely hard to detect due to the low cross sections at these energies. However, the neutrino detection cross section increases with energy, and near TeV energies there are realistic chances for detection  with cubic kilometer ice or water Cherenkov detectors, such as the planned ICECUBE or ANTARES.

A mechanism leading to higher (GeV) energy neutrinos in GRB is inelastic nuclear collisions. Proton-neutron inelastic collisions are expected, at much lower radii than where shocks occur, due to the decoupling of neutrons and protons in the fireball or jet . If the fireball has a substantial neutron/proton ratio, as expected in most GRB progenitors, the collisions become inelastic and their rate peaks at when the nuclear scattering time becomes comparable to the expansion time. This occurs when the $`n`$ and $`p`$ fluids decouple, their relative drift velocity becoming comparable to $`c`$, which is easier due to the lack of charge of the neutrons. Inelastic $`n,p`$ collisions then lead to charged pions and GeV muon and electron neutrinos . The early decoupling and saturation of the $`n`$ also leads to a somewhat higher final $`p`$ Lorentz factor , implying a possible relation between the $`n/p`$ ratio and the observable fireball dynamics, relevant for the progenitor question. Fusion and photodisociation processes also play a role in such effects . Inelastic $`p,n`$ collisions leading to neutrinos can also occur in fireball outflows with transverse inhomogeneities in the bulk Lorentz factor, where the $`n`$ can drift sideways into regions of different bulk velocity flow, or in situations where internal shocks involving $`n`$ and $`p`$ occur close to the saturation radius or below the photon photosphere . The typical $`n,p`$ neutrino energies are in the 1-10 GeV range, which could be detectable in coincidence with observed GRBs for a sufficiently close photo-tube spacing in km3 detectors such as ICECUBE .

Neutrinos at energies $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 100 TeV are expected from $`p,\gamma `$ photo-pion interactions between relativistic protons accelerated in the fireball internal or external shocks. A high collision rate is ensured here by the large density of photons in the fireball shocks. The most straightforward is the interaction between MeV photons produced by radiation from electrons accelerated in internal shocks and relativistic protons accelerated by the same shocks , leading to charged pions, muons and neutrinos. This $`p,\gamma `$ reaction peaks at the energy threshold for the photo-meson $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance in the fluid frame moving with $`\gamma `$, or $`ϵ_pϵ_\gamma \stackrel{>}{}0.2\text{GeV}^2\gamma ^2`$. For observed 1 MeV photons this implies $`\stackrel{>}{}10^{16}`$ eV protons, and neutrinos with $`5\%`$ of that energy, $`ϵ_\nu \stackrel{>}{}10^{14}`$ eV in the observer frame. Above this threshold, the fraction of the proton energy lost to pions is $`20\%`$ for typical fireball parameters, and the typical spectrum of neutrino energy per decade is flat, $`ϵ_\nu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ constant. Synchrotron and adiabatic losses limit the muon lifetimes , leading to a suppression of the neutrino flux above $`ϵ_\nu 10^{16}`$ eV. In external shocks another copious source of targets are the O/UV photons in the afterglow reverse shock (e.g. as deduced from the GRB 990123 prompt flash of ). In this case the resonance condition implies higher energy protons, leading to neutrinos of $`10^{17}10^{19}`$ eV . These neutrino fluxes are expected to be detectable above the atmospheric neutrino background with the planned cubic kilometer ICECUBE detector . Useful limits to their total contribution to the diffuse ultra-high energy neutrino flux can be derived from observed cosmic ray and diffuse gamma-ray fluxes . While the $`p,\gamma `$ interactions leading to $`\stackrel{>}{}100`$ TeV energy neutrinos provide a direct probe of the internal shock acceleration process, as well as of the MeV photon density associated with them, the $`\stackrel{>}{}10`$ PeV neutrinos would probe the reverse external shocks, as well as the photon energies and energy density there.

The most intense neutrino signals may be due to $`p,\gamma `$ interactions occurring inside collapsars while the jet is still burrowing its way out of the star , before it has had a chance to break through (or not) the stellar envelope to produce a GRB outside of it. While still inside the star, the buried jet produces thermal X-rays at $`1`$ keV which interact with $`\stackrel{>}{}10^5`$ GeV protons which could be accelerated in internal shocks occurring well inside the jet/stellar envelope terminal shock, producing $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ few TeV energy neutrinos for tens of seconds, which penetrate the envelope. The most conspicuous contribution of TeV $`\nu _\mu `$ is due to $`pp,pn`$ collisions involving the buried jet relativistic protons and thermal nucleons in the jet and the stellar envelope , while $`p\gamma `$ is important at higher energies $`\stackrel{>}{}100TeV`$. At TeV energies the number of neutrinos is larger for the same total energy output, which improves the detection statistics. The rare bright, nearby or high $`\gamma `$ collapsars could occur at the rate of $`10`$/year, including both $`\gamma `$-ray bright GRBs (where the jet broke through the envelope) and $`\gamma `$-ray dark events where the jet is choked (failed to break through), and both such $`\gamma `$-bright and dark events could have a TeV neutrino fluence of $`10`$/neutrinos/burst, detectable by ICECUBE in individual bursts.

Recent reports of detection of X-ray lines from several GRB afterglows have been interpreted , although not unambiguously, as providing support for a version of the collapsar model in which a SN explosion occurs weeks before the GRB (the “supranova” model, ). In the supranova scenario the supernova remnant (SNR) shell provides nucleon targets for $`pp`$ interactions with protons accelerated in the MHD wind of a pre-GRB pulsar , leading to a 10 TeV neutrino precursor to the GRB (other nucleon targets from a stellar companion disruption leading to $`\pi ^0`$ decay GeV $`\gamma `$-rays were discussed by ). The SNR also provides additional target photons for $`p\gamma `$ interactions  with internal shock-accelerated protons, resulting in $`10^{16}`$ eV neutrinos. We have calculated the expected neutrino fluxes and muon event rates from individual bursts as well as the diffuse contribution from all bursts . The neutrinos produced by $`pp`$ and $`p\gamma `$ interactions between GRB relativistic protons and SNR shell target protons and photons will be contemporary and of similar duration as the GRB electromagnetic event. The high $`pp`$ optical depth of the shell also implies a moderately high average Thomson optical depth $`\tau _\mathrm{T}t_d^2`$ of the shell, dropping below unity after $`100`$ days. Large scale anisotropy as well as clumpiness of the shell will result in a mixture of higher and lower optical depth regions being observable simultaneously, as required in the supranova interpretation of X-ray lines and photon continua in some GRB afterglows . Depending on the fraction of GRB with SNR shells, the contributions of these to the GRB diffuse neutrino flux has a $`pp`$ component which is relatively stronger at TeV-PeV energies than the internal shock $`p\gamma `$ component of , and a shell $`p\gamma `$ component which is a factor 1 (0.1) of the internal shock $`p\gamma `$ component (Fig. 2) for a fraction 1 (0.1) of GRB with SNR shells. Due to a higher synchrotron cooling break in the shell, at $`E_\nu \stackrel{>}{}10^{17}`$ eV the shell component could compete with the internal  and afterglow  components. Our $`pp`$ component is caused by internal shock-accelerated power-law protons contemporaneous with the GRB event, differing from  who considered quasi-monoenergetic $`\gamma _p10^{4.5}`$ protons from an MHD wind over $`4\pi `$ leading to a $`10`$ TeV neutrino months-long precursor of the GRB. Our $`p\gamma `$ component arises from the same GRB-contemporaneous internal shock protons interacting with thermal 0.1 keV photons within the shell wall, whereas  consider such protons interacting with photons from the MHD wind inside the shell cavity. These neutrino fluxes provide a test for the supranova hypothesis, the predicted event rates being detectable with kilometer scale planned Cherenkov detectors.

## 4 Gravitational waves from GRB

The leading models for the ultimate energy source of GRB are stellar collapse or compact stellar mergers, and these are expected to be sources of gravitational waves (GWs). A time-integrated GW luminosity of the order of a solar rest mass ($`10^{54}`$ erg) is predicted from merging NS-NS and NS-BH models , while the luminosity from collapsar models is more model-dependent, but expected to be lower (; c.f. ). We have estimated the strains of gravitational waves from some of the most widely discussed current GRB progenitor stellar systems . The expected detection rates of gravitational wave events with the Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) from compact binary mergers, in coincidence with GRBs, has been estimated by . If some fraction of GRBs are produced by double neutron star or neutron star – black hole mergers, the gravitational wave chirp signal of the in-spiral phase should be detectable by the advanced LIGO within one year, associated with the GRB electromagnetic signal. We have also estimated the signals from the black hole ring-down phase, as well as the possible contribution of a bar configuration from gravitational instability in the accretion disk following tidal disruption or infall in GRB scenarios. Other binary progenitor scenarios, such black hole – Helium star and black hole – white dwarf merger GRB progenitors are unlikely to be detectable, due to the low estimates obtained for the maximum non-axisymmetrical perturbations.

For the massive rotating stellar collapse (collapsar) scenario of GRB, the non-axisymmetrical perturbations may be stronger , and the estimated formation rates are much higher than for other progenitors , with typical distances correspondingly much nearer to Earth. This type of progenitor is of special interest, since it has so far received the most observational support from GRB afterglow observations. For collapsars, in the absence of detailed numerical 3D calculations specifically aimed at GRB progenitors, we have estimated  the strongest signals that might be expected in the case of bar instabilities occurring in the accretion disk around the resulting black hole, and in the maximal version of the recently proposed fragmentation scenario of the infalling core. Although the waveforms of the gravitational waves produced in the break-up, merger and/or bar instability phase of collapsars are not known, a cross-correlation technique can be used making use of two co-aligned detectors. Under these assumptions, collapsar GRB models would be expected to be marginally detectable as gravitational wave sources by the advanced LIGO within one year of observations.

In the case of binaries the matched filtering technique can be used, while for sources such as collapsars, where the wave forms are uncertain, the simultaneous detection by two elements of a gravitational wave interferometer, coupled with electromagnetic simultaneous detection, provides a possible detection technique. We have made  more specific detection estimates for both the compact binary scenarios and the collapsar scenarios,

Both the compact merger and the collapsar models have in common a high angular rotation rate, and observations provide evidence for jet collimation of the photon emission, with properties depending on the polar angle, which may also be of relevance for X-ray flashes. We have considered  the gravitational wave emission and its polarization as a function of angle which is expected from such sources. The GRB progenitors emit $`l=m=2`$ gravitational waves, which are circularly polarized on the polar axis, while the $`+`$ polarization dominates on the equatorial plane. Recent GRB studies suggest that the wide variation in the apparent luminosity of GRBs are caused by differences in the viewing angle, or possibly also in the jet opening angle. Since GRB jets are launched along the polar axis of GRB progenitors, correlations among the apparent luminosity of GRBs ($`L_\gamma (\theta )\theta ^2`$ and the amplitude as well as the degree of linear polarization $`P`$ degree of the gravitational waves are expected, $`P\theta ^4L_\gamma ^2`$. At a viewing angle larger than the jet opening angle $`\theta _j`$ the GRB $`\gamma `$-ray emission may not be detected. However, in such cases an “orphan” long-wavelength afterglow could be observed, which would be preceded by a pulse of gravitational waves with a significant linearly polarized component. As the jet slows down and reaches $`\gamma \theta _j^1`$, the jet begins to expand laterally, and its electromagnetic radiation begins to be observable over increasingly wider viewing angles. Since the opening angle increases as $`\gamma ^1t^{1/2}`$, at a viewing angle $`\theta >\theta _j`$, the orphan afterglow begins to be observed (or peaks) at a time $`t_p\theta ^2`$ after the detection of the gravitational wave burst. The polarization degree and the peak time should be correlated as $`Pt_p^2`$.

A new type of fast transient source, called “X-ray flashes”, have recently been observed with the Beppo-SAX satellite . Apart from their large fraction of X-rays ($`210`$ keV), the overall properties of these events are similar to those of GRBs. The nature of these sources is not yet fully understood. Although they could be a totally different astrophysical phenomenon, it has been suggested that these events may be GRBs with large viewing angles . If this is the case, linearly polarized gravitational waves should be observed prior to the X-ray flashes. The degree of polarization should be positively correlated with longer delays and with the softness of the X-ray flashes, which increase with angle. Since the degrees of linear and circular polarization depend on the viewing angle, a determination of the polarization degree would be a measure of the viewing angle. Such measurements, which are likely to require the advent of a future generation of detectors, could provide a new a tool for estimating the absolute luminosity of GRBs, including its photon component. By comparing the estimated absolute photon luminosity with the apparent luminosity, the distance to the source may be estimated independently of any redshift measurement. No optical afterglows have been found for about half of all the GRBs detected by Beppo-SAX (the so called “dark GRBs”), and the present method would have the potential to help determine or constrain the distances to such dark GRBs.

PM is grateful to the Niels Bohr Institute and Nordita as well as the symposium organizers for their kind hospitality, and to NSF AST-0098416, NASA NAG5-9192 and 9153 for support.

Discussion

A. Beloborodov (Columbia University): An additional mechanism for the high-energy break in the gamma-gamma absorption is the radiation scattered off the ambient medium. For WR-wind medium one expects a break at 10-50 MeV.

Mészáros: Yes, that is a potentially important effect, which you have discussed.

M.J. Rees (Cambridge University): The Bahcall/Waxman limit could perhaps be violated if ions were accelerated in a confined and opaque region, and didn’t escape to contribute to the cosmic ray flux. I mention this just to reduce pessimism!

Mészáros: I agree, sources which are optically thick to CRs could violate the WB limit.

T. Piran (Hebrew University): Gravitational waves can also arise from the acceleration process of the matter in GRBs.

Mészáros: This is an interesting effect, which as you discussed, would have a significantly lower flux than the main burst from mergers or core collapse.